[ Page 5573 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Development of coal resources. Mr. Lea –– 5573

Hasler Flats scrubbing plant. Mr. Skelly –– 5574

Development of coal resources. Mr. Lea –– 5574

Purchase of Saanich home by Highways ministry. Mr. Wallace –– 5575

Empty government office space. Mr. Gibson –– 5575

SAFER programme. Mr. Barnes –– 5576

Statement

Inquiry with Teamsters Union. Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5576

Points of order

Status of Bill 65 on orders of the day. Mr. Barrett –– 5576

Mr. Nicolson –– 5577

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 5578

Mr. Barrett –– 5579

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 5579

Mr. Speaker rules .. 5579

Division on Mr. Speaker's ruling –– 5581

Routine proceedings

The Notre Dame University of Nelson Act, 1977 (Bill 68) .

Report and third reading –– 5581

Soil Conservation Act (Bill 57) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 5581

Mrs. Wallace –– 5581

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 5582

Community Resources Board Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 65) . Second reading.

Mr.Cocke –– 5583

Mr. Gibson –– 5588

Mr. Barber –– 5594

Mr. Wallace –– 5599

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, we have visitors from Surrey in the gallery today. I would like to introduce and ask the House to welcome Emile and Elvera Biech, Herta Peters, Ekle Lippert, and also Mark Biech.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): There are a number of people in the gallery, Mr. Speaker, whom I would ask the House to join me in welcoming. They are members of the joint council of the Vancouver Resources Board unions. It includes Mr. Deryk Thompson, who is the third vice-president and the co-chairperson of the joint council; the president of the social services employees, Mrs. Elizabeth Burnyeat; the president of CUPE local 881, Pat Colford; and a number of other workers: Mr. Larry Haberlin, Gretchen Grabow, Nicky Phillips, Sandra Currie, Richard Sullivan, Pat McMullen, Betty Varty, Tim Ames, Robert Wilmot, Shanie Levin, Carolyn Smith, Dorothy Backer, Peter Dent, Janet Wynnchuk, Allan Lawson, and Lois Carlton, Mr. Chairman, it seems that the workers did not realize that Bill 65 died on the order paper on Friday, so they are over today to listen to the debate. I would like the House to join me in welcoming them anyway.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome to the gallery Mr. Bob Butcher of Vancouver East.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome Lieutenant-Colonel R.J. Maltby and Mrs. Maltby, who are in our gallery today. The retired Lieutenant-Colonel and Mrs. Maltby have just returned to live in Vancouver - that great city of Vancouver - after serving in the United Nations. I'd like the House to join in welcoming them.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I recognize an old friend in the gallery today. His name is Mr. Tom Christie. He served for many years with School District 61 in greater Victoria and, as well, had a very distinguished career as an alderman in Victoria. He and I became friends in the bad old days of Cool-Aid before they became the good old days, and we use~ to talk about Studebakers, among other things. I ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring the House's attention the presence of Mr. Schweiker, an employee of the Vancouver Resources Board - and, I'm sure, a supporter of the Minister of Human Resources - and Mr. Bruce Eriksen of the Downtown Eastside Residents Association.

Oral questions.

DEVELOPMENT OF COAL RESOURCES

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): A question to the Minister of Mines, Mr. Speaker. The representative of Fording Coal has put forward what his industry feels about the prospects of the marketability of B.C. coal over the coming years. In a paper to the economic symposium in Vancouver about a week ago, the president of Fording Coal put forward the proposition that about seven million tons of coal by 1985

AN HON. MEMBER: That would be extra.

MR. LEA: Extra - over what we have now. Seven million tons will be all we can reasonably expect to get by 1985. He also pointed out that the southeastern coal is enough to supply that market, with private capital going in to open up any new coal resources that are needed to meet that market, and that the infrastructure is already in place.

My question to the Minister of Mines is: does he or his government have any information that would lead us to believe that the projections being put forward by the coal industry are incorrect?

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, there is a great variety of figures and a great variety of opinions as to the requirements of metallurgical coal around the world. Depending upon the current situation of the steel industry and the requirements of each and every individual who puts out projections, it changes from week to week, so it's very difficult to come up with any firm conclusion as to what the requirements are.

MR. LEA: A supplementary. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the government has its own projections. I'm asking the minister to share with the House the projections for marketability of coal by 1985. How many million tons does the government project as having to go on the market of the world?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't think I have the figures in my hip pocket; I would have to take that question as notice.

MR. LEA: A supplemental.

MR. SPEAKER: Not on a question that is being

[ Page 5574 ]

taken on notice, hon. member.

MR. LEA: He didn't take all of the question on notice.

MR. SPEAKER: He took your supplemental as notice, hon. member. Could I go to the member for Alberni, and I'll return to you?

HASLER FLATS SCRUBBING PLANT

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. I've been advised that clearing is taking place on the site of the proposed Westcoast Transmission scrubbing plant at Hasler Flats, near Chetwynd. Yet no approval has been given to that site by the Land Commission or the National Energy Board. I would like the minister to investigate and call for cancellation of the work on that site until a site has been approved. I'll ask the minister that question.

Also will the minister call on Westcoast Transmission to select an alternate site outside the agricultural land reserve where environmental impacts are less dangerous?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the question is being directed to the wrong minister.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources is a director of B.C. Petroleum Corporation. In spite of the fact that he has denied that B.C. Petroleum Corporation requested the construction of this plant, in fact in their National Energy Board submission Westcoast states that they were requested by B.C. Petroleum Corporation to build the plant.

MR. SPEAKER: The question was in the form of a statement more than a question.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's right. The B.C. Petroleum Corporation would ask Westcoast Transmission to provide refining facilities, but they wouldn't specifically suggest where these refining facilities should be located. That's entirely up to Westcoast Transmission.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the site was selected by Westcoast Transmission. All I'm asking the minister to do is to select an alternate site or to assist in the selection of an alternate site where the environmental impacts will be less damaging to human communities and to the agricultural land reserve. Surely he can do that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, the member for Alberni is confused. He's asking that question of the wrong minister.

DEVELOPMENT OF COAL RESOURCES

MR. LEA: A question to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. Has the minister met with representatives of Kaiser and Fording Coal within the last six months to discuss the future of coal and the coal industry?

HON. MR. CHABOT: We've had discussions.

MR. LEA: When did those discussions take place?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I had discussions about coal with the representative of Kaiser a week ago.

MR. LEA: A week ago. Has he had discussions with representatives of Fording Coal?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not in the last week.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, supplemental. When was the last time that the minister met with representatives of Fording Coal?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I don't have the exact, precise date on which I met with them, but it would be about two or three months ago.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, another supplemental.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's going on here? How many supplementals does Lea get? Five? Ten?

MR. LEA: During the course of those discussions, was it discussed how much more coal the southeastern part of British Columbia could supply before it would become economic to go to northeastern coal?

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this the Graham Lea question period?

MR. LEA: Was there also discussed the marketability of all coal from British Columbia? Were those discussions carried out?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, it appears that we're in my estimates again. We're debating the estimates and debating the whole coal situation. It appears as well, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the opposition are opposed to the development of northeastern British Columbia, because they've carried on this kind of attitude for the last several months in this Legislature. It's quite evident to me, Mr. Speaker, that they're against further development

[ Page 5575 ]

of coal. They want only two companies to control all the export of coal from British Columbia - Fording and Kaiser, and that we don't support.

MR. LEA: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Both the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) and I, during the course of the minister's estimates, pointed out to them the economy of coal, and what we could look forward to. At that time, he denied what industry is saying today publicly. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, to the minister that he knew at the time of his estimates that Japan would not be taking that coal. He knew, and they hid it.

MR. SPEAKER: If there is a supplemental question, would you please state it?

MR. LEA: My question, Mr. Speaker, is this: when did the steel industry of Japan first indicate to the provincial government that the expected orders that the government was talking about would not take place? When? When did the Japanese steel industry let this government know that the kind of orders that the government was talking about wouldn't be coming? What time? Was it when the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was in Japan about eight months ago? The information I have is that this government was informed through that minister at that time.

My question is: when did this government first find out that the propaganda they were putting forward would, in fact, not be true? When did they first find out?

MR. SPEAKER: The assumptions that are drawn by the hon. member for Prince Rupert are not correct in question period. The matter of a supplemental question on specifics is in order.

PURCHASE OF SAANICH HOME

BY HIGHWAYS MINISTRY

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Highways and Public Works: with respect to a Saanich resident who previously owned a home at 828 Short Street, which was purchased by the Ministry of Highways and Public Works when the lot was considered necessary for the Blanshard Street extension, the ministry has now announced that the home will not be required, Since this lady agreed to sell the house under threat of expropriation, and since she has expressed a strong desire to re-acquire he former home, can the minister tell the House if there is anything which prevents the government from giving this lady first option to repurchase her home at appraised market value?

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): To the member for Oak Bay. This lady's property was acquired, I believe, in January, 1975, when a tunnel Was projected to go under the Town and Country shopping centre. That has now been discarded as a route for Blanshard Street. As far as your question is concerned, the property is now surplus and will be put up to tender, and the lady can, of course, bid with other bidders on the property.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the minister didn't really answer my question. Could I ask the minister -the competitive bidding idea sounds very rosy on the surface - but since this homeowner will probably be competing with McDonald's hamburger chain for that site, can you not tell us whether or not there will be some consideration given to the individual homeowner who did not wish to sell her house in the first place, and now wishes to re-acquire it? I wonder if there's anything in the government policy, written or otherwise, which would prevent this lady getting first option to repurchase her home at appraised market value.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the member for Oak Bay. First of all, to put it up to tender is a requirement of the laws of the province. The call will say that it would not necessarily go to the highest bidder. Then it will have to be handled by order-in-council. In other words, if the lady bid lower than another bidder the property could be sold to the lady, if cabinet agreed - in other words, by order-in-council.

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker? Then is the minister giving the House some kind of assurance that this lady - in her special circumstances and the conditions which have led up to the present situation - will be considered by cabinet? Will the minister be making some such recommendation to cabinet?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the member, we will give the lady consideration based on the fact that she bids what was the original value which, I believe, was $46,000. We would have to wait and see. If she bid that so that the treasury got their money back that they had put out, then we'd certainly give her consideration.

ALLEGED EMPTY

GOVERNMENT OFFICE SPACE

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I've a question for the Minister of Highways and Public Works. Back in the spring of 1975, the Premier, then the Leader of the Opposition,

[ Page 5576 ]

was asking the government questions day after day about surplus government office space standing vacant around the province. I want to ask the minister: has he made any changes to ensure that this situation doesn't reoccur under his administration?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, yes, we made changes. As far as I know, we haven't any empty office space at the present time.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I'll give the minister some taxi fare; he doesn't have to go very far. Is the minister aware that approximately 30,000 feet of office space have been sitting vacant at the Mac & Mac building here in Victoria since March at a rental of over $4 a foot?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, would the minister then check into it?

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, certainly we'll check into it.

SAFER PROGRAMME

MR. BARNES: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Since the inauguration of the SAFER programme on July 1, there have been a number of complaints to my office that cheques have not been forthcoming. I'm wondering if the minister would indicate whether this inefficiency will continue. As he knows, a number of these people are on fixed incomes and certainly can't wait until the government gets its business in order.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr. Speaker, the member indicates that.... The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) just threw me off. I had a beautiful answer. That's his principal role in this House - to throw off us new members, who are inexperienced in this House.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, and you'll never forget it, will you? It contributed to your defeat, Mr. Leader of the Opposition.

The member asked a very sensible and straightforward question, with one exception, Mr. Speaker. I disagree that there are inefficiencies. We've made it very clear that we're processing well in excess of 25,000 applications. The cheques will be retroactive. Cheques are going out now. Some have been received already, and they are retroactive to July 1. I'm satisfied that the system is working very well. I have at least a weekly report as to the number of applications received, the number processed and the number of cheques distributed. I really feel that to say it's inefficient is a reflection on some staff members who are working very hard in the Ministry of Housing to get these cheques out as quickly as possible.

We're running into the odd complication in terms of an application which may not have all the information, and there is some follow-up necessary. But again, I reassure the member and those who are interested in the programme that the programme is fully retroactive to July 1 regardless of when the cheque is finally sent out.

INQUIRY INTO TEAMSTERS'UNION

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.

Over the past several days, the members of the House will be aware that we have in the province internal difficulties related to the Teamsters' Union. This morning, as a result of those difficulties, apparently the dispute has affected persons other than those directly associated with the union -namely, other employers and other employees.

As a consequence, under the provisions of Part V of the Ministry of Labour Act, I have this afternoon authorized Mr. Colin Kay, who is one of the senior industrial relations officers, together with such other industrial relations officers or officials of the ministry as he may deem necessary in circumstances, to make an immediate inquiry into the circumstances which underlie the present difficulties,

I wish to make it abundantly clear that this step is not being taken by the government for the purpose of interfering with the internal affairs of a trade union. Information is reaching the ministry by way of press reports, and questions are being raised as to some of the processes which have been used in internal union matters. Because they are affecting, or are likely to affect, others outside the union, it is the intention of the ministry to obtain accurate, complete information.

The investigation will commence this afternoon and I hope to have a report from the industrial relations officers as quickly as possible.

Orders of the day.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, I refer you to page 6 of our standing orders. We are now on orders of the day. I

[ Page 5577 ]

wish to draw to your attention, sir, orders of the day, No. 181, on Monday, September 19,1977, where there is indeed an error. On page 12 under "second reading, " there is listed five bills, four of which are in order and one of which has no place being in orders of the day on page 12.

1 refer you, Mr. Speaker, to page 525 of May, 17th edition, third paragraph. This relates to the minister who is charged with a bill on second reading:

"The member who has charge of the bill (or any member acting on his behalf) moves, 'that the bill be now read a second time'; and takes this opportunity of explaining its objects."

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, as you'll follow in Votes and Proceedings, such motion was not placed on the last sitting of the House - that is, Friday -and as a consequence page 529 of the 17th edition of May then comes into effect. You will note, Mr. Speaker, in the Votes and Proceedings, it gives an accurate description of the events that took place on Friday. Page 529, 17th edition of May, last paragraph:

"Bills Dropped.

"It may here be stated that if, when the order of the day is read at the table, no motion is made for the second reading or other stage of a bill, or for its postponement, it becomes a dropped order and does not appear again upon the notice paper, unless another day is subsequently appointed for its consideration." Mr. Speaker, there is no notice of motion of a bill that was interrupted, that was left in limbo because there was no motion. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) had the floor when the House was adjourned.

I refer you, as May does, to page 388, chapter [7:

"Revival of Dropped Orders.

"When an order of the day has been read, the proceedings thereon may be cut short" - as they were indeed 'Friday - "by the adjournment of the House whilst these proceedings are in the course of transaction (see page 323) . An order of the day in such cases or if, when the order is read, no day is appointed for its future consideration, drops off the notice paper, as the House has made no order thereon."

I quote further, missing one line that is of no consequence:

"To replace a dropped order of the day upon the notice paper, a motion is made before the commencement, or after the close, of public business, to appoint the order for a subsequent day. These motions, which are made without notice, are usually treated as purely formal motions (see page 398) (h) ."

I go on to quote, Mr. Speaker:

"When it is essential that proceedings on an order of the day, cut short by an unexpected adjournment, should be resumed at the next sitting of the House, a notice of motion is placed for that purpose, in the name of a minister of the Crown, upon the notice paper for the next sitting, at the commencement of public business. . . ."

Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention that none of the required steps as outlined in May, 17th edition, have been taken. No motion was made for second reading of that bill. The bill is improperly placed on page 12 of orders of the day. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you instruct the Queen's Printer to strike off Bill 65, because it is not legally on the order paper, or instruct the House on whether or not you have received notice of a motion that the House has not received.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, 1, too, did a bit of reading on this and I consulted the first edition of Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons, by G.F.M. Campion. On "Debate On Second Reading, " on page 182, it says:

"On the day ordered for second reading, the short title of the bill is printed on orders of the day and, when it is called, the member in charge rises to explain and recommend provisions of this bill and concludes his speech by moving it be now read a second time, or he may say'now, ' without rising, and reserve his speech for a latter moment in the debate."

Mr. Speaker, also looking on page 140 of the same authority, we find "Dropped Orders." It says: "When proceedings upon an order of the day are cut short at the moment of interruption without another day being appointed, or by the House being counted out, or by a sudden adjournment of the House, such an order becomes dropped." That is, it says: "It disappears from the notice paper." Then it goes on to say: "A dropped order may be restored to the paper for a specified day upon instruction given at the table and, if progress has been made upon it, the stage which it is entered is that reached by the last vote taken upon it by the House of Commons or the committee."

Well, Mr. Speaker, certainly this is what happened. There was no motion to adjourn debate until the next sitting of the House; indeed, the motion was not even moved.

Also in Sir Erskine May, Mr. Speaker, in the 19th edition, which has had the benefit of a few rulings which have occurred since the publication of the 17th and 18th editions, I would refer you to "Bills Dropped" on page 501:

"It may be stated that if, when the order of the day is read at the table, no motion is made for the second reading or other stage of a bill,

[ Page 5578 ]

or for its postponement, it becomes a dropped order, and does not appear again upon the notice paper, unless another day is subsequently appointed for its consideration."

It also refers one to page 357, and cites on that page: "Unexpected Ending of Business and Dropped Orders." It says: "An order under consideration when the House is adjourned owing to grave disorder. . . ." Now I've looked up, Mr. Speaker, the definition of "grave disorder, " and this situation was most disorderly, but not in terms of the disobedience of any members. The grave disorder was caused because of the failure to obey standing orders and move the motion. It says: ". . . when the House is adjourned owing to grave disorder becomes a 'dropped order.' A dropped order may be replaced on the order paper by a motion taken at the commencement. . . ."

So that is consistent with Campion. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is cited, however, under "grave disorder" was an occasion in the House of Commons when it was found necessary to adjourn the House for failure to have a quorum. That was in connection, I believe, with an Act having something to do with iron and other metals. Since that time, Mr. Speaker, there have been changes introduced in the House of Commons dealing with quorum, but not dealing with the other matters in which a grave disorder can arise. It's obvious, however, from this ruling that what was meant by "grave disorder" was greater than what one normally finds when he or she looks for a definition - that is, "grave disorder" can result even as a result of failure to have a quorum, or possibly....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Your point regarding grave disorder might be something that could be discussed if, in fact, we were in a position of discussing grave disorder at the present time. I believe that anything you have said should be concluded very quickly with respect to that particular portion that you're arguing on.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, on pages 440 and 441 of May there are references to what is considered grave disorder. Members might wish to refer to that.

MR. SPEAKER: Might I just point out to the hon. member, while he's dealing with grave disorder, that the only time that would be a matter to be considered today would be if, in fact, the House had been adjourned on Friday because of an observation or a conclusion by the Chair that grave disorder did exist. I don't recall such a happening.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I will cite from page 358 of May the circumstance which was occasioned on November 25,1952:

". . . the House was unexpectedly counted out towards the end of the first of two days' debate on the second reading of the iron and steel bill, a major government measure, which thus became a dropped order. After the rising of the House, a notice of motion in the name of the Leader of the House to revive the order for second reading was permitted to be placed on the notice paper for the same sitting, while the dropped order was printed in italics as first order of the day."

Mr. Speaker, this in fact is what happened. The House found itself in a very difficult situation on Friday.

It would have been, the same situation had we arrived.... In terms of what happened, there was a motion to adjourn the House. The motion was never moved, the order of business was called, and thus it is a dropped order, Mr. Speaker.

I see no remedy which has been taken by the government consistent with the citations given in May, which would indicate that Bill 6S can be proceeded with. It is not properly placed on orders of the day as the sixth item under second reading on public bills.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments in response to the two points of order that were raised by the hon. members.

First of all, insofar as the references to May are concerned, no doubt they apply to the rules in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, but they are not applicable to our standing orders. I'd like to submit to you why in my view they are not.

On Friday, as we all know. as a result of earlier business of the House and earlier resolutions of the House, this Bill 65, Community Resources Board Amendment Act, 1977, was placed on the orders of the day for second reading. Then on Friday the bill was called for second reading. But since the motion for second reading was not put - essentially it was discussed by the hon. minister and also the HON. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) - in effect, Mr. Speaker, the matter was not proceeded with.

Now I would like to mention that upon adjournment, the order for the calling of Bill 65 did not retain its precedence per se, as you can see from orders of the day, and that's the reason why it is at the bottom of the second reading list. But this is all properly in accordance with the standing orders of the House, which do have precedence. I would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to standing order 31 (2) . There's not any requirement for us to refer to the decisions in May vis-à-vis the House of Commons, because we have the provision within our standing orders. Of course, we do look to the House of Commons and we do look to other precedents by virtue of our standing

[ Page 5579 ]

order 1, which says: "In all cases not provided for hereafter. . . ." So the provision is very solidly and clearly built into section 31 (2) of our standing orders, Mr. Speaker. They have provided for the procedure. The bill is properly placed upon the order paper as it is. It is, of course, open to the government, under standing order 27 (2) , on government day to call orders in set sequence as the government may think fit.

I would also mention to you, Mr. Speaker, as has been the practice of this government in this session, that the Whips have been given the order of business for the day, and the order of business that was handed to them was to start off with the Soil Conservation Act, to be followed by second reading of Bill 65.

So, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the learned arguments that have been raised, they are not applicable to the point in question. We do have the provision within our standing rules and the procedure is correct.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the points made by the hon. Attorney-General, I would like to point out to the Attorney-General that the House does not know the existence of Whips or any lists. Now if you want to talk about gossip, I understand that for years there's been gossip that there are Whips making deals, but that has nothing to do with the House or the rules of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You request the list every morning.

MR. BARRETT: That certainly is. It's not the knowledge of the House, nor is it applied to the rules.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a consistent gossip.

MR. BARRETT: Well, what takes place as gossip and has taken place all these years, has nothing to do with the rules of' the House. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you appreciate that that would have no bearing on your decision.

I would like to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, under standing order 31 (2) that the Attorney-General has asked us to canvas, it is a matter that I've given a great deal of consideration to. Standing order 31 (2) is correctly stated by the Attorney-General but not properly interpreted. I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that standing order 31 (2) says:

"Orders not proceeded with when called, upon the like request, may be allowed to stand, retaining their precedence. . . ."

There is nothing in there that says that if there has been an incorrect handling for its order of precedence, it automatically continues. As a matter of fact, that rule has nothing to do with when there has been an error. That is why we refer to May. While the House Leader is correct that May is not used to apply to this House, May and Beauchesne are the only form that can give interpretations when our standing orders are silent on errors or interpretation of rules. Otherwise there would be no point in having May or Beauchesne.

The point that I'm making, Mr. Speaker, is that there has been a technical error made by the House Leader. The House Leader has not presented this House with a motion to put back on the order paper what has already been dropped. I am suggesting that rather than us go through a long, complicated, continuous argument about interpretation, the form is for the House Leader to either give notice of motion that Bill 65 is to be put back on, or to ask leave of the House that the rules be suspended and the motion be made, and ask the House to do that. Do it either form.

The Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Speaker, has made a mistake over the weekend. He should have given notice on Friday. The motion could have been called, and legally and technically Bill 65 could have gone back on the order paper. At this point, with out standing orders, and with all the references, Bill 65 is incorrectly on the order paper. It can only be corrected by motion, as pointed out on page 388, chapter 17 of May. I make that very clear that if there are any short cuts, the government can get what it wants, but if there are short cuts, you downgrade the system - not so much the short political achievement, but you downgrade the system. You can ask for leave or you can give notice, but no short cuts, because the rules are for everybody.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just one word, Mr. Speaker. If a motion has been required, the motion would have been made, but it's my submission that a motion is not required. It appears quite clear to me from the reading of section 31 (2) that it isn't required because it says quite clearly: "and be placed on the order paper for the next sitting after those of the same class at a similar stage." So it has been placed on the order paper at the next sitting, which is today, and the same class - at the bottom of the same class. So there we are.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. members, I am sure, will not be too surprised that I spent a great deal of time this weekend examining very closely the Blues, and the same proposition. Fortunately, it's one of the few times in our history in this House that I can recall that we have not only the assistance of the Clerks-at the-Table, but the honourable and learned assistance of a number of Commonwealth Parliamentary Clerks and Speakers who happen to be presently meeting in Canada. They were good enough to consider - along with the Speaker of the House of British Columbia

[ Page 5580 ]

and his advisers - that exact proposition over the weekend, because they happened to be meeting in conference at this time. They certainly were given an opportunity to hear what the problem was, and to give us their opinions, too. I just point that out, hon. members. It was one of the few times in the history of this House that we will have so many knowledgeable and learned people at our disposal, by virtue of the fact that they are meeting in Canada at the present time.

May I point out to the hon. Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Nelson-Creston that your point of order with respect to the fact that Bill 65 appears on the order paper incorrectly is not well taken. Let me explain to you why. It's a matter that we go to other authorities, particularly May and Campion and others, if in fact our own standing orders are mute upon the subject matter that's before us. It says that in all cases not provided for, we go to the customs of the House of Commons, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

In this particular case it is not a requirement of this House to go any further than our own standing orders, specifically, standing order 31. As you will recall, Bill 65 was given first reading. It then became an order of the House by motion which was passed by this House, that Bill 65 shall be read a second time at the next sitting of the House after today. That is an order of the House. As such it falls under standing order 31 (2) that: "Orders not proceeded with when called, upon the like request, may be allowed to stand, retaining their precedence." This particular order did not retain its precedence on the order paper, if that had any consequence, because no one requested that it retain its precedence.

The other part of standing order 31 (2) says, "otherwise, they shall be dropped and placed on the order paper for the next sitting after those of the same class at a similar stage." In other words, the only difference that takes place is that Bill 65, regardless of order or position on the order paper on Friday, now appears on the order paper under second reading at the bottom of the list. If that had any special significance or consequence in this House, I would comment on it further, but because the provisions in our House allow bills to be called by the House Leader in whatever order they desire on government days, there is no special significance to that.

It says clearly in standing order 31 (3): "All orders not disposed of at adjournment of the House shall be postponed until the next sitting-day, without a motion to that effect." That is exactly what happened. Debate on second reading of Bill 65 was initiated Friday. It was spoken to Friday, but it was not disposed of on Friday and not proceeded with because of the impasse that came about. The House adjourned. It does not therefore mean, hon. members, that the bill dropped from the order paper. In fact it is, with respect to all members of the House and their opinions, in the exact position it should be on the order paper today, at the bottom of those bills appearing in second reading.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the very thorough and very clear evaluation you've given to the normal process of business in this House. But there is the same missing link that we come back to. Everything you've said is correct. Every evaluation and interpretation you've given, in my opinion, is correct, except that for the steady flow of business, there must be the moving of the motion.

I refer you back to page 529 of May, and I thank you for using May, although the House Leader may feel it's not relevant. It says clearly, very briefly:

"It may here be stated that if, when the order of the day is read at the table, no motion is made for the second reading or other stage of a bill, or for its postponement, it becomes a dropped order, and does not appear again on the notice paper, unless another day is subsequently appointed for its consideration."

What happened, Mr. Speaker, is that when the impasse arose, the House was adjourned. But the House was adjourned not in a state of normal business. As a matter of fact, the House was adjourned with no business at all in front of it, because the House had no motion on the table.

It is true that the bill was spoken to;. that is correct. However, at no time when the bill spoken to was the bill placed in order by a motion to continue the debate on that bill. All I'm pointing out, Mr. Speaker, is that the bill cannot be killed permanently; the bill cannot be stopped. But it is, in my opinion, ordered to be dropped from the order paper until the House Leader or the government indicates by motion that they want to go back to the beginning of handling Bill 65.

That is the proper way, in my opinion, that the error is to be cleared up. It is a small thing, but it is the proper thing. While you, sir, have had benefit of Speakers present and Speakers past, we, too, have done the same. Like all Speakers, there is a conflict of opinion. I want to tell you, not only....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: We tried Arizona, too. Do you remember him?

Mr. Speaker, it is simply a matter of form that I think the government is bound to follow, and that is a motion to put Bill 65 back on the order paper. They have the majority, obviously, unless there's been even a greater fight in caucus that we don't know about, to pass that motion.

[ Page 5581 ]

MR. SPEAKER: With respect, hon. member, I listened with interest to your points of order. As I say, I spent a great deal of time in discussion and in research on this particular matter over the weekend. I must conclude that irrespective of what you have had to say, we will stick with our standing orders where our standing orders are very explicit and provide for the exact circumstance which we find ourselves in today after Friday's debate. In that respect, the position that Bill 65 now occupies on the order paper - at the bottom of those bills placed on the order paper for second reading - is a correct position under our own standing orders. There is no need for a motion to reintroduce the bill. I must, after having listened very carefully to your points of order, indicate to you and, in fact, rule, that that is a correct procedure within our House, and I so rule.

MR. BARRETT: Regrettably, I must challenge your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker's ruling has been challenged. It's a matter of a vote without debate or discussion. Shall the Speaker's ruling be sustained?

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS - 27

NAYS - 13

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 68.

THE NOTRE DAME UNIVERSITY

OF NELSON ACT, 1977

Bill 68, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 57.

SOIL CONSERVATION ACT

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill 57, Soil Conservation Act, is to ensure the preservation of soil for food production now and in the future. The Act will control by permit system the removal of topsoil from agricultural land reserves as well as the placing of fill on land in the agricultural land reserves when such activity would reduce the capability of soil to produce crops.

Under the existing Act it has not been possible to control removal of topsoil from the ALRs effectively. Bill 57 improves the definitions, provides for the rehabilitation of land which has deteriorated, speeds up the process of dealing with violations and clarifies the jurisdiction of local authorities and the Land Commission.

Under this legislation, permits will be required not only to remove soil from the ALRs but also to place fill. However, those regulations, Mr. Speaker, will exempt activities generally associated with agricultural or horticultural activities as well as highways and drainage works. Permits will continue to be issued by the local authorities, as they have been in the past, but they will need approval of the Land Commission. The access of an appeal procedure against decisions made by the local authority will be to the Minister of Agriculture.

Under the new Act, a person who contravenes the Act or regulations will be subject to penalties under the Summary Convictions Act.

There will also be provision for local authorities, the Land Commission or the minister to order rehabilitation of land which has deteriorated by soil removal and/or the placing of fill without a valid permit.

Mr. Speaker, in summary, Bill 57 will ensure that agricultural capability of agricultural land reserves is not destroyed by topsoil removal and/or placing of fill, the procedures will be streamlined, penalties have been made more specific and the rehabilitation of land may be ordered.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): We in the opposition have no quarrels with this bill, really; it's a step in the right direction: a revision of the existing legislation to put a little more strength behind the existing rules and to make it comply with the regulations and the intent of the agricultural land reserve and the Land Commission Act. I think in that direction the bill has done very well; it has specified in its definition section more clearly and more applicably to present legislation, and it has spelled

[ Page 5582 ]

out more exactly the kind of problems that have been occurring and provided some correction for those.

There are a couple of points, however, that I do feel could have been much stronger. It really relates to the penalties under the Act and the section for appeal. Under the former Act, any person could appeal a ruling, and that has been changed in this Act, Mr. Speaker, so only the appellant can appeal. I feel that this is a bit unfair because it means that if the appellant finds that he has a ruling in his favour, he's home-free; there is no provision for anyone else, any other concerned person, to ask for an appeal. If, on the other hand, the appellant is turned down, he can appeal. To me that's one-sided justice, Mr. Speaker; it's not fair to all the people who may be vitally concerned. I would urge the minister to consider changing that particular section, to go back to the old context which was that any person could appeal rather than strictly the appellant.

The other thing that I have some questions about is related to the penalty. I think, Mr. Speaker, you must realize that we're talking about what could be a very remunerative type of activity here. When you limit to a maximum of $500 per day for infringement, you are perhaps not putting nearly sufficient penalty on the person who contravenes this Act. I would suggest that there should be provision for much more stringent penalty. Certainly a person who repeats the offence should be subject to much higher penalty and perhaps imprisonment. This is a contravention of the whole concept that is embodied in the preservation of farmland. To set a maximum limit of $500 per day for the days that the person or the company or the group of people involved contravened the requirements of the permit or operated without a permit is not really putting the kind of monetary clout behind this Act that may well be necessary to ensure its enforcement.

It's a matter of weighing dollars and cents and deciding which is the most remunerative. I know the minister is aware of instances that have taken place. I have pointed out to him where we have had under other legislation the kind of things going on that we're talking about here. We've had wood chips piled on agricultural land. Regulations have been set by another body, the Pollution Control Board, in this instance.

In reality, because of the time involved and the procedures of the courts, these things have proceeded. I am very much concerned that the kind of minimal penalties allocated under this Act are not sufficient to be a real deterrent. I can foresee instances happening where the law would be flouted and a company or a concern or an individual would proceed and simply pay their fine, if necessary, because the remunerative return could well be much greater than the penalty spelled out under the Act. So I have some very strong reservations about those sections of the Act.

As for the question of the appeal - that only an appellant can appeal - I would think, Mr. Minister, that you would be willing to consider the idea of changing that word "appellant" to "person" so that it is fair and any affected person can appeal that decision rather than just the appellant.

The other thing I would urge you to consider is the sections of the Act which deal with the penalties, which to me seem to be contrary to the principle of the Act. Both those items are contrary to the principle of this Act, which is, as the minister has said, to assure the preservation of our agricultural land. I believe that those two sections are not in the best interests of the stated principle of this bill. I would ask the minister to give due consideration to some changes in those sections. I am wondering whether he will give assurance that he will be prepared to move amendments to those sections. If not, perhaps I will take that under consideration myself.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, one point the member for Cowichan-Malahat raised deals with the applicant, as opposed to the appellant. The applicant who is looking to appeal a decision is the person who is wishing the permit and is being denied that. The denial would be given by the local authority, giving consideration to all information that is placed before them, and also to the Land Commission. I can assure the member that the Land Commission specifically -and I would even go so far as to say the local authority - will be taking into consideration all aspects of people who are concerned with the placing of or the removal of soils from the agricultural land reserve. So I don't think it necessarily means the appeal should be made by other than the applicant, because they are appealing a negative decision of the commission. They are appealing it back to the commission.

I'm not sure, but I think the member was concerned where an approval has been given and somebody should appeal against that approval. I think all that will be taken into consideration by the Land Commission and local authority prior to the approval being given.

With regard to the penalties, they are, I think, reasonably severe at $500 per day for each day on which the offence is continued. That is in addition to any other penalty. There is also, under another section of the Act, the fact that a person can be ordered to rehabilitate the land, which could be a considerable expense. Not only would they be faced with a fine, but also the cost of rehabilitating that land. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 5583 ]

Motion approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I ask leave to refer Bill 57 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave not granted.

Bill 57, Soil Conservation Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 65, Community Resources Board Amendment Act, 1977. On behalf of the hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , I would move second reading.

COMMUNITY RESOURCES

BOARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Well, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that I've spent a long time waiting for this moment. I felt possibly it would never come. As a matter of fact, that feeling gave me a real warm feeling in my heart. But unfortunately, it's before us.

As I said the other day, Mr. Speaker, this is the minister's move in launching his leadership campaign. The minister wants to show himself as a great leader out there amid the right-wingers and the rednecks in the back bench of his party. However, he doesn't have all the support in the world, and I think we'll come to that a little later on. I suspect that empire-building has always been a strong suit of this minister, and I'm not sure that he's chosen the right vehicle on which to empire-build.

The minister made all sorts of remarks. I'm going to refer to some of those remarks, and I'm going to refer to some of the arguments and answers that were raised by people immediately involved in the Vancouver Resources Board a little later on.

I particularly want to suggest that the minister was insulting in some of his remarks. One of those remarks that I had to jot down was "puppets for an manipulative organization." Mr. Speaker, that is really the kind of smear that is not necessary and is not called for. I think that the minister, when he closes debate, should at least apologize for that and for many of the statements that he made along the way that really misinform those people who were listening.

Mr. Speaker, I found it particularly interesting that day, and now we know why the minister read his remarks. He read them because the press were reading them right along with him. He'd handed them out, all 30-odd pages, and there the press sat reading the minister's remarks. Well, now we know there wasn't much ad-libbing in that. The problem is that his speech writer forgot to include the one phrase that probably was more important than anything else he could have done, since he wished to pursue this course, and that phrase was: "I move second reading." The one thing that should have been there wasn't there, and there it was.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that this minister who's calling for efficiency in the Vancouver Resources Board is so totally inefficient that he can't even move second reading on his own bill that he's put forward and squired for lo, these many months. How can that minister call for efficiency when, in fact, he's so totally inefficient and his personal staff are also obviously inefficient? He can't even call second reading on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest, having listened to the remarks of the minister, or whoever his speech writer might be, that he's prejudiced beyond belief. I believe that when he was talking about inconsistencies, he was talking about inconsistencies that can be found anywhere in the life of government. I'm not going to get into those, but I just would like to make a few remarks with respect to the whole question of Bill 65.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the communities in B.C. must be warned today. They were warned in part by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) when he took it upon himself to overturn any local initiative or any local bylaw and to substitute whatever he felt might be better for them. This, along with such orders as Bill 65, is a destructive force. This destructive force is taking the rights away from people in our province, taking the rights away from communities and taking the rights away from the whole community, when you think in terms of what the lasting effect might be.

I've said this before. How could a government elected on freedom, elected using the seagull as their emblem, have turned that seagull into something other than they originally intended it to be or originally thought people would understand it to be?

MR. WALLACE: The seagull's an albatross.

MR. COCKE: It has become one, because virtually everything they've done has been a reduction in community rights, a reduction in human rights and a reduction in rights of the people in this province. Victoria must control - that's the way they feel; that's their byword.

We've heard of all this from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) . Those of us who sat here through the debates on a number of his bills and his initiatives have seen exactly the same kind of initiatives being taken away from the community, away from the local groups, away from faculty members, away from college people. Power has been placed in the hands of the minister. This is a

[ Page 5584 ]

power-hungry government, but the minister over there really epitomizes that when he uses it as his excuse. Nothing more can be said, other than it's an excuse. He uses as an excuse a bunch of very lightweight arguments, each of which can be turned against the minister and certainly will in due course.

Mr. Speaker, in this kind of context, with this government, where do people fit in? There is no thought of community input, no thought of community needs and no thought of community rights. The government policy says that Victoria calls the shot; Victoria controls; Victoria is the land of central authority.

I want to bring you back to something that we said some time ago in our party, and we said it in many election campaigns. I think that what we did while we were government showed that this is the way we felt. We said people matter more, Mr. Speaker. We felt that, and now we see that the minister has certainly gone in direct opposition to that particular phrase, because what has he done? In an area where people's needs can be felt - resources boards - he's taking them away.

People should be warned in this province that they'll take it away. They'll take away every possible initiative that people can come up with. I'd be very interested tomorrow to be at the UBCM and find out what they're saying up there about how this government is operating with respect to municipalities and community needs. If they're honest in their criticisms at the UBCM, they will be raising heck with this government, Mr. Speaker - and there are stronger terms that one could use.

I believe we should ask this government to take another look at what you're doing. Get the decision making back to the community level where it belongs, the only place where they can respond to their own needs - not responding to the minister's ego, Mr. Speaker. I suggest to you this: there can be no response more responsible, there can be no response more adequate, and no response quicker to reflect the needs of the community.

I don't think anybody can deny that we needed a programme like we had. And now we've got a centralized bureaucracy building up. Mr. Speaker, what irony! A government elected on a decentralization programme platform is now showing their true colours. Down with freedom. Down with decentralization. Up with the minister's power. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, but what the government is saying is that this government will dictate the solution to all problems.

We felt, Mr. Speaker, when we were government, that it would be foolish, that it would be ridiculous for a government to dictate solutions that can be remedied at the community level. Not so with the minister. Mr. Speaker, the former minister, myself, the then-Premier and our colleagues were committed to a policy of decentralization, and hence the resources boards. And that's only one tiny example. You've seen so many of those programmes wiped out in the past year and a half. It's a shame, Mr. Speaker. Our work is certainly cut out for us to undo some of the disgraceful work that has taken place, that's gone on by this government.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that the last resources board to fall is the VRB. It's not the first. There were other resources boards in this province, but they were dismantled because the minister didn't need any legislation to do that. But he did need legislation this time and he's used it.

Who says we were right at the time? Who says we were right in our thinking then and are still saying it now? How about SPARC, the Social Planning and Review Council of B.C.? It's a prestigious group when you look at its membership. Why do they say we were right. They say in social planning there's a need for community response. Nothing more, nothing less. Trade unions - a dirty word to this government - are also saying it, Mr. Speaker. Social service groups are saying the same thing. Health service groups are saying the same thing. Educators - exactly the same thing. And people all over this province are suspicious, with good reason. Those involved are completely frustrated, completely at odds with the decision made by this minister to bring in this bill.

Is it logical to dismantle the VRB, Mr. Speaker? I say no. Is it desirable? No. Is it ethical? I say no, Mr. Speaker, it is not. Then why do they do it? I think that we're witnessing a stupid situation created by a government of opportunists going nowhere.

This government has had grave doubts about this direction. Why has the bill been so long in being called, Mr. Speaker? Why has this bill, sitting on the order paper since June 22, been so long in being called? I'll give you one reason: to let the Premier get out of town. No question about that. Do you think he wanted his hands dirtied with this piece of legislation? No, Mr. Speaker. He wanted to get away from the mess, I suggest. It is a mess created by the Minister.of Human Resources.

No decision until now. Why didn't he face up? Why didn't that first minister face up with a division within his own ranks when he was here?

MR. GIBSON: He's a Cheshire cat: he smiles and disappears.

MR. COCKE: He knew there was division in his own ranks, Mr. Speaker. Oh, how I would have loved to have attended one of those caucus meetings. I would love to have been there when they were firing their salvoes at one another, screaming their heads off, that little group of Munchkins over there in the back row, hollering their red necks off to keep this bill in front of us-, the other group of more thoughtful

[ Page 5585 ]

politicians saying: "Hey, where are we going? Is it necessary? Is it desirable?" The answer to that was no, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier knew there was a conflict and the Premier took off to Europe and, oh, is he ever glad he's there! They lose his luggage. He can't even find himself in the VIP room, but he's still glad he's there, getting away from this VRB mess. No Mr. Speaker, no strong Premier would have left his hock at a time like this, at a time of conflict - and there is - yet he did. He is weak, Mr. Speaker.

We have now learned what the Premier has always known, and we've learned it for sure, Mr. Speaker. We sensed that there was a deep rift but now we know it, but now we know it. I ask you, is this strong leadership? And I ask a further question: do threats run this government? Think about it just for a second. Do threats run this government, rather than logic or reason? We know about the threats, Mr. Speaker. We saw them with our very eyes and we heard them with our very ears. We heard the fight in that corner over this bill a few nights ago. We saw it develop right by the minister's chair and then they minced over into the corner where they thought only the backbenchers could hear them. What did we hear, Mr. Speaker? We saw the Minister of Human Resources threaten.... I can omit, if you like, some of the expletives that were expressed but I won't omit this: "I will resign if that bill isn't called this session. Yes, sir. I will resign if that bill isn't called." They know it over there, because they've heard every word, we heard it from here.

MS. BROWN: You weren't laughing!

MR. COCKE: You weren't laughing. You were going over and patting the minister on the back after a 15-minute confrontation that he had in that corner.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Yes, sir. Oh, that sure comes as a bit of an uncomfortable thought - that somebody has excellent hearing over here - doesn't it?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You deny it. You stand up and deny it, any one of you. You know perfectly well it's true. And ask the House Leader. Ask the government Whip; he was standing right there - the House Leader, the government Whip and the Minister of Human Resources. He threatened to resign if that bill wasn't called, and why would he do that? He only did that because he knew that was all he had left.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: They're in absolute chaos. Threats are running that government - not logic, not reason. Threats are running that government, Mr. Speaker. Those of us who were here saw the fight take place before our eyes, right on the floor of this assembly. That was a heated moment and I timed it; it lasted over 10 minutes.

Mi. Speaker, I wish there was a tape, but we were able to make notes - no problem. Oh, the minister was so uptight, Mr. Speaker. You should have seen his expression. Mr. Speaker, his expression was only outdone by his complexion, and his complexion - let me put it this way - had a lot of shades of red. Whether or not the minister likes the connotation that might come out of that, that's the way it was. But, Mr. Speaker, we're here today witnessing who won that confrontation.

AN HON. MEMBER: The reactionaries.

MR. COCKE: He won it and threats won it. What a government; what a Premier.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, he won. So much for freedom. So much for those who believed in community involvement. So much for their problems that indicated that they were for freedom; that they were for decentralization; that they were the ones championing local involvement. They've proven that they are the antithesis of everything they said they were in that eventful campaign in December of 1975. 1 remember that campaign well.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I just want to reiterate what we saw and what they saw and so on and so forth. We watched the Munchkins come over and pat the minister on the back after the debacle. So much for those destructive little Munchkins. So much for them, those champions of freedom. So much for a good, sound system of services to people, Mr. Speaker.

Having seen so much that is good and so much that is serving going down the drain in front of this bulldozer government, I'm surprised. I'm unhappy, but I'm still surprised that they couldn't have taken more care with the stewardship of our province that they were offered by the people of B.C. some months ago.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go to some sections of the minister's speech, and use no other authority than professionals working in the VRB themselves and his own appointee, Ronald W. Fenwick, chairman, who answered some of the questions. These questions, incidentally, will be answered by others in our party; I've only selected a few because my time is limited.

[ Page 5586 ]

The minister has implied that the VRB is less effective in preventing family breakdowns.

To document this, he indicated that between 1976 and 1977 the province as a whole reduced the number of children taken into care by 300, while the VRB reduced its caseload by 90. Listen to their response, Mr. Speaker. We listened to all those arguments raised by the minister that day, but this is just a good example.

"The province as a whole is larger than the VRB.- - I think we understand that. "When the minister's figures are converted to a percentage of the total caseload so as to provide a standard basis of comparison, we find that the reduction in the VRB was actually twice as great as the reduction in the rest of the province."

Mr. Speaker, so much for the minister's credibility. A smiling, good-looking face doesn't necessarily give you credibility.

Mr. Speaker, there are approximately 9,700 children in care in the province and approximately 1,400 children in care in Vancouver. Their answer is that this translates into a reduction of children taken into care of approximately 3 per cent in the province, as compared to 7 per cent in the VRB.

Now, Mr. Speaker, where did the minister get his facts?

AN HON. MEMBER: From his notes.

MR. COCKE: Obviously, he didn't get any facts at all because facts are statements that are correct, and that statement was incorrect.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Exactly!

I want to give you another example, Mr. Speaker. The minister has indicated that Vancouver does not deserve special consideration. Well! Isn't that interesting? The VRB maintains that each municipality deserves special consideration, and that's what it's all about. That's what the minister doesn't understand, colleagues. Each area has its own special needs. Their own special needs can be best and most adequately handled by those people who are closely involved with those needs.

Mr. Speaker, going on, the minister has maintained that the directors of the Vancouver Resources Board are little more than puppets for a manipulative administration. I led off with that, Mr. Speaker. I think that's one of the most insulting statements that a minister can make, an insulting statement about people who are working hard for the things that he contends he is working for. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to go into a lot of things that they say here. Other people will do it. But I just want to say this: there are a couple of smiling lines that they have in response which I'm particularly fond of. This is what the resources board people say. Mr. Fenwick says: "The abolishment of the Vancouver Resources Board would be a victory of bureaucracy since public accountability at a local level will be eliminated as staff reported through the deputy minister." That's correct, Mr. Speaker. That's a very fine statement in response to an insulting, demeaning statement made by that minister, and I'm shocked about that.

I'm shocked that anybody would look at people involved in solving community needs and talk in terms of them being "puppets manipulated." That minister, because he doesn't pull all the strings, because he can't control everybody, is insisting upon it. And that's where he gets the idea of puppets. He wants everybody to be a puppet dancing on the minister's string. It's not good enough, Mr. Speaker.

The minister referred to his investigators and his fraud programme. He implied that the VRB was less efficient than his ministry in administering this programme. Mr. Speaker, the VRB employs six investigators, which is more per capita than most of the province. I don't think that's anything to be particularly proud or happy about, the fact that some people do, naturally, rip off insurance companies, governments and so on. I think it should be properly and adequately controlled.

That government is a sitting duck for the large, manipulative multinational corporations that make them dance to their whim. The oil companies and the mining companies can do anything they like and that government will sit down and polish their shoes for them. That's the kind of government we have: pursue the little guy and let the big shot get away with anything he wants.

Mr. Speaker, just to add another word or two to what they said in their answer: "However, a report prepared internally by the minister's evaluation team indicates that the suspected instance of fraud in Vancouver is half the provincial average." What a minister! How can we rely on his credibility?

MR. BARBER: He just makes these things up.

MR. COCKE: I don't think he makes them up. I think he's got a whole staff of people who make them up for him, and they can't even help him to move second reading.

Mr. Speaker, he goes on to say in his remarks on page [8: "The minister proposed a rhetorical question of 'when do a series of nickel thefts become an outbreak of crime?"' That's when he introduced questions from various audit reports. Here is an answer that's a fine answer:

"It is simple to answer the minister's question with respect to audit reports.

[ Page 5587 ]

Financial audit reports consist of both statement as to the validity of the financial statement, as well as a management letter. The minister's examples came from the management letter." Hey! Isn't that interesting - a management letter

"When an auditor considers the suggestions and example in the manager's letter to be severe, then the formal audit statement pertaining to the financial reports is in some way qualified or withheld."

What happened in this case, Mr. Speaker? In the case of the VRB, the financial statements received an unqualified acceptance by the auditor. So much for the minister; so much for his statements. Is he suggesting that our audit department, our comptroller, is inadequate? If he is, he's really up against it, because that department has had the finest reputation that any department can find, and as a matter of fact, there is unqualified support of the audit department and of the comptroller of this province.

The minister objected to the granting of $750 annually to advisory boards, while the guidelines elsewhere in the province stipulate $500. What's the answer to that? Guess what. The VRB has granted an extra $250 for the purpose of providing community newsletters.

MR. BARBER: Did he know about that?

MR. COCKE: Did he know? Community newsletters - isn't that shocking? There was $250 spent to inform a few people. Shocking! Shameful! What a deceitful way to spend money! VRB, wherever you are, hang your head.

MR. LEA: B.C. Government News, wherever you are, hang your head.

MR. COCKE: I want to compare that to the B.C. Government News, that $100,000 proposition in multicolours that was sent to every household in this province. How do you justify that? It's $250 and he stands up and makes an accusation in this House, and they spend multi-hundreds of thousands of dollars.

MR. LEA: It was full of Grace.

MR. COCKE: It was full of Grace, but it wasn't full of learning.

Mr. Speaker, they do a PR stunt that costs the people in this province hundreds of thousands of dollars, and nobody says a word. This minister whips the VRB over a $250 expenditure for a community newsletter. It's shocking, and he knew about it.

I suggest that the provision was reported to the minister in the regular minutes of the VRB. He knew about it. He also knew about the amazing Grace newsletter. Further, this is the first time that the minister has objected to that $250 expenditure. And how did he object? He stood up here making a mean accusation in this House objecting to the $250 and making them look like they were something other than honest. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this minister is something other than honest, using that kind of a tactic for that kind of a situation.

I want to go on. The minister quoted the comptroller-general's report of February, 1977, as stating that some items had not been approved and some additional problems had come to his attention. In the same letter, their response says: "The comptroller-general stated during his audit: 'We notice a considerable improvement.' " Good heavens, what a contrasting statement! You say on one hand the minister quoted the comptroller-general's report as stating that some items have not improved and that some additional problems have come to his attention, but in that letter, the comptroller-general stated: "During this audit, we notice a considerable improvement" - he didn't quote that, Mr. Speaker -"largely due to the hiring of your new comptroller." As requested by the comptroller-general, the VRB submitted a detailed response to his management letter. Unfortunately, the minister did not refer to the details of that response.

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to go on with another question that the minister raised. The minister's speech referred to a number of problems concerning a group-home contract administration. You remember the innuendo there was wide and sweeping. But their response was: "Problems in group-home contract administrations were one of the most significant problems inherited from the agencies that preceded the VRB." Was that government-run? No, those were volunteer agencies. We all remember that. "The Vancouver Resources Board succeeded in standardizing the contracts to the point that the Ministry of Human Resources recently adopted the same procedures as those established by the VRB."

MR. BARBER: He didn't say that.

MR. COCKE: He didn't say that. He left it out somehow. He just omitted it. Damnation by inference - yes, editing, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: The old Socred Hansard.

MR. COCKE: They go on to say, Mr. Speaker: "Of the particular examples mentioned in the audit report and by the minister, referring to the homes undertaking teenage problems, at the time of the audit the issues in dispute had been brought before the Labour Relations Board by the staff operating the programme.". He didn't say that. He didn't say that

[ Page 5588 ]

they were now before the Labour Relations Board. Attempts to resolve t these differences of interpretation in contract administration resulted in a charge of unfair labour practices. This charge was subsequently withdrawn. However, the Labour Relations Board did rule that the HUT programmes consisted of dependent contractors.

The resolution of the issues mentioned in the report are still under negotiation as ordered by the Labour Relations Board. The comments on page 22 of the minister's speech concerning bank account reconciliation, provision of a ban and relief payments all concern the dependent contractor's operation and are all matters of dispute in negotiation.

Mr. Speaker, the minister didn't mention any of that. The minister didn't say that there was no way this could be resolved by the VRB or anybody else on earth because one of his colleagues' department - the Ministry of Labour, the Labour Relations Board -was sitting on that very problem and hadn't come down with a finding. Mr. Speaker, that being the case, why did the minister raise it in this House? He raised it as he did with almost everything he said - all the smearing and all the tactics that he used that day -tried to twist public opinion with respect to the VRB and he did not succeed.

He did not succeed because over the weekend, Mr. Speaker, I understand that people in Vancouver are so incited, so enraged that there is going to be continuous effort. In spite of the odds there is going to be continuous effort to get this government to come to their senses. I suggest to the government: accept his resignation - it would be the best thing you could do. Accept his resignation, his resignation that was offered. Accept it. The best thing you can do. You should have accepted it that night.

MR. GIBSON: It was the greatest opportunity that government's had.

MR. COCKE: It really was. A fine opportunity and they blew it, Mr. Speaker. The minister also indicated that there are consistent irregularities in children-in-care payments.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, you know that I'm not the designated speaker, I take it. The response to that, Mr. Speaker, during the period of the report, the VRB was in the process of, and has now completed implementing control procedures for general accounts payments processing. They go on to say that contrary to the audit report, the VRB does not set guidelines for any statutory expenditure. How could they? Statutory expenditures are made by law - law of the land, law of the province.

Mr. Speaker, he doesn't know that. He's just a brand new minister, but he's a brand new dangerous minister, Mr. Speaker. The policy manual for the Ministry of Human Resources allows exceptions for various types of child welfare payments. These ambiguities make the auditing of any child welfare expense a most difficult exercise, but that is set up by statute.

Can I go on, Mr. Speaker? The minister's speech on page 23 referred to a gasoline supplier supposedly padding his billing. Oh, that's never happened to government before. Insufficient evidence existed for a charge to be laid, however. They couldn't get enough on it but you can get enough innuendo. However, the auditor acknowledged that the VRB has since changed suppliers.

Again, why did they raise it as criticism in a debate on a bill that deals with a very basic principle, that is, should communities have some say in their own social goals? Should communities have some say with respect to delivery of service in their own backyard? I see the light, Mr. Speaker, and I will continue very quickly and close at the appointed time.

Mr. Speaker, on page 23 the minister referred to claims to the Medical Services Commission that lack board approval. Mr. Speaker, what is the response to that? If there was any oversight in this area, payment should have been refused by the Medical Services Commission. Is he charging his colleague, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) , with being irresponsible? Was the Minister of Health irresponsible? If not, why wasn't payment refused? If the minister was raising another red herring, why doesn't he withdraw it and at least get his colleague out of the glue that he so aptly threw him in?

Mr. Speaker, I can't finish all of these responses. But I want to say this to the minister, through you. I want to say that this has been a very disappointing time in this province, brought upon us by a government who are not the least bit interested in serving the community needs, or the people's needs, but who desire more and more power, more and more authority, more manipulative authority so that they can be running the show.

Oh, they call themselves great businessmen. I've seen really little to assure me even in that particular area. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is the most heartless government, the most heartless authority, that has ever been dropped on the people of this province. They are tin men, Mr. Speaker - not a heart. No heart, just authority. There is no possible way a thinking person could support this bill. So say the NDP. So say the official opposition, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, on Bill 65. Friday morning was the end of months of good-faith work, mostly low-key, co-operative work behind the scenes to try and save a good thing. Members of the community, members of the VRB and many

[ Page 5589 ]

members of this House were looking for ways that some kind of a viable compromise could have been achieved to save a good thing. The government ended that when they called this legislation. I'd hoped against hope that they wouldn't but when they called it, they ended that.

Let's be realistic, Mr. Speaker. The government has started this fight and it's going to win it. It will win this particular fight, but they're going to know they've been in a fight. The fight to save the VRB is over; let's understand that. It was over the minute the minister stood up to give his speech, over the minute the House Leader called it. But the phrase, "It's all over but the shouting, " was maybe invented for this kind of situation, because this situation deserves a little bit of shouting.

The government majority will pass this bill. The Social Credit backbenchers will rise rank on rank, some of them full of doubt and dismay. Each of them who feels that way will be less of an individual at that moment, but they'll rise. Otherwise let's hear from them now.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I will just caution you about reflecting upon the way any member of this House will vote upon any measure that is before the House or casting any aspersion against their character for the way that they may or may not vote. I'm sure you realize that that is not a parliamentary manner in which to proceed.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I can't be casting reflections, because nothing is happening yet. I've made predictions, and I ask any Social Credit backbencher who is not going to support this bill to say something right now. Just give a nod of the head, a little cough of the throat, any kind of slight indication.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, Madam Member, how do you feel? Give me a shake of the head if you're going to vote for it. That's the situation we face.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has been debated in private in a raging fashion within the Social Credit caucus within the last couple of weeks, and not a person who opposed it is going to have the guts to stand up in this House and say so.

The minister spoke in this debate on Friday. What did he say? I've never heard a speech so completely miss the point as the speech of that minister. Somebody put some flowery language in his mouth. I was much taken with this line: "The board is being led down the garden path into a wonderland crawling with elusive Cheshire cats." The only Cheshire cat around here is the Premier. He smiled and he disappeared! He didn't do his duty on how this bill should be treated. The minister's got some Cheshire qualities too - Cheshire cheese.

I want to go back to the reference work, the original text for the minister's speech, which is Alice in Wonderland, and tell him a little bit about the Cheshire cat. This is speaking of Alice now:

"She noticed a curious appearance in the air. It puzzled her very much at first, but after watching it a moment of two she made it out to be a grin, and she said to herself: 'It's the Cheshire cat. Now I shall have somebody to talk to.'

"'How are you getting on?' said the cat, as soon as there was mouth enough to speak with.

"Alice waited until the eyes appeared and then nodded. 'It's no use speaking to it, ' she thought, 'till the ears have come, or at least one of them.' -The ears never arrived with this minister! He had all summer to develop some ears to go with the Cheshire smile, and he didn't listen to the representations that were being made to him. And then he came up in this House and gave one of the most ridiculous speeches I've ever heard from the mouth of a minister.

He said in the first place that there were cases of maladministration. That was his basic thought for this Legislature. Then he went outside and admitted to the press that he had not seen the report that he gave as his major reason for Bill 65 at the time that he drafted the bill. How's that for logic?

Apart from that, the report that the minister gave - word unrefuted - is one of the most damning indictments he could have given out of his own mouth in terms of how he's been handling his job. He has and has had complete control over the financial procedures of the Vancouver Resources Board since December, 1975, under section 3 (2) of the Community Resources Boards Act, which says, among other things, that the minister dealing with financial things "may impose such terms and conditions as he considers necessary and advisable in respect to the use and management of the money so paid." Well, if the minister has any serious concern, any serious conflict with the way that those moneys are being applied, as he related them in his speech, then that was a defalcation of duty on his part. He did not live up to his duties under section 3 (2) .

In actual fact, Mr. Speaker, the case that the minister made in respect to maladministration was refuted point by point in a detailed document put out over the weekend by the VRB, with perhaps more efficiency than the minister could muster out of his office.

MR. BARBER: And signed by his own appointee.

MR. GIBSON: As you say, Mr. Member, signed by

[ Page 5590 ]

his own appointee as chairman of the board, a board chairman that I respect and that I hope and trust the minister respects. This report, signed by Mr. Fenwick, indicates very clearly that the minister's explanation to this House, which he admits wasn't in his possession at the time he drafted this bill, has no application.

T h e minister told us about the comptroller-general's report. He didn't relate these lines out of the comptroller's report, which was a letter to the regional manager of the VRB, Mr. SchTeck. This is dated February 18.

"During this audit we noticed a considerable improvement, largely due to the hiring of your new comptroller. However, a number of the irregular items previously reported on have not improved and some additional problems have come to our attention during the current audit."

You see, I read more or less the whole thing, not just one side, Mr. Speaker.

"Discussions have been held with senior board officials on the matters referred to in the accompanying report and the improvements have already been made in a number of areas. I will be further monitoring the effectiveness of these improvements during my current fiscal-period audit.

"During the course of my examination my staff received excellent co-operation from board personnel."

Is that the letter by the comptroller-general which would indicate that the VRB wasn't doing its very best to discharge its financial responsibilities? I think the report that's been filed with every member of this House by the chairman of that board indicates that they have been doing that.

But far more importantly than that, far more importantly in the details of whether mistakes were made or whether they were not, they are made in every government department, as the new auditor-general is going to reveal very clearly as soon as she starts digging into the books. A certain amount of that is normal. It has to be suppressed as much as possible and controlled, but a certain number of mistakes are normal in a bureaucracy of 40,000 people.

But what was the analogy? The minister, standing up in the Legislature, said: "Because the VRB makes some mistakes, I'm going to abolish it." That is analogous to the colonial secretary in Britain in the 1860s standing up and saying: "Because those people in British Columbia have made a few errors, we're going to abolish self-government in British Columbia." It's analogous to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) standing up in this House and saying: "There's been some errors in the Vancouver school district and we're doing away with them. We're going to take the control back to Victoria." That's the analogy and that's the point that the minister missed in his talk, and missed deliberately.

He's had a very rough-and-ready fashion of dealing with the VRB. To find the precise description of it I had to go back again to Alice in Wonderland. I will tell you the parable, Mr. Speaker, of Humpty Dumpty and the fish. It sounds like a rock group, doesn't it? It's a delightful poem and it describes the minister's way of dealing with the VRB. The minister is Humpty Dumpty before his fall, which is coming.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's happened!

MR. GIBSON: Humpty Dumpty speaks:

I sent a message to the fish,
I told them, "This is what I wish."
The little fishes of the sea,
They sent an answer back to me.
The little fishes' answer was,
"We cannot do it, Sir, because
-I sent to them again to say
"It will be better to obey."
The fishes answered with a grin
"My, what a temper you are in.
" I told them once, I told them twice,
They would not listen to advice.
I took a kettle large and new,
Fit for the deed I had to do.
My heart went hop, my heart went thump;
I filled the kettle at the pump.
Then someone came to me and said
"The little fishes are in bed."
I said to him, I said it plain
"Then you must wake them up again."
I said it very loud and clear;
I went and shouted in his ear.
But he was very stiff and proud;
He said, "You needn't shout so loud!"

That's some of the minister's colleagues speaking now.

I took a corkscrew from the shelf;
I went to wake them up myself.
And when I found the door was locked,
I pulled and pushed and kicked and knocked.
And when I found the door was shut,
I tried to turn the handle but -

That's where the poem ends. We know how it ends. It ends with the introduction of Bill 65. The minister got the little fishes. The big fish got the little fishes and gobbled them up. And that's what this bill's all about.

Many members opposite know what you've done by this bill. You've kicked thousands of decent, hardworking, community-minded citizens in the teeth. You have given them a cause. You have given them the kind of cause that the last government gave to a lot of people around British Columbia with the Land Commission Act. This is one of the mistakes

[ Page 5591 ]

that's going to turn hundreds and thousands of people definitely and definitively against the Social Credit Party.

MR. BARBER: But in the long run, our bill worked out.

MR. GIBSON: For that, I do not weep. I weep rather for the damage that it's doing to people in the meantime.

Mr. Speaker, there was a petition collected of 27,000 names - the largest petition, to my knowledge, ever tabled in this House - to support the Vancouver Resources Board. There have been an incredible number of letters. I've never seen such an upwelling of popular support, and, Mr. Speaker, it has come from all parts of the community. It has come from the needy; it has come from volunteer workers; it has come from Social Crediters, and NDPers, and Liberals and Conservatives; it has come from many of the people who were some of that minister's best supporters, who have been involved in the business of providing services in terms of human resources through the VRB, and who see how wrong the minister is in this abolition.

It's a very sad day. It's an avoidable day. The government has been trapped, step by step, by mythology, by fear, by ghosts from the past, by stubborn pigheadedness, and finally by the polarization of British Columbia politics - another sacrifice to this political horror that prevents people from intelligently discussing their problems and making changes where they are needed.

I want to trace the history a little bit. Let's start with the election of December 11,1975. It did not provide a good basis for rational decision, and yet that was the springboard for the initial decision to kill the community resources boards, which was done a few months later. I have related several times in this House my initial opposition to the community resources board concept and my change of heart once I had seen it working. I won't go through it again, but I'll say that I remain convinced that the minister's reasons for abolishing the community resources board were, first of all, because it was an NDP concept and the current government believes that the concepts of the NDP must be torn down, and secondly, because he believed community resources boards to have been NDP-controlled, which has not been my observation.

So the CRBs were strangled, all except for the Vancouver Resources Board, which was a different kind of a thing and a little too big to successfully kill right away. It had to be stopped carefully but the minister was going to get it because, by his lights, the Vancouver Resources Board was something That could stand up to him in public, if that was necessary. It was something that because it had elected people on it, and because it had his appointees on it, and because it held hearings in an open fashion, it was a body that held some legitimacy and could from time to time have the gall, if they thought fit, to differ publicly with the minister's philosophical dispositions in terms of the delivery of services.

It wasn't a question of control, Mr. Speaker; the minister had all the control he needed over the VRB through the Community Resources Boards Act. I read just one section of the Act. It's full of sections which give the minister very detailed control - as detailed as he wants - and that's the route he could have followed, but he chose instead to follow the route of killing. Bill 65 was introduced and there was an immediate uproar, as I've said, from all sectors and from all parties. My mail has been running literally 100 to I in favour of the Vancouver Resources Board and against Bill 65. These are not form letters-, they are real letters.

The reaction of the Vancouver Resources Board people was very moderate - much more moderate than the public reaction, in fact. It was very measured considering they were under threat of execution. They sought meetings. They tried to hold off polarization. Groups in support of the VRB sought meetings. Will anyone in this House ever forget the group that sought to meet the Premier and was told the night before that if they were in his office at 10 minutes to 7 o'clock the following morning they could have 10 minutes of his time, but unfortunately the first ferry didn't arrive on the Island until after that time? That's the kind of co-operation the, , - had.

The VRB did their best to keep the dialogue moderate and reasonable. I want to pay a tribute to some of the people in the VRB. There is no way that a person can mention all of the names. The chairman of the board, Fenwick, and his board; David Schreck, and his administration; the community groups; the community resources advisory boards and their people, all of these are dedicated, sincere people doing their best. The institution that they had to operate through is being dissolved. The polarization occurred and the symbol that is this legislation became more important than the reality.

The summer waxed on and the Premier left British Columbia. Did he leave any orders on Bill 65? Disgracefully, I do not believe he did. I think that was an abdication of leadership. He could have been a great man, right there, and taken a second look. He left a cabinet and a caucus who were split. The minister went down the line. He's a tough minister. He won his point, and here we are. The minister missed a monumental chance to diffuse every criticism that has ever been directed against him in his capacity of Minister of Human Resources. He could have said: "All right, I can listen. I think the VRB has got the message. I think they understand what I mean now. I'm going to 'allow Bill 65 to die on the order paper and we'll see how things operate over the next

[ Page 5592 ]

few months. Then if, for any reason, I'm still unsatisfied, we'll have it again." The minister could have done that, Mr. Speaker. It would have saved his face and it would have saved the board - and it would have saved the government a lot of trouble. It would have been a big thing to do, and it wasn't too late, until Friday morning, to do that. It's still not too late. If the minister will do that, I'll sit down and speak nothing but kindly of him for the next little while.

MR. WALLACE: Don't hold your breath.

MR. GIBSON: People would have said that's fair, Mr. Speaker, but the minister didn't do that. I go over that history because most British Columbians don't know it - or if they do know it, they can hardly believe the way things are done in Victoria - and it's important that things like this be put on the record.

This debate is the music, so to speak, that surrounds the funeral of the VRB. It is the end of one of the nobler, more progressive experiments in the delivery of services in North America. That's strong stuff. Sure, it had its faults. VRB was an infant institution but the faults were not serious. The faults were less than the faults of his own Ministry of Human Resources, and the VRB was a child of great promise. It may be many years till the like of this experiment returns, and I think we should shed a tear for that. I think we should shed a tear for the people who for that reason will be receiving more distant, less flexible, less adequate, and in many cases more expensive, social services because of it.

Ask what kind of system leads to that. Don't ask about the minister. Don't ask about the government; we know about them. Ask about the system that forces people into extreme positions, polarized voting and confrontation, and precludes the kind of sensible committee study and hearings that could lead the minister and members of this House to understand the implications of some of the things they were doing. It can lead to changes in co-operation. Our system does not foster this.

If there is one other lesson every British Columbian should learn out of this VRB execution, it is that our system must be improved so that things like this cannot happen so easily. So that the people who understand the details, and the day-to-day nuts and bolts, and the human suffering that can be helped by an institution like the VRB, get a chance to come over here and put their case to a committee of this House. That was denied. Even meetings with the government were very hard to arrange.

Mr. Speaker, what was the VRB? What was this symbol the government would kill today? Others will catalogue its strengths and its weaknesses in great detail as this debate proceeds. Its strengths, in my view, were by far the superior. Its weaknesses were those of any organization, and less than the controlling Ministry of Human Resources. Its strengths were these: first and foremost, democratic control and local community control. Not advice, the minister tells us there are advisory boards still. That's not the question, advice. The response by Mr. Fenwick to the minister's speech has something of note to say about that. The minister has indicated that local community groups advise regional managers elsewhere in the province. Mr. Fenwick says this:

"The VRB has consistently maintained that community groups cannot be accountable to a civil servant. The relationships must be one of local community groups controlling the bureaucracy rather than being controlled by it. The correspondence received by the VRB questions the effectiveness of advisory boards outside of Vancouver. Accountability as maintained by the VRB for basic statutory services will be lost and the bureaucracy will be the victor if the VRB is abolished."

Well, that's what Mr. Fenwick says. "Who is he?" the minister might say. He was appointed by the minister - that's right - but the minister is not following his advice.

Let's hear what the Premier of this province had to say in the Social Credit handout at the last election. Words to live by, except they aren't living by them. Here's what this campaign leaflet says:

"Bill Bennett has put it another way. Government should do things for people, not to people. Either this province will develop through individual initiative in a large measure of local control over community development or it will sink into the 'state knows best, state does best' philosophy, leading to central government control of people."

Marvellous words. He used to say: "Do as I say, not as I do." You're not even doing what the Premier says.

"The British Columbia Social Credit Party believes that the future of British Columbia rests on the idea that individuals can be asked to take a great deal of responsibility for themselves and for the development and fulfillment of the communities in which they live."

Dangerous words and dangerous for the philosophy of Bill 65.

The then Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier, speaking to the Richmond Rotary, December, 1973, said this:

"If, in addition, municipal corporations and local boards, with all that now devolves on them, became departments of the central administration, if the employees of all these different enterprises were appointed and paid

[ Page 5593 ]

by the government and looked to the government for every rise in life, not all the freedom of the press and popular constitution of the Legislature would make this or any other country free otherwise than in name only."

MR. NICOLSON: Who said that?

MR. GIBSON: The Premier said that. Bill 65 does not accord with that. Listen to what the Premier said in that same speech about education:

"It is a matter of historical record that the great advances within public education in British Columbia have always come from either the classroom itself or from locally elected boards who saw a community need and acted upon it."

MR. COCKE: No wonder he's in Europe.

MR. GIBSON: No wonder he's in Europe. Wouldn't he be embarrassed to be sitting in this House today, hearing the conflict between these words of his in 1973, which were the correct words, and the vicious legislation that we are debating today which flies in the face of all of those principles?

When he says "they, " Mr. Speaker, he was referring to the then government.

"I believe that they are systematically downgrading the importance of consultation with local governments for the express purpose of concentrating power and more power in the hands of a central bureaucracy, bureaucracy responsible only to the cabinet ministers who dictate local policies by remote control."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what he had in mind.

MR. GIBSON: That's what your Premier said, Mr. Minister. I don't wonder that your Premier left this House and was not here for this debate and was not here to make the difficult decision as to who goes, the Minister Of Human Resources or Bill 65, 1 could have told him what my advice would have been, and it would have been goodbye to the minister.

Decentralized government - that's one of the strengths of the community resources board. Doesn't the minister believe in decentralized government? When he was the mayor of Surrey, would he have liked the then Minister of Municipal Affairs to have said, "Well, I kind of wonder about the way Surrey is being run and I think we are going to take it over."?

MR. LEA: That's what the minister did.

MR. GIBSON: That's what the minister just did to the VRB.

MR. LEA: That's what this minister did to the municipal council.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, I guess he controlled that council pretty tightly. The principle of the VRB is control of social services by the people who need those services and by the people who pay for it in that community. That's the principle of the VRB. That's not a subversive principle; that's a cornerstone of your kind of party, if you believe in the words of the Premier.

VRB means better service. That kind of concept means better service because it means that the people who are affected by decisions have an access, in this case of a biweekly nature, of open meetings to the people who are making those decisions. Is that such a dangerous principle? Why did that principle have to be thrown out the window? That's what this bill does.

The VRB was a regular, local forum for input from the ordinary citizen. It was a vehicle for involvement of volunteers who are normally completely turned off by the Ministry of Human Resources, by big government in any form, and that found hundreds of decent citizens from all over Vancouver who could take a personal part in the delivery of social services in their community whether through a local board or whether through involvement in one of tile many services dispensed by the VRB.

I say to the minister, if he believes in volunteerism he will find that volunteers will disappear under his new legislation. He will find they are less than half of what they are now. They will find that they are dealing with a remote, faceless bureaucracy headed up by a minister who doesn't want anyone around who can question him on the public record with any kind of legitimacy and force. That's why he is getting rid of the VRB.

The VRB was another professional opinion in this province on the delivery of social services. That was a threat to the minister. That was one of the good things about the VRB, but it was a threat to the minister and it's the reason it's being disbanded, in spite of the fact that under this Act, you have all the controls that are necessary to oversee the operation of that board in the most minute detail that you see fit. That's what you're killing, Mr. Minister.

As I said before, it would be like a bill to abolish school boards in Education or to abolish municipal councils in local management. It's consistent with some recent moves of the government in those areas.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, says what the government always criticized the former government for saying. This bill says, "trust us." Then it has a more important message for the community people who have been involved in the VRB. The second message is, "We don't trust you, so we're going to take it back from you."

[ Page 5594 ]

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.

Mr. Speaker, I grieve for this day. We will all have to live with it. The government will pay for it in due course, let there be no mistake on that, but others will have to pay for it at once. They'll have to pay for it as soon as this bill is passed.

Who are they? They're the people in need, quite simply. They're the battered children the mothers in transition houses, the alcoholics an~ derelicts and addicts who need community help, not containment centre help - community help. They're the juveniles who need community help instead of isolation; they're the abandoned spouses and children; the handicapped; the thousands upon thousands of people in our society who, for one reason or another, generally through no fault of their own, need community help. And the community people who have been helping will suffer as well.

Those are the ones who will pay, Mr. Speaker. I say to the minister: you have no right to make them pay this bill. Bill 65 is a disgrace. Bill 65 is a bill that, in the comfort and air-conditioned climate of this chamber, we can sit and talk about and then pass over the objections of the opposition entirely, but remember - the people who pay for it aren't the people sitting here. The people who pay for it are the people within the city of Vancouver who are within the area of the Vancouver Resources Board and who, for the first time, had a locally controlled instrument that was doing a job as effectively and as economically as the minister and his department could have done, but under local control and with a great deal more sensitivity and understanding because of that thing.

Mr. Speaker, I say to you, this bill is a disgrace, and I earnestly entreat every member of this House who has taken the trouble to research this question and who has read the material that has been provided to them by both sides of the issue, to search his or her conscience and say there is at least a question of such a consequence that it cannot be irreversibly resolved against the VRB at this time. I say it is a noble experiment that should be allowed to proceed and I say that this bill is a disgrace.

MR. BARBER: I do not rise as the designated speaker for the official opposition. I do rise as a member who's deeply concerned about the nature of this bill, about the way in which this bill both retells and prophesies the continuing attempts by that government to restrain and restrict freedom in this province. I rise as a person who was proud, during the period 1972-75, to have a very small hand in the drafting of this Legislation. I'll be speaking about that shortly.

I'd like to ask a few questions, Mr. Speaker, and they relate entirely and properly to the principle of this bill. I hope that the minister will, at some time in the future if he's not wise enough to withdraw the bill altogether, take an opportunity to answer them.

I'd like first of all to ask the important public question, which is simply: what kind of a government would bring in a bill like this? What kind of a group, a coalition, a front or whatever they consider themselves ' would bring in a bill that as long as they're in power so seriously and so permanently restricts the right of local people to have a say in the nature and the delivery of local services in their own community? What are they afraid of, Mr. Speaker? Are they afraid of criticism? Are they afraid of being tested and challenged and perhaps found wanting?

What kind of a group, no matter how devoid of political principle, would find it necessary and opportune to turn their backs on one of the most brave and exciting experiments in free self-government that this province has ever seen?

Would the group that brings in Bill 65 also bring in a Government Reorganization Act, the purpose of which was to restrict the freedom of this Legislature to debate the nature and control of ministries within the operations of government? The answer is yes.

Would a group that would bring in Bill 65 within six months of coming to office kill virtually every health and human resource centre in the province of British Columbia? The answer is yes.

Would a group which would, within six months of taking office, bring in today a bill like Bill 65 run around killing, I understand, 14 community resource boards in the province of British Columbia? The answer is yes.

Would a group that brings in Bill 65 also bring in a regional colleges Act to remove and impair the freedom of local people to have a say in the government of regional colleges in this province? Yes, they would.

Would a group that brings in Bill 65 also bring in a bill to kill a trade union, in this case at Notre Dame University? The answer is yes, they would and did.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you are reflecting upon another vote, and as such it is not permissible in this debate.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I am reflecting on the course and the conduct of government, which is afraid of local control, afraid of self-determination, and terrified of criticism and debate and public challenge to their policies.

Would a group that brings in Bill 65 also manoeuvre and manipulate the public accounts committee of this Legislature in order to restrict record-keeping and free debate on that committee? The answer is yes.

Would a group that brings in Bill 65 also bring in a bill to establish a British Columbia Buildings

[ Page 5595 ]

Corporation and dismiss between 800 and 1,110 civil servants in the capital, contrary to their political promises? The answer is yes.

Would a group that brings in the B.C. Systems Corporation and puts out of business up to 30 per cent of the small private enterprise and otherwise successful corporations engaged in market research and data research in the corporations sector... ? Would they bring in the B.C. Systems Corporation to do just that? Did they bring in Bill 65 and did they bring in that? Yes they would, and yes they did.

Would a group that brought in Bill 65 also bring an amendment to the Labour Code that would require trade unions to obtain a vote of 55 per cent plus one, in order to obtain certification, and then purport and pretend that it was all a mistake? Yes, they would, and yes, they did.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, one moment please. You are reflecting upon other votes in this session, and as such you would wind up debating those bills again. I am sure the member is cognizant of this. Please have your votes relevant to the principle of this bill.

MR. BARBER: This is most relevant to the principles, or lack of them, of the coalition that would do anything to restrict local government, local control and local freedom.

There is one more act of this coalition to which I wish to make reference at this time. Then I will move on to new matter. I know you'll be pleased, because they don't like to hear this kind of stuff. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the government that brought in Bill 65 recently forced through this House against the combined and unanimous opposition, section 28 of Bill 42 that allows for the first time....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you are completely out of order and I must ask you to desist from this type of debate. Please return to the principle of this bill.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the history of a coalition of opportunists which, once in power, together with Bill 65 and a dozen others that we can name, is telling the people of this province one simple thing: "Watch out! What we promised we did not mean. Watch out! What we campaigned on we will not deliver. Watch out! Now that we're in power, anything goes." That's the principle of this bill. A group that would bring in Bill 65 is a frightened and cowardly little government. It is a frightened and cowardly little government terrified of change and debate and all of the other things that the Vancouver Resources Board so well and so finely stood for.

It seems to us, Mr. Speaker, that any government which, given the history of these other measures, moves and pieces of legislation they've brought in, now brings in Bill 65, is putting across precisely that simple message. We abhor the principle for which this bill stands. We abhor the conduct and philosophy of a government that would bring it in. We abhor a coalition which didn't have the guts, faced with an obvious fight in caucus, faced with the threatened resignation of one of its ministers, to stand up for the decent, true and honourable thing, to kill this bill and to kill the disgusting cowardice and opportunism for which it stands.

I would remind the Speaker that this bill is the product of a coalition. Accordingly, you may want to bear with me as we try and trace the principle of this bill and relate it to the principles, such as they are, of a coalition composed simultaneously of ex-Liberals, ex-Conservatives ...

MR. LEA: And ex-Socreds.

MR. BARBER: ... and ex-Socreds, and, indeed, I'm told, a member of Action Canada.

Lloyd George, in the House of Commons in Great Britain, once said, Mr. Speaker, of such groups and movements as that: "Many have crossed the floor of this House, but few have left so slimy a trail."

Now what kind of a trail do we find left by this group opposite which when in opposition promised one thing, and now in government delivers another quite different. The minister himself, I'm told, was once a member of the Liberal Party and actually campaigned for its leadership. Let's look at the trail.

This bill came in, as I recall, Mr. Speaker - I'm subject to correction - just 24 hours after a meeting which the minister held in Vancouver city with, among others, members of resources boards there who were, quite properly and accurately, criticizing his policies, his programmes and his heartlessness. It is probably no coincidence at all in the public record of the history of this bill, Mr. Speaker, that within a day - a solitary day - of being criticized in a public and vigorous way, Bill 65 comes onto the floor of this House.

As has already been reported, the minister has admitted to the press that this bill was drafted before he received the now obviously erroneous, incomplete and misleading report that he read out on the floor of this House Friday last. It's clear, Mr. Speaker, that the principle of this bill has nothing whatever to do with the content of that report, because the bill came first and the report came second. It's clear that these phony and erroneous charges of maladministration and of mismanagement within the Vancouver Resources Board have nothing whatever to do with the intentions of this minister to kill it, no matter what.

This government is afraid of local control, and Bill 65 represents that fear. This government is afraid of

[ Page 5596 ]

free self-government, and Bill 65 represents that fear. This government is afraid of people who demand the freedom to shape the form and the quality of social services, and Bill 65 represents that fear. This government and that minister are mostly afraid of poor people who would have the nerve, the gall and the courage to question his handouts ' to question his largesse, and to question his patronizing and 19th-century attitudes towards the delivery of social services in this province. They're afraid of poor people who get organized and this bill is one more knife in the back of those poor people, especially in Vancouver.

As represented by this bill, and as is increasingly a matter of public record, the social services policies of this coalition are cruel, stupid and utterly discredited. This bill is but one step further down the road of a hopelessly and permanently impaired social services policy on the part of that coalition.

The minister does not want a Vancouver Resources Board to challenge him on those policies because the policies cannot withstand such challenges, Mr. Speaker. A resources board that questions the absurd and laughable "shovels" programme that this minister delivers is obviously a resources board presenting criticism that he does not wish to hear. A resources board that questions the phony and misleading statistics of the much-vaunted and little-producing PREP programme is a resources board that this bill will kill, and which the minister obviously wishes killed as soon as possible.

Members of a resources board who question the minister's absurd and unbelievable claim that there were, when he came to office, some 10,000 walking dead on Pharmacare, the names of none of whom he has ever produced, is a resources board from which this minister does not care to hear. A resources board , as in my own riding - and I refer to the James Bay Health and Human Resources Centre - that would have the nerve to question the cutbacks in Pharmacare, for which this minister is responsible, is a resources board from which the minister does not wish to hear.

It's clear, by the way, Mr. Speaker, and it should be obvious that one of my motivations in speaking today is to protect what remains of the James Bay Health and Human Resources Centre. What's obvious is that it is next, that it has no future under this government, and that it will be done in as soon as they can find a clever and crafty political way to do it in, without embarrassing my colleague, the other and silent member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) .

The reason the Vancouver Resources Board is being killed is because, in part, We have a group of people who are concerned about those cutbacks. I have a woman in my riding - there are others in Vancouver - who has been the victim of a cutback in Pharmacare. The woman is 76, she has glaucoma, and she is going blind. She was previously treated by a medical practitioner with a drug that has now been cut from the Pharmacare list. On three occasions, we've requested of the Pharmacare programme that they reconsider. The answer has been "no" every time - the cutbacks are to stand. The woman who has glaucoma continues to go blind because she cannot afford, herself, to pay for the medicines that Pharmacare previously paid for.

Why do we bring in Bill 65, Mr. Speaker? I know you're going to ask because you're looking in your book. It's because this government prefers not to hear from the people of this world - the old, the poor -that something is wrong with their policies. They don't like to hear that. It's bad enough that they have to hear it in the House. It's even worse when they go out on the streets and people buttonhole them, when they read in the newspapers letters to the editor, and when they attend meetings and people criticize them. They're bringing in Bill 65 because they are terrified of criticism and because they know that the kind of criticism which have been levelled against them are precisely those that will bring down a minister as heartless and as wealthy as this minister is.

The social services policies of this coalition are utterly discredited, Mr. Speaker. One of the reasons they are discredited is because people in resources boards throughout this province - and in most particular fact, the Vancouver Resources Board -have had the nerve to question and to challenge the right of that or any other bureaucracy to make decisions for them.

I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that when we were in power, having created the resources boards, our policies as well were challenged and tested. They were debated and criticized. Our minister was not afraid of that challenge; our government did not, in the face of criticism, say: "Shut up, or we're going to wipe you out." Our policies, as well, were tested, and I think that's just fine. It's a fine principle.

AN HON. MEMBER: They got wiped out at the polls.

MR. BARBER: That's a good principle of democratic behaviour and accountability. We brought it in. Our government withstood that criticism. Some policies were indeed amended and thereby improved because of the actions of, among others, the members of a resources board that would do the homework and take the time to make the case in a good and effective manner. This minister obviously prefers not to hear this case; he obviously prefers not to hear such criticisms and brings in Bill 65 instead.

I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that during the previous campaign, the Social Credit Party told, in a systematic and deliberate way, political lies in this province. The hon. Liberal leader has already

[ Page 5597 ]

recounted one of the speeches made by the Premier in which, deliberately and systematically, he set out to create an image for the group that is now government, the image of which is now totally undercut and contradicted by Bill 65. You may remember the political lies that were told about the existence of a secret police force in British Columbia, a story that has never stood up, ever, and cannot be defended now or at any other time.

What concerns me most, Mr. Speaker, is that this coalition managed, although they manage no longer, to sell the people of this province a very particular bill of goods. They pretended that they believed in local self-control; they pretended they believed in responsible self-government. They pretended they believed in the rights of poor people, of single mothers, of elderly people and of young people to have a hand in shaping and determining the social services for which they are properly entitled.

Now they bring in Bill 65 and they tell us: "We hope you don't remember our old speeches. We certainly hope you don't look up our old campaign literature and read it back to us. Most of all, we hope you don't think that we meant what we said." It's perfectly clear they did not and they do not. Bill 65 is here today because they never believed it, not even once, not even at the beginning.

This coalition has no faith in the ability of local people to make local decisions and to stand by them. They have instead a faith in themselves that's become utterly hypocritical and degenerate in political life in this province. They're afraid of change, they're afraid of criticism and they're afraid of freedom.

If this not be the case, Mr. Speaker, let every member of the governing party who represents a riding in Vancouver get up and speak on this bill. Let's hear from the first and second members for Vancouver South. They are conspicuously absent today, but we shall presume that is not accidental.

AN HON. MEMBER: You won't see them again.

MR. BARBER: Let's hear from the first and second members for Vancouver-Point Grey.

AN HON. MEMBER: Garde, do you know where they are?

MR. BARBER: Let's hear from the member for Little Mountain. Let's hear from those Socreds who remain ...

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: ... asking whether or not they, representing the people of Vancouver, believe in the principle behind Bill 65. 1 wonder what they'd say, Mr. Speaker. This bill will be up for days and days and days to come. There's time for them to get back; they'll make it if they want to. We have complete confidence that as this bill progresses - if "progress" is the word - and this debate continues - and it most certainly will continue - they'll have time to get back. They've got all the time they need, Mr. Speaker.

Let's hear from them. How do they stand? What kind of hypocrisy will they endorse? What kind of bill will they support? Will it be Bill 65? What shame and embarrassment will they suffer because they campaigned on one thing and now they deliver another?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member , you are making a personal attack on members who are not in this House. As you well know, that is out of order. Please return to the principle.

MR. BARBER: Well, if they were here, I'd still say the same things, Mr. Speaker.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): You've been out of order for half an hour. What difference does that make?

MR. BARBER: Look at the difference in philosophy between that government and ours formerly. Look at the difference in philosophy between the government, such as the New Democratic Party administration that had the courage to bring in a Community Resources Boards Act which they knew would lead to criticism of their own policies.

I mentioned at the opening of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, that I was proud to have a small hand in creating what we now, at least up to this date, enjoyed in the system of community resources boards in this province.

For a number of months, a few years back, before the original Community Resources Boards Act came forward, I had the opportunity to chair a working committee in my capacity then as a member of the Alcohol and Drug Commission, representing people from the Ministries of Human Resources, the Attorney-General, Health, and, for a brief time, Education, because we were considering that as well. We prepared a set of two reports. I'd be proud to table them any day anyone asked for them on the floor of this House.

This working committee was one of several groups that took opportunities to examine precedent and performance in other jurisdictions. We looked at the Seebohm report in the United Kingdom and talked about a very interesting and democratically aligned commitment that government had made - the report itself having been commissioned in the '50s - toward local control of social and health service delivery. We

[ Page 5598 ]

looked at the important work that was done under a previous administration in the province of Quebec by the then minister of social services, the Hon. Claude Castonguay. We examined the precedent and the performance. We looked at every possible case history we could find of any other jurisdiction bringing in legislation that finally became our Community Resources Board Act.

We discovered then what we stand by now, Mr. Speaker: local control can work and it does work. Local control is efficient, it is effective and it is, in most parts, extremely economical. Look at the difference in philosophy, Mr. Speaker, between an administration like that, headed by the now Leader of this Opposition, and the administration of opportunists headed by a now absent Premier.

I believe that people like the present member for Vancouver-Burrard - let me use his name so as not to confuse the members - Norman Levi, another present member for Vancouver-Burrard, Rosemary Brown, and the present Leader of the Opposition, Mr. David Barrett, deserve all the credit and courtesy in the world for their courage and determination to bring in a Community Resources Boards Act. They deserve the credit because they took a chance. In this province it was a bit of a gamble. It was at that time a bit of a risk. They said: "We're going to take a chance that local control, having worked elsewhere, can work here too. We're going to take a chance that local people will become concerned and committed enough to participate through a system of resource boards to make the kinds of decisions that have to be made, and can better be made at a local level than they can ever be made at a bureaucratic level in the delivery of social - and later it was to be health and, finally, education - decisions in this province." At least that was our recommendation.

Bureaucracy is by nature alienated from the people. It is by nature divorced and separate from the ordinary lives of ordinary human beings in this province. No one, least of all our government when in office, trusted the bureaucracy to make sensitive, thoughtful, rational and intelligent decisions about the administration of social services. To the contrary, our government took great pains - and I might say great abuse - to set up a system of social and health services delivery in this province, which would respond sensitively and thoughtfully to the real needs of local people, and account for them at a local level.

It was a brave, promising experiment, and it was beginning to pay off, Mr. Speaker. Now we have the knife in the back to all that kind of democracy stood for, and to all of the future that local self-government had in this province. Community resource boards were, in my opinion, the most imaginative and progressive social policies that any jurisdiction ever introduced in North America. No jurisdiction came close to the kind of bravery and imagination for which our administration fought.

No one, Mr. Speaker, will maintain that the resource boards either in Vancouver or anywhere else were perfect. They were not. They are, or at least were, run by human beings who make mistakes, who get up on the wrong side of bed in the morning, or sometimes have, headaches and sometimes don't read right, and sometimes don't think things all the way through. That's okay. That's fair. We have systems, countermeasures and counterbalances to overcome those mistakes. They will be reported, they will be corrected. It is not and was not perfect. No one, even the stoutest defender of any resource board, has ever maintained that it was, but it had a kind of perfection in this special, enduring regard - it was, more perfectly than any other, an opportunity for local people to exercise local control. In that sense it was a very fine and rare thing. In that sense it was, and is, worth defending until the death.

Look at the difference, Mr. Speaker, between a government that had the courage and the enlightenment to bring in a resource board, and the coalition that speaks the fear and the cowardice to kill it.

I want to talk for a moment about what will, after the passage of this bill, be the solitary remaining experiment in the co-ordinated systematic and community-controlled delivery of social and health services in this province. I'm referring to the James Bay Health Centre Community Resources Board. The Queen Charlotte's is maintained most certainly, and my colleague from Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) will be speaking about that. We have today, Mr. Speaker, right here - these buildings actually live within the area served by the James Bay Health Centre and Community Resources Board the last urban attempt to set priorities at a local level.

In James Bay we have seen the coming together of old people and young people, most certainly the very old and the very young, in the determination - freely and collectively, openly and publicly - of health and social services policies. In James Bay they enjoy the co-ordinated approach represented by a school board that's committed to community education, by a probation service that employs its officers at the site. As long as they've got them, by a regional director in human resources who allows his employees to be served and guided by the people of the resources board, and by a host of local citizens resident in this neighbourhood, in my riding, who believe in the principles of democratic self-government, and accountability implicit in the very nature of a resource board....

It works here, Mr. Speaker. It has been working in Vancouver, and I unhappily predict that as soon as the minister kills the Vancouver Resource Boards, the health and human resources centres that remain will die a quick, unnatural and unwarranted death. This bill is a greedy little grab for power on the part of a

[ Page 5599 ]

minister who can't get enough. It's a greedy little grab for power on the part of a minister who is an acknowledged candidate for the leadership of his own party, and, he hopes one day - God forbid - the Premiership of this province.

This bill is an attack on local control by a government that campaigned and promised otherwise. It is an attack on the freedom that some citizens have been exercising to make a social service delivery system sympathetic, resonant and sensitive to their own needs.

The New Democratic Party was proud to create the Vancouver Resources Board and we're proud to defend it today. We are proud to defend the principles of local control in every instance where they evidence themselves. We will defend this principle of local freedom and local control as long as we can. We promise, Mr. Speaker, that on the day we are returned to government - and it will be very soon - we will reintroduce immediately those principles of local self-control and self-government for which the Vancouver Resources Board has been standing. We promise that it will be reintroduced and it will be reintroduced at a very early opportunity, specifically, the next provincial election.

The day when local freedom and local control comes back will not come too soon. This side of the House wants freedom. This side of the House believes in local and responsible self-government. This side of the House believes in the principles underlying the establishment of community and area resource boards.

The people of Vancouver want the Vancouver Resources Board - and so does the combined opposition - to continue to do its important democratic work. Mr. Speaker, we say let local control endure and prosper in British Columbia; let this cowardly and disgusting little bill be defeated.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): You're not planning a coup d'etat, are you, Scotty?

MR. WALLACE: No. I don't think there is any plot to take over the leadership of the Conservative Party; it's painfully out in the open. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, there is a tremendous irony in this debate in the sense that sometimes a person sitting in my position in the House really has to shake his head to discover if what he thought he heard over the last several years really happened. We joke about the leadership of the Conservative Party - and I appreciate the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs adding his good humour to the debate - but it's this total unreality of British Columbia politics that, in some sense at least, has created a vacancy in the leadership of the Conservative Party. British Columbia politics are just totally unreal.

I'll try not to be repetitive because many of the other members have made the points that I had planned to make. Mr. Speaker, when you think of the main controversy over which the 1975 election was fought and then you look at much of the legislative pattern of this so-called free-enterprise government since it became the government, you really do just have to shake your head and wonder who was saying what to whom in the 1975 election.

I did a little looking back and we all remember that there was a lot of money available to the party that's now the government to take full-page ads. There was one ad here in The Vancouver Sun on December 10,1975, with a picture of the Premier. The big writing says: "This Province Has The People and The Resources to Lick Any Problem." Then, lower down in the smaller writing it goes on to say:

"Social Credit is for the individual and against big government. We do not believe that a central authority is the sole source of wisdom. With good government, the wisdom and initiative to solve many problems and to administer sound policies will be found in the people of a diversified community."

That's one of these $1,200 ads in The Vancouver Sun, very close to polling day. In essence, I believe, that ad articulated one of the fundamental reasons that this party came to power and that the NDP were defeated, because rightly or wrongly, the people of British Columbia were very afraid that the NDP government was indeed centralized and authoritarian and that the most urgent need of the people of British Columbia was to get back to another kind of government espousing free enterprise and freedom for the individual in British Columbia to have a large say in charting his own destiny as a resident of this province.

I will, as I say, Mr. Speaker, save the time of the House without repeating many of the points that have already been made by other speakers today. Regardless of whether we're debating resource boards or any other specific issue, the first point that I feel must be made in debating the principle of this bill is the total and complete contradiction in this bill of one of the fundamental principles which led this party to power in 1975. We've seen many other examples, and although I think sometimes that I've seen everything in politics, I must confess I'm surprised that this government has, to the degree that it has, completely abandoned or become converted in its philosophy toward one of the worst fears that the people of British Columbia had toward socialism - a frightening attempt by ministers to obtain control in their respective ministries.

I won't tread on the rules of the House by quoting chapter and verse, but you all know the kind of bills

[ Page 5600 ]

that I'm talking about. At least I can talk with clear example before us of this particular bill, which in the clearest of terms takes away from individuals at the local level any real authority in determining the kind of social services that are best provided after the local citizens have made recommendations and implemented programmes under the authority which now exists will disappear with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have to be the first person to admit that I voted against the bill setting up the resource boards. One of the reasons I voted against the bill was that I thought I saw the danger of political manipulation - or whatever word one might want to choose - but certainly political infiltration in an area which was intended to provide better social services at the local level. I will touch on this later in my remarks. I do not believe that it has been demonstrated, whatever shortcomings there may well be - and there are shortcomings within this system -that such shortcomings are the result of a devious political plot by any political group to embarrass the government. I plan to enlarge on that a little later in my remarks.

The authority that is vested in the Vancouver Resources Board is worth quoting under section 19 of the legislation, Mr. Speaker. It says:

"The functions and purposes of the general public in the region in defining its own requirements in respect to social services in the region and in the administration and operation of such community boards as are established in the region; to encourage continued communication between the general public, the minister and the community boards; to assume such responsibilities and duties for the administration and delivery and social services as the minister may require; to encourage the development and provision of an integrated system for the delivery of social services; to encourage a preventive approach to the maintenance and improvement of social conditions and the state of a social environment; and by education in these matters to strengthen family and community life."

These are four or five of the basic purposes by which the Vancouver Resources Board exists. I have to ask a question: has the board fallen so far short of accomplishing these goals? In asking that question, I have to ask the minister also to provide a much better outline in his case than he has done heretofore in pointing out that the main shortcomings are related to the work of political groups trying to embarrass the government as their primary motive.

When I put forward the argument that this is not the work of a political group, I can only say that I can recall few, if any, issues in the eight years that I have been in the House where an issue has drawn the cross-section of response in opposing a government bill that has happened in this case.

I don't think that just because the minister's not really very hep on social workers, or because social workers have a certain easy image in the minds of many of the people that they are bleeding hearts and that they have no practical sense of how one runs a government or a ministry, or how one finances programmes.... It is easy in any debate on social services to be very critical and to look, in much the way the minister appears to look, on the matter simply in numbers and in dollars. In this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, we have all had tremendous amounts of mail and telegrams and phone calls from a wide cross-section of people. There's no doubt that many people in the general public, the media, and as someone else interjected, all income groups.... Professional groups are not the least of the users of the service themselves. I mean to refer in a moment or so to one of the studies that was done by asking the recipients of the service what they thought of VRB.

I've certainly received correspondence from groups like the B.C. Association of Social Workers, and from Dr. Wharf, director of the faculty of the School of Social Work at UVic. We've already had reference to SPARC. Who can accuse SPARC of being anything but a very well motivated, sincere group of people who are trying to provide the background information which will lead to better social services? The Neighbourhood Services association, the B.C. Federation of Women, and many other groups and private individuals who represent a cross-section of concern from a whole range of people in our province who are not just some conniving or manipulative group of people with political motives.... The opposition to this bill and what it is about to do is widespread in the province and widely based.

That expression of views, Mr. Speaker, again has to beg the question: has the Vancouver Resources Board been such a dismal failure that with all that cross-section of people in British Columbia speaking well of the board, that justifies a measure such as this that completely dismantles the board, to replace it with the kind of centralization ministerial authority that I've mentioned? It seems to me that there is always room for improvement. We certainly know that the system is not perfect and never will be, but I think we have to say to the minister: are we not throwing out the baby with the bathwater when we look at a system such as this, which may well have areas that can be improved?

Again, let me mention the fact that the government stressed local input and the importance of communities being able to solve as many of their problems as possible at the local level. Surely one of the real assets of the Vancouver Resources Board was the public meeting that was held every two weeks at which anyone could readily appear to express a point

[ Page 5601 ]

of view or emphasize their dissatisfaction or to seek changes. It's very obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the fact that the board met in public on a regular basis provided a safety valve for abuse of the system and provided a very ready access to the system by the individual at the local level. Of course, if one wishes to be highly suspicious, it also provided the opportunity for individuals to complain openly and in public if they were dissatisfied with the service being provided by the staff members at VRB. So the public meetings and the public access at the local level are surely an asset that should not be lightly dismissed.

I was very interested to read the contents of a letter which Mr. Davison, who's the chairman of Shaughnessy-Arbutus-Kerrisdale Resources Board. One could hardly suggest that Shaughnessy, Kerrisdale and Arbutus is an area of immense poverty and suffering, although, to be accurate, Mr. Davison mentions that there is more incidence of the need for welfare in this area than the community generally understands. But that isn't the point I'm wishing to make, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Davison says:

"It is indeed ironic that the NDP should have given birth to the one programme of its time which embraced fundamentally conservative values, while the Socred government seeks to replace it with an impersonal bureaucracy that smacks more and more of state control."

Mr. Davison asked the minister and the government to look at a little bit of history, and I would like to read this into the record. I wish I'd had Mr. Davison writing some of my election material in 1975 - we might have done better. Mr. Davison says:

" A conservative philosophy is based not on the myth of self-sufficiency, but rather on the responsibility of the individual to do his best in co-operation with his neighbour and with compassion for the less fortunate.

"A conservative social welfare policy is based not on remote bureaucratic handouts but on programmes designed to lift people out of the crippling cycle of poverty.

"A conservative philosophy recognizes that society is made up of individuals who deserve respect as people, whatever their social circumstances, and that when individuals are depersonalized, they create a dangerous and festering sore in the body politic.

"A conservative social welfare policy appeals to people's essential dignity and worth; and uses this as a foundation for all its programmes.

"The bad manners and inaccurate generalizations of the Minister of Human Resources impugn the dignity of the people whose minister and servant he is, to say nothing of the dignity and that of the government.

"A genuinely conservative government learns from its own best traditions that a human society consists of more than balanced budgets and efficiency charts, however important these may be. We have learned many times that without trust and mutual respect no society can work."

I think that sums up in very large measure my basic feeling, Mr. Speaker, about this bill. It disregards many of these fundamental, proven ideas which I believe are essential if we are to be a mature and sensitive society.

Having made the general point that this bill is a total contradiction of one of the fundamental principles that party outlined in its campaign, I would also like to say that the second most important point is the abysmal way in which the minister has totally failed to make his case. Regardless of the philosophical differences between how much central control or how much community authority we should have in providing social services.... I would just repeat that I am strongly in favour of the greatest possible amount of local involvement and responsibility. But just for a moment, putting aside the philosophy, let us look for a moment at the case that's being stated by the minister to justify his actions.

I Mr. Speaker in the chair. I

We had a speech on Friday which I think could best and most charitably be described as bits and pieces. The minister in a rather rambling, random fashion stumbled from one weak excuse to the next to try to justify reasons why the Vancouver Resources Board should be dismantled. Basically, without taking a great deal of time to read all the details of the minister's speech, he was concerned about accountability and efficiency on the part of the Vancouver Resources Board, and the fact that he implied - or in fact went further and stated - that the Vancouver Resources Board was not following the policy set by the ministry.

Here again, rather like the paradox I mentioned at the start of my speech, the minister's speech is full of paradox, full of contradiction. It first of all agreed that the board is an improvement over the pre-existing system and, he said: "To the credit of the minister" - the former minister, that is - "the effort is better and social services are more effective in Vancouver today than they were five years ago." I'm quoting from the Blues. That, from the minister, showed that at least the system is better than what we had. Before you throw out a new system and completely dismantle it, does it Dot make some sense to consider what modifications might be made to meet the deficiencies that exist?

[ Page 5602 ]

Again, I'll try not to be too lengthy, Mr. Speaker, but we find from the response of Mr. Fenwick, the chairman of the Vancouver Resources Board, that in fact many of the deficiencies had been brought to the attention of the Vancouver Resources Board, and had been responded to by the board. We have the most blatant inaccuracy in the fact that although the comptroller-general's report asked for certain changes to be made, the financial audit received unqualified approval.

As the minister has agreed, things are much better than they were. Again, I have to ask the question: "Why throw out the baby with the bathwater?" We've had many people involved at the community level, and although we would acknowledge the importance of avoiding overlap and duplication of services, all of these serious problems to which the minister quite rightly referred prior to 1974 had to be tackled. It's obvious that the setting up of the resource boards was a dramatic step in that direction. But in returning to the point, Mr. Speaker, as to whether the minister has made his case or not - and I won't take it point by point, otherwise we would be here a very long time - I do think there are certain points the minister made which have been very clearly refuted by Mr. Fenwick in his press release of today.

The minister laid great stress on the disproportionate in inequitable share of the staff in the province. Mr. Fenwick points out on page 3 of his press release that:

"The Vancouver Resources Board reports all of its staff positions, and the same is not true for the Ministry of Human Resources. A total of 397 positions appear in the Vancouver Resources Board's departments of accounting, personnel, buildings maintenance, and special support s e r vices and programmes. The corresponding positions used by the Ministry of Human Resources frequently appear in the staff complement of other ministries such as Finance, Public Service Commission, Purchasing Commission or other government departments.

MR. BARRETT: Where's Dianne Hartwick?

MR. WALLACE: I wish to quote precisely from Mr. Fenwick's statements so that if this is incorrect, the minister would have a chance to correct it when we wind up second reading. I continue to quote from Mr. Fenwick's statement:

"By using the same type of reporting as that used by the Ministry of Human Resources, it is easy to reduce the VRB's reported staff as of July 1,1977, from 1,372 to 531."

MR. BARRETT: And that doesn't even count Dianne Hartwick.

MR. WALLACE:

"However, not even the 531 positions can be compared to field services in Human Resources since staff complements in Human Resource field services' offices are supplemented by line worker positions purchased through societies, and these positions do not show as part of the complement of public servants."

The minister also referred to average caseload , figures and said they were low in Vancouver compared with elsewhere. But of course, Mr. Speaker, that depends very much on how you count the number of people on staff and where they're listed. Similarly, we have to recognize that all cases would have to be counted in a similar manner to come up with an accurate evaluation of caseload per worker. Mr. Fenwick goes on to say:

"When we compare caseloads for those offices counted on a consistent basis, such as Burnaby and Richmond, we find that the VRB actually has a higher income-assistance caseload. The VRB has acknowledged that it has a lower child welfare caseload, but this is only consistent with the standards set by the Child Welfare League of America, as well as being consistent with the minister's stated policy of providing preventive services so as to prevent family breakup."

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that in listening to the minister's speech on Friday, one of the points that he never touched upon that I recall in the whole speech was quality of service. You can always measure certain statistics by number and dollar figures, the old bottomline approach. If there are fewer clients per worker in one area compared to another, I suppose you can draw any conclusion you wish. But let's not forget to draw the conclusion that probably if there are fewer clients per worker, the clients are probably receiving the standard of service that they deserve.

Another point that the minister made was that too many children are taken into care of the state on marriage breakup. The minister couldn't even calculate his figures correctly. Here we have a minister who is talking about disbanding VRB because they're inefficient, they can't administer, and they're not accountable....

MR. BARNES: He can't even move a motion.

MR. WALLACE: Well, you're correct, Mr. Member, that he can't even say four simple words. But this is a further very serious contradiction of the minister's own credibility, Mr. Speaker. He said on Friday that there were more children being taken into care in the Vancouver area than elsewhere in the province but, as Mr. Fennick points out....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Fenwick.

[ Page 5603 ]

MR. WALLACE: Fenwick? Well, if we want to split hairs on that, people don't get my name right all the time either.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I'll get to that in a moment. It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the minister on Friday said that between 1976 and 1977 the province as a whole reduced the number of children taken into care by 300, while the VRB reduced its caseload only by 90. The province, as a whole, is larger than the VRB, and when the minister's figures are converted to a percentage of the total caseload so as to provide a standard basis of comparison - and what's lacking all through the minister's speech is any kind of standard basis of comparison - we find that the reduction in the VRB of children taken into care was actually twice what it was in the rest of the province. Here we have the minister trying to make the case that the VRB is inefficient, inadequate and unaccountable, and yet some of the very arguments that the minister brings to the floor of this House are blown to pieces in the space of one weekend.

Another contradiction lies in his statement that his appointees in no way should be criticized for lack of dedication - I think that's the specific word he used. We know that he appointed Mr. Fenwick, and yet Mr. Fenwick, as chairman of the board, is one of the main sources of accurate, reliable information to put this whole debate in context. Despite that, the minister claims that the board of directors are puppets for a manipulative administration.

The minister said: "The Vancouver bureaucracy runs itself and coerces board members into believing the kind of nonsense that is fed to them." Now how can the minister have any kind of confidence in his appointees when he can stand up in this House and say that Mr. Fenwick is run by the bureaucracy and that he's coerced into believing the kind of nonsense that is fed to him? What an insult to a public citizen serving in a position to which the minister appointed that person. In one breath we have the minister not questioning that board member's dedication, and in the next breath he's saying that they're so dumb they're coerced by manipulative administrators into accepting the nonsense that is fed to them.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're also dedicated.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Minister, I guess what you're hanging your argument on is the meaning of the word "dedication." Let's put that aside for a moment and assume that your accusation against the board members is that they are being coerced into decisions by believing nonsense that's fed to them. Do you really feel that that is a fair criticism of your own appointees and, this being your belief, it is so important to dismantle the board entirely?

Would it not make a great deal of sense, in view of the cross-section of public reaction from many quarters in British Columbia that this board is serving a very good purpose in an efficient way ... could there not be some modification? Perhaps the Vancouver Resources Board, particularly because of the base of positive support that it has in the community, should be given some opportunity to measure up to whatever standards the minister feels are not being met at the present time.

Again, I refer to the suggestions by the comptroller-general that certain areas were not efficient and should be improved, and that improvement rapidly followed, showing the willingness and dedication of the Vancouver Resources Board members and staff to meet the reasonable requests of the comptroller-general. How much more are they expected to do?

Does it not begin to look more and more as though the minister decided to scrap the board and then he had to try and build a case to justify his position? I believe that that is exactly what this minister has done. That's the cart-before-the-horse approach on basic ideology -the fact that anything the NDP government did had to be torn down. "Now we'll tear down VRB." But the minister has had quite a difficult task ' I can see, providing the evidence to come before this House and justify it for the motives that he asserts.

MR. BARNES: Dead correct.

MR. WALLACE: And what am 1, as a clinician, supposed to conclude from that incredible language, "the board is being led down the garden path into a wonderland crawling with elusive Cheshire cats."?

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: You know, Mr. Speaker, I think if somebody came into my medical office using that kind of description, I would be refreshing my memory as to the definition of paranoia. It seems to me that this colourful, flamboyant, expansive language is again an overreaction on the minister's part to try and justify what he is doing in this bill when clearly, if the case that was presented on Friday is the best that the minister can do, it's very inadequate to justify this radical step back towards a centralized control of these social services. That's even putting aside the philosophical argument I referred to at the outset.

The minister was even rather apologetic in trying to prove his case because he admitted that the accusation of poor administration by the VRB is the addition of a lot of little items. He said: "When do

[ Page 5604 ]

smoldering cinders become a fire?" I say: when do you use a sledgehammer to kill a fly?

MR. BARNES: At every opportunity.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'm saying and acknowledging that there are deficiencies in the system and that, no doubt, improvements could be made. But for the minister out of his own mouth to acknowledge in the Blues for all of us to read that, really, it seems like an addition of a lot of little items and yet to suggest that sooner or later these little items will somehow erupt into some enormous financial catastrophe in the use of funds by the VRB is just asking the opposition or any objective person to be rather easily persuaded.

At any rate, Mr. Speaker - and I won't take a lot of time on this point - many of the alleged irresponsible financial disbursements to which the minister referred have been explained in very reasonable terms by the chairman of the Vancouver Resources Board. I would like to refer specifically to one example because, in my view, this particular example above all others exemplifies how this minister likes to leave part of the story unstated to make the first part of the story have everybody hold their breath and say: "My goodness, some family with a taxable income of $30,000 getting welfare!" That's the immediate response in any citizen. But don't you think, Mr. Speaker, it would have been just a little more fair and honourable to tell the whole story?

And what was the whole story in this dramatic, flamboyant quote about a family who was receiving help equivalent to what would be a taxable income of $30,000 for an individual receiving no government assistance? More than that, Mr. Speaker, he alleged overpayment within that family. The evaluation team went to work on that one, Mr. Speaker, and indicated that no overpayment took place.

The minister overlooked mentioning that this referred to a family of eight, two of whom were blind. Reduction of benefits to the family, which could have resulted in family breakup, would result in an ultimate cost to the taxpayer of two to five times the money being spent in trying to keep that family together. So here again we have the contradiction of the minister who espouses quite rightly the importance of sustaining the family unit and keeping people together, and then he complains because he has to pay out some reasonable sums of money to keep them together.

Mr. Speaker, what has been so provoking to me personally in the way this minister presented his case on Friday was the selective evidence. Tell a bit of the story that builds your case but leave the other part unstated, and then even have the gall to admit that the evidence is really an addition of a lot of bits and pieces. It doesn't seem to add up to much, but it's enough to take the one radical step of dismantling the VRB completely.

I notice with great regularity through the minister's criticisms on Friday there didn't seem to be too much available information with which the VRB was being compared to other areas in the province. Or maybe there is that information, and maybe the minister was rather selective again and he wouldn't tell us how some of these figures he quoted for VRB compared with figures elsewhere. He made the point about a team of internal auditors. I understand, again from Mr. Fenwick's report, that the VRB actually set the precedent by establishing its own internal audit programme. Is that correct?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Look into it.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I thought the minister was looking lovingly at the moment and I just wondered if I'd got my facts correct. I notice he doesn't deny that the VRB set the precedent by establishing its own internal audit system. Is this not something to do with accountability - internal audit?

The point that is also made by Mr. Fenwick is that unlike the case of the comptroller-general's report, evaluation team reports do exist for other areas of the province. When I left this chamber on Friday, I assumed, and perhaps wrongly, that one of the reasons the minister didn't give us comparisons between VRB and certain other areas was that the hawks had been out a little more vigorously prying into VRB's affairs and hadn't had time to pry into other areas so that you could come up with a fair comparison.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Not true.

MR. WALLACE: But I understand that evaluation team reports do exist for other areas in the province. The minister shouts across the floor: "Not true." Well, - let me just state the question very plainly again, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the minister will answer this.

You are not even taking notes, Mr. Minister. You should learn from some of these experienced men who sit beside you who take notes. Then, when you wind up second reading, you answer the points that have been raised. A very simple procedure. Oh, you've got it all in your head. That's what worries me. He says he's got it all in his head and that's exactly what worries me.

Mr. Speaker, let's get this point very plain because I want an answer to this question. It is Mr. Fenwick's statement that evaluation team reports exist for other areas of the province, and Mr. Fenwick suggests that it would be very helpful to the community and all who are following this debate to table these reports in

[ Page 5605 ]

the House. That's very simple, Mr. Speaker. I haven't quoted from anything on all this mass of paper on my desk that I am not prepared to table. Perhaps, if these evaluation reports on other areas of the province by the evaluation team are available, I would suggest the minister table these reports in the House. We can sit down some quiet winter evening and peruse the figures and try to determine what the fair comparisons are.

In particular, Mr. Speaker, I would want to be sure that the evaluating team report on the Surrey area be tabled with this House.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're quoting Fenwick.

MR. WALLACE: I'm just asking: has there been a fair comparison done? So often, from Friday's speech, the minister has been found comparing apples and oranges. I would like him to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges. We don't know until we have the documents.

Mr. Speaker, one could go on a long time, and I don't feel that I have the need to filibuster this bill. I just want to wind up in the next few minutes by saying that this minister very early in his ministry showed his true colours with his remark about shovels. In that remark he showed a tendency to sweeping generalization without really being able to document or specify how he could hold that kind of opinion.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What have you got against shovels?

MR. WALLACE: The way in which the minister has, handled the VRB issue seriously erodes further his credibility by showing his poor judgment. Worse than that, the clearest evidence exists that the minister is prepared to come before this House with a whole collection of bits and pieces of evidence which he claims adds up to enough justification to bring in as radical a change in the provision of social services in Vancouver as is included in this bill.

I would say, and I choose my words very carefully, that in the manner in which the minister has presented either inaccurate facts, or has provided selective evidence which can only be misleading to the members of the opposition, the minister revealed himself in his Friday speech as being something less than honourable in this House. We all address ourselves as hon. members....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Oh, what if I said that about you?

MR. WALLACE: Go ahead. You say that about me if you choose.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I wouldn't do that.

MR. WALLACE: I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, that the facts and figures which the minister did quote have been shown by no less a person than the chairman of the Vancouver Resources Board himself to have many inaccuracies, and to be subject to varying interpretations depending on whether the whole story is told. I would say that this matter is serious enough that the minister, who is looking very unhappy at my comments, should make very sure that he stands up when he winds up second reading and answers, point by point, the statements made by Mr. Fenwick. Nothing more, nothing less is required of this minister, if he is suggesting that my accusation of his inadequacies, his incomplete evidence, and all the other very reasonable rebuttals which are being put forward by Mr. Fenwick in response to the minister's numerous accusations in his speech of last Friday.

I'll just say again that it's very easy for anyone to be critical of social services when one is dealing with some of the very complicated areas of drug addiction and alcoholism, and wife-beating, child abuse, and problems of this nature. It's always easy to be negative. It's always easy to pick out the wrongs and the inadequacies of the services. But I ask the minister: does he really believe that by what he's doing in this bill there will be an improvement or even any guarantee - in his own limited way -that there will be better financial management of the social services in the city of Vancouver? I submit that this is not the case. Regardless of philosophy as to how these services should be provided, I say again that this minister made a pathetic defence of his position and outline of the reasons he has to take this radical step.

One can only come to the conclusion that the emotional decision was made to tear down something which was set up by the NDP, and, having decided to tear it down, he had to scratch around and in fact by his speech showed that he scraped the bottom of the barrel to try and find reasons to bolster his position.

The minister can smile. The trouble with this minister is he smiles at the wrong time.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I smile all the time, Scott. Scott, I smile all the time. It's my outlook on life.

Mr. Barnes moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.