[ Page 5097 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Power Engineers and Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Act (Bill 17). Hon. Mr.

Heinrich.

Introduction and first reading –– 5097

Electrical Energy Inspection Amendment Act (Bill 18). Hon. Mr. Heinrich.

Introduction and first reading –– 5097

Gas Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 19). Hon. Mr. Heinrich.

Introduction and first reading –– 5097

Building Safety Standards Act (Bill 20). Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm.

Introduction and first reading –– 5097

Oral Questions

Intimidation of leaseholders. Mr. Lauk –– 5097

Job safety in government service. Hon. Mr. Wolfe replies –– 5098

Proposed tripling of BCRIC shares. Mr. Barber –– 5098

Noranda bid to take over MacMillan Bloedel. Mr. Barber –– 5099

Racial discrimination. Mr. Barnes –– 5099

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism estimates. (Hon. Mrs. Jordan)

On vote 188: computer and consulting charges –– 5101

Mr. Barber

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Howard

Ms. Brown

Mr. Lea

Mr. Barrett

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates. (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

On vote 10: minister's office –– 5115

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Mrs. Wallace

Ministerial Statement

Fire damage to finance documents.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5119

Mr. Hall –– 5120

Tabling Documents

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills second report.

Mr. Strachan –– 5120

Erratum –– 5120

THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the House is fortunate indeed to have several citizens, under the leadership of Steve Shalhorn, and 30 representatives of the British Columbia Students Federation who are visiting all members of the House. I understand they are now visiting the ministers responsible for both areas of education. I would ask the House to welcome them, and to be thankful that they are taking an interest in their own situation and on behalf of all citizens of British Columbia by coming to the capital today.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, today I am privileged to introduce to the House 50 students who are visiting us from St. Thomas Aquinas School in North Vancouver, under the direction of their teacher, Mr. Campbell. I am proud of this school; it is a school of high accomplishment, an independent school in North Vancouver. I would ask the House to welcome the group of students and their teacher today.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo a bit of the welcome of the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) with respect to those students who are here from Capilano College. It is always a pleasure to have them. I met with a delegation this morning, and they are always welcome in my office.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is an officer of the Progressive Conservative Party of British Columbia, Mr. Loyd Burdon. He is the vice-president of the B.C. Progressive Conservatives. Would you welcome him, please.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in the House today, visiting from Los Angeles, is the coach of the girls' volleyball team of Marlborough High School in Manhattan Beach, California, Mrs. Ann Corlett, accompanied by her daughter and 18 members, and Mr. Don Couch, the coach of the Vancouver Island midget girls' volleyball team. They are hosted by the Victoria Y, and the Far West Volleyball Clubs and the Vancouver Island rep team.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce my high command, my wife, in the gallery.

Introduction of Bills

POWER ENGINEERS AND BOILER
AND PRESSURE VESSEL SAFETY ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Heinrich, Bill 17, Power Engineers and Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

ELECTRICAL ENERGY
INSPECTION AMENDMENT ACT

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill intituled the Electrical Energy Inspection Amendment Act.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I beg to move that the bill be introduced and now read a first time.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I'm rising in debate on this question.

MR. SPEAKER: To the best of my knowledge this is not a debatable motion, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Is that Mr. Speaker's ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: A ruling is not required, hon. member, because this is the standing order and practice of the House.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I rise on debate on first reading of the bill. That's not precluded from standing orders. There's no standing order which precludes debate on first reading of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm recognizing the first member for Vancouver Centre who has suggested that the first reading of the bill is a debatable motion. I refer the hon. member to standing order 45, which is the standing order he has placed in my hands, and it does list the following motions as debatable. Listed are a series from A to K, and the motion for first reading of a bill is not included.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, it is well-known parliamentary practice with respect to debates that every motion is debatable unless specifically excluded from debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Subsection 2 of standing order 45 states further: "All other motions" — than those named in subsection 1 — "including adjournment motions, shall be decided without debate or amendment."

Bill 18, Electrical Energy Inspection Amendment Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

GAS AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Heinrich, Bill 19, Gas Amendment Act, 1981, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BUILDING SAFETY STANDARDS ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm, Bill 20, Building Safety Standards Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

INTIMIDATION OF LEASEHOLDERS

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General. This morning I gave the Attorney-General copies of letters sent to leasehold owners in the city of Vancouver by the First Canadian Land Corp. Ltd., which clearly attacks the right of leasehold owners and their traditional right of freedom of association. The letter illegally imposes additional costs to leasehold owners simply because they may belong to the United Leasehold Owners Association. Has the Attorney-General decided to investigate this matter with a view to the possible laying of charges under the intimidation section of the Criminal Code of Canada?

[ Page 5098 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I wish to thank the first member for Vancouver Centre for giving me advance notice of his question. I can't express a view as to whether or not the charges that this company is attempting to make against certain leaseholders are illegal or not, but it would appear from the letter which has been sent to these leaseholders that there is an attempt to discriminate between leaseholders, based upon whether they are or are not active members of an association. The letter would therefore appear to give rise to quite proper concern as to whether intimidating practices are being undertaken.

As a consequence of the member's action this morning in providing me with the information, I sent it forward to officials of the ministry for immediate attention, to see whether or not it contravenes the criminal law or any of the laws of this province.

JOB SAFETY IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to respond to a question which I took on notice.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago I took on notice a question addressed to me regarding the safety program for provincial government employees. It was directed to me by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), and I might say that it is a kind of detailed information question, which might be more appropriately given by way of notice, so that the member can get the information and an adequate answer right at the time the question is asked. So I offer that as a suggestion to the member.

Mr. Speaker, may I first say that as the minister responsible for government safety programs I'm concerned about the severity-rate question regarding employee accidents. As you know, the Premier's Safety Award for safety achievement was not given for the year just immediately passed. This Premier's award is only awarded when a ministry beats its own record. Unfortunately, none of the six ministries involved in that category were able to do so this past year; that is, they didn't improve on the record which they'd established in the previous year. Awards were given, however, to other ministries in other categories. I want to point out that by not giving the Premier's award, my ministry's safety program section has shown the sincerity of the government when it comes to the safety of our employees.

Like each of my cabinet colleagues, I'm concerned about the increase in accident severity, but I would like to add that this year's figures were heavily influenced by three very unfortunate deaths in the ministries of Forests and Highways. Under the system, which is used in a lot of other jurisdictions as well as this one, there is a severity rate attached to the nature of accidents, and this influenced the trends that took place this year as a result of these unfortunate accidents.

My cabinet colleagues and I are also concerned about suggestions that government ministries are asking for variances of or relaxation of Workers Compensation Board regulations. These variance requests are few in number, but before they are considered they undergo the scrutiny of the Workers' Compensation Board and also consultation with union and management representatives. Nevertheless, I propose to ask that any variance request by any ministry to the Workers Compensation Board be submitted to me so that I may be kept up to date and informed of such a request.

Job safety is certainly not a partisan issue. Every member of this House recognizes the need for ongoing programs to keep our employees safe and healthy.

In 1980 the Public Service Commission carried out a number of highly successful training activities, including industrial first aid, survival first aid, cardio-pulmonary resuscitation programs and defensive driver training. In 1981 the safety program section of the Public Service Commission has been assigned consultative responsibilities for groups of ministries providing in-house development and implementation assistance for further occupational health and safety programs.

Safety is everyone's responsibility. Although we have the regulations, they are really only effective if they are applied on the job every working day. It is no good to have stacks of safety manuals, if the intent of those manuals is not carried out by each of us. Safety works best if it is put into practice, not kept in a book.

PROPOSED TRIPLING OF BCRIC SHARES

MR. BARBER: I have a question to the Premier about BCRIC, which was described yesterday by the chairman of Mac-Blo as a "predator" and "corporate marauder." As the Premier may be aware, BCRIC has proposed to triple the number of shares issued, thus diluting the value of the shares currently held. Have the Premier or his representative met with Mr. Howe of BCRIC, or his representative, to discuss the proposal to issue 200 million new BCRIC shares?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARBER: Has the Premier decided whether or not to request a meeting with Mr. Howe in order to share with him the government's opinion as to the worthwhileness of proceeding to triple the number of shares issued in BCRIC?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, I've decided, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARBER: Could you advise us of your decision, and whether or not it is government policy to endorse the dilution of the value of the shares currently held by the shareholders of BCRIC?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer is no.

MR. BARBER: The share value of BCRIC started at $11.75. It was lowered for political purposes to $6. It's never recovered from that. It's currently trading at $5.45. Is the Premier admitting that it is his government's policy to do nothing whatsoever to protect the investments of the thousands of British Columbians who were persuaded by the Premier to invest in BCRIC, and who have seen nothing but losses, no dividends and high interest payments?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member might be informed that this is not a Crown corporation, but because he's chosen to deal with a private sector corporation, I can say that the value of the company is reflected in its balance sheet and not in the willingness of someone to buy on a particular day, or those who are being frightened into selling their shares by statements by irresponsible people.

[ Page 5099 ]

MR. BARBER: It's shameful that Mr. Knudsen has just been described by the Premier as an irresponsible person. I hope he will apologize to Mr. Knudsen for doing that. Presumably it was, however, similarly irresponsible to artificially lower the value of BCRIC shares from $11.75 to $6, from which political situation the value of the shares has never recovered.

Has the government decided to use its own shareholding in BCRIC to discuss and to prevent the proposal to triple the number of shares issued in BCRIC, which will have the effect of further diluting the value of the individual shareholdings of those British Columbians who currently own BCRIC shares?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer is no. Those shares are committed to the Terry Fox Medical Research Foundation.

MR. BARBER: It's clear that the Premier is admitting that he's doing nothing whatsoever to prevent the further decline in the value of BCRIC shares.

NORANDA BID TO TAKE
OVER MACMILLAN BLOEDEL

MR. BARBER: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. Can the minister indicate whether or not he or his government have reached an understanding or an agreement with Noranda regarding Noranda's proposed takeover of MacMillan Bloedel?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I ask the member if he would mind repeating the question.

MR. BARBER: I'd be glad to. Has the minister or his government reached an agreement or an understanding with Noranda regarding Noranda's proposed takeover of MacMillan Bloedel?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: With regard to Noranda's attempt to buy 49 percent of MacMillan Bloedel, the government's position has been very clearly articulated.

MR. BARBER: After two tries I don't think he heard the question yet. What I've asked is whether or not you have reached an agreement or an understanding with Noranda — with Mr. Zimmerman or with any of its other representatives. I read your press releases too. Have you an agreement with them at this date concerning their proposed takeover of MacBlo?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the member means by an agreement. We have no agreement with Noranda. We have advised Noranda of the terms by which they will comply with government guidelines if they are successful in acquiring 49 percent of MacMillan Bloedel. Those guidelines are broadly known and understood in British Columbia. The details of things that we have asked Noranda to do in order to comply with those guidelines are common knowledge.

MR. BARBER: Also to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis): has the government advised or directed Noranda that in order to have and obtain approval for its takeover of Mac-Blo, it will be instructed to sell its current ownership of British Columbia Forest Products shares to BCRIC?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. As I understand it, the question is directed to the Minister of Forests.

MR. BARBER: Sorry, my mistake.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, we have advised Noranda Mines that in order to comply with the guidelines they are required to dispose of their 28 percent interest in B.C. Forest Products.

MR. BARBER: I wonder if the minister would, at the appropriate time, be willing to table a copy of the government's instructions to Noranda that they are required to sell their B.C. Forest Products shares and as well to advise us to whom Noranda has been told to sell those shares. Was it to BCRIC or to some other corporation?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd be very happy to table that instruction. It's in the form of a letter to Noranda Mines. The government has not in any way attempted to tell Noranda Mines to whom they must sell their shares. We would prefer that they make every effort to have people in British Columbia buy those shares so that the control of that part of the company could be transferred to British Columbia. I'll be very happy to table the letter in the House.

MR. BARBER: Has the minister instructed Noranda that its shares may not be sold to a prospective foreign purchaser?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, no such instruction was given to Noranda Mines.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

MR. BARNES: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Two days ago I asked the minister a question that he took as notice. However, in the corridors he indicated that he would like me to be briefed and sent his deputy minister to my office. I'm wondering if the minister by now has been briefed himself with respect to the question that I asked him. Under the human rights legislation, the director, Nola Landucci, has full power to investigate all complaints and is given complete access to records. Why has the minister interfered in the human rights director's investigation concerning Chandrama Mishra and Vancouver Community College?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, that question was asked, I think, two days ago. I took that question as notice. I can advise the member that I have some information, but I do not have it all yet. I'm trying to find out as much as I can. I appreciate the sensitivity of the inquiry and I undertake to provide him and the House with a full explanation.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's concern about the case, but this is of a question about the case. This is a question about the human rights director's authority to investigate without being interfered with politically by that ministry. That's what I'm asking.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has taken the question as notice, as I understand it.

[ Page 5100 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the information which was passed to me was simply that some suggestion was made to the director to attempt one further time to secure the information from the college which had been requested. I understand that the assistant deputy minister, Steve Stackhouse, had recommended to the director to do this. I gather that the member feels that this is some form of interference. First, I can tell the member that it came to my attention only after the question had been raised in the House. I wonder if there is anything particularly wrong with seeking further and better information to be able to assess the particular issue. I fail, frankly, to understand why that should be a problem. If the member chooses to interpret that request by an official in the ministry as interference with the director of human rights, I suppose that's fair comment. However, I thought it best after talking with him, since that information had been requested, that that opportunity should be provided.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, what I want to raise relates to something that took place during the question period, which I thought should have been noticed by the Chair. The Provincial Secretary took five minutes — and I counted them — to answer a question which he had earlier taken on notice. I would draw the Chair's attention to a ruling that Your Honour made some time ago, which says that if the answer to a question is of such a length that it's going to intrude upon the time of question period, then it should be filed in written form as if it were a written question. I draw that to the Chair's attention in the hopes that perhaps that event will not take place again.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same point of order?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, the same point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: May I address this point of order first while it's still fresh in my mind?

The procedure in the House regarding questions taken on notice is simply that questions taken on notice are answered during question period time. It has been a suggestion of the Chair on many occasions that if the question is of such length that it obviously subtracts from the time in question period, then it is better that it be tabled following question period.

This cannot possibly be a rule. If it were a rule then all questions taken as notice would become answerable only outside of question period time. I'm assuming that if the question is asked in question period, an answer is expected during question period. However, I suggest again — and this is for hon. members who are answering questions — that if the Chair inadvertently, in scrutinizing the question in the first instance, was not aware that the question would elicit the kind of answer which would require a lot of time, then I would ask the hon. ministers to please file those answers after question period because not only would it allow time for more questions, but it would save embarrassment to the Chair.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On that same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I trust that your suggestion that they be filed would not interfere with the minister standing after question period and delivering them orally.

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly not; I think the practice is established.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I would point out to Mr. Speaker that this side of the House has never refused to grant leave for a minister to answer, as he should, after question period — at least this type of lengthy answer. I am therefore asking — because I had questions today that are of great importance to my constituents, and I couldn't ask those questions because that minister abused question period again — that question period be extended by five minutes. I'm asking leave that question period be extended five minutes right now.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. WOLFE: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think I should remind members that, as I pointed out in responding to the question, it was a question taken on notice. Now if a member were to respond to a question of that nature after question period, it would then prevent the member who originally directed the question from responding and asking supplementary questions. I think it's in respect to that fact that it is appropriate on many occasions for a minister to respond within question period. I don't think that I abused that privilege. I notice that the member who directed the question originally was in fact simply making a statement and did not really anticipate further debate on the question, nor did he anticipate any response from me. So I want to point out, with respect, that it is appropriate on many occasions to answer a question within question period.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would recommend to the House that we follow the procedure that we have been following, and the Chair will try to determine when the question is asked whether or not the scope of the question is beyond the time of question period. Is that agreed?

MR. HANSON: On a point of order, the previous remarks of the Provincial Secretary are absolutely false. Those questions were raised in good faith in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, it sounds like the member is debating the point of order. If you have a new point of order, please raise it.

MR. HANSON: I wish to ask the Provincial Secretary for a withdrawal of the remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: I did not hear the remarks. Would the hon. member please cite them so I can determine whether or not they are unparliamentary.

MR. HANSON: The Provincial Secretary indicated to this House that I did not expect a response to my question. I certainly did, and I ask him to respond.

MR. SPEAKER: I simply ask the hon. Provincial Secretary: was he imputing any improper motive to the hon. second member for Victoria?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, heavens no.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered. Thank you, hon. members. That concludes the matter.

[ Page 5101 ]

Subsequent to the proceedings relating to the suspension of the hon. member from North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) from the service of the House, a point of order was raised — namely whether or not, pursuant to standing order 50, the question was put from the Chair in the manner prescribed.

Standing order 50 reads in part as follows: "All motions, except the motion to adjourn and the previous question, shall be in writing, and signed by the mover before being debated or put from the Chair." It is to be noted that a motion for suspension of an hon. member from the service of the House is not a debatable motion. While I also note that many motions have, over a long period of time, been moved in the House without writing and without signature, in the present instance the motion in question by the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) was, in fact, in writing. It was, in fact, signed by him, as the hon. minister has stated.

Having made those preliminary observations, I wish to advise the House that I have reviewed the entire proceeding. I am satisfied, first, that prior to the calling of the voice vote, the question was put to the House in the same manner as has been the practice of the Chair over a long period of time. If objection was to be taken to the long-established manner of so putting the question, it should have been raised at that time.

Secondly, and in any event, upon the question again being put to the House prior to the division on the question, and having in the meantime heard some objection from some hon. members to the established practice, the question was put by the Chair, reading the motion to the House, as is clearly shown by Hansard.

I am entirely satisfied that the question was clearly put by the Chair, both in accordance with the practice of the House and also in strict accordance with standing order 50. Accordingly, I rule that the proceeding in question was in order.

MR. HOWARD: I must challenge that ruling, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The ruling is challenged. I put the question, and I hesitate because I have nothing to read....

Shall the ruling of the Chair...?

Order, please. There's no debate.

MR. NICOLSON: Is it not up to the House Leader to move?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I have to put the motion first, hon. member.

Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

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

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 24

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. member please leave the chamber.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM
(continued)

On vote 188: computer and consulting charges, $258,900.

MR. BARBER: This committee saw the true face of Social Credit this morning. We saw what they were prepared to do with the dead weight of a government majority. If the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) were here, I'm sure he would comment, as I do now....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. On the vote, please.

MR. KING: Don't take direction from the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must ask the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke to withdraw the statement that the Chair is taking direction from the government.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I don't think your hearing is too good. I said: "Don't take direction from the government."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the member withdraw any imputation that the Chair was in any way....

MR. KING: There was no imputation intended, Mr. Chairman; but I don't think the Chair should respond to interference and interjections from the government.

MR. BARBER: As I was saying, if the member for North Island were still here, he would probably observe that during the course of these estimates we have moved to remove $1.9 million of waste, overexpenditure and Socred fat from this budget. If the member for North Island were here, he would probably observe that the Minister of Tourism has offered a lame and pathetic explanation and a halting and impossible excuse for the waste and overexpenditure we find in her general estimates and in this particular vote.

[ Page 5102 ]

If I were a government member, I would like to be able to show a leg-hold trap, as one government member did at one time, or a log, as another government member did at another time, or Smile buttons, as did yet another government member, or maps and charts, as did the government Whip at one time, to illustrate the impact and necessity of the cuts we've proposed and the further cuts we shall propose. However, I'm not a government member. I'm an opposition member, and therefore, apparently, I'm not entitled to show these things visually. But if I were here with a chart, the chart would reveal that we have this year proposed, in a new strategy and a new means of drawing attention to Socred waste, a series of amendments — all cost-cutting — to reduce and try to eliminate, to the extent we can eliminate it, waste in this minister's budget. This committee will know that rather than following the traditional route of moving to reduce the minister's salary by $1 or to $1 — or $1.49, in the case of some ministers — we have instead, prudently, in a disciplined and well-researched manner, specified those areas of fat and waste that we and the people find objectionable. We have not, therefore, followed the traditional and the expected course of moving to reduce a minister's salary. Rather, we have specified, particularly in the fields of office furniture, office expenses, travel for ministers and clearly political advertising — political advertising undertaken by Social Credit at a level that we've never seen in this province before, well in excess of $20 million — those items that we and the people find objectionable, wasteful and imprudent.

If I had a chart I would be able to show you that we proposed reductions in the amount of $12 million in the Forests estimates. All of those were refused by the dead weight of the Social Credit majority in this committee. We proposed reductions in the order of $500,000 in the estimates of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're on vote 188, and reflections on previous votes are, as the member knows, not strictly relevant under the section we're dealing with. We presently are on vote 188, which is computer and consulting charges, and that is the only section we are dealing with at the present time.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it's traditional in debate that when one is speaking on an amendment to a motion in Committee of Supply, he be permitted...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, we're not on the amendment.

MR. LAUK: ...I'm sorry, to a vote in Committee of Supply, that his remarks be made to sound in order and that he be allowed to give arguments of previous votes and amendments to votes in Committee of Supply that would give rise to the Chairman's view that his remarks would be in order. That's all that I assume the hon. member was doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the member for his observation. Again, however, we must remember that we are bound by certain rules under vote 188. I would ask the first member for Victoria to continue on the computer and consulting charges in the Ministry of Tourism.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, what I'm doing is pointing out a pattern and demonstrating the true Socred intent in regard to controlling public expenditures in this particular estimate and in a few others to which I've briefly referred. Again the committee saw the true face of Social Credit this morning, and if the member for North Island were still permitted to be here, he would, no doubt, make the same observation. However, I would observe further and briefly that we proposed reductions in the amount of $400,000 in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs' estimates, and they were all rejected by Social Credit. We have now proposed that estimates be reduced in the order of $1.9 million in the Ministry of Tourism.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm no rule expert, Mr. Chairman not like the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) — but my understanding is that in this House you can't refer to prior votes and so on. This member was just told that, and he continues on and defies you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, may the Chair be at least permitted a very brief response before we entertain further points of order?

On the point of order that was raised, the first member for Victoria, I'm sure, was just about to approach the section in vote 188 dealing with computer and consulting charges. And on that point, hon. member, we must assume that the member is sooner or later going to get to the actual vote which is before us.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that you should not permit the Minister of Transportation and Highways to try to choke off debate when they're trying to talk about saving money for the general public. That's an intrusion on his part and reflects the whole attitude of this government about saving funds.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: And secondly, Mr. Chairman, if I might....

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair is very hard pressed to hear a second point of order, when the first point of order is truly not a point of order. You know, if we are to take the time of the committee on what can best be described as debate rather than points of order, we again lose the value and the meaning of what this committee's function really and truly is.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: On a new point of order. I just inadvertently said: "and secondly." What I meant was a second point of order.

The Chair earlier permitted the minister to waver all over the countryside and talk about 1975, which had nothing whatever to do with the vote. Then when my colleague, the

[ Page 5103 ]

first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), seeks to respond to that, he's stopped dead in his tracks. Now the difficulty arose, Mr. Chairman, in permitting the minister to abuse the rules in the first place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order by the member for Skeena, which has some great validity, there is no question that in the initial stages of debate the minister whose estimates we are presently discussing was allowed some latitude and took other latitudes. Nevertheless, the response that was allowed in rebuttal by the Chair to members at that time was equally wide. Now that we have started anew in our afternoon debate and we are on a new vote, I would hope that we can contain our remarks to the vote that is before us and that we can resume debate by the rules that guide us to serve the people we are sent here to serve.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, although the defensive government, which is clearly embarrassed by its posture regarding our proposed cost-cutting amendments, has rejected a total of $1.9 million in reductions that the official opposition has offered, this estimate is still an opportunity for the government to save face. This government, if it wished, could amend its own estimate of vote 188 and could reduce this vote on its own initiative in order to compensate for the waste that they have allowed in other votes. The value of this estimate is approximately $258,000. We proposed reductions of $1.9 million. We wish we could have cut it by $1.9 million in total. That was rejected.

However, in this final estimate it is still not too late for the government to get somewhat more sincere about cost-cutting initiatives and to be somewhat less inconsistent about their public posture towards saving the people's money, and use this remaining estimate within the Ministry of Tourism as a device, when reduced, to thereby cut back some of the fat in the other estimates which, with the dead weight of their majority this morning, they pushed through this committee over the objections of the opposition. It's not too late for the government to save face.

The record of Social Credit, as we have pointed out repeatedly.... The new device that we have offered this session of reducing specific estimates — and not the traditional $1 reduction in the minister's salary — is something that clearly has disturbed the government. Clearly they were not prepared for this new approach to public expenditure; they were not prepared for this new form of debate; and they are just as unprepared to allow to the opposition what has traditionally been allowed to the government by way of visual aids and illustrations — but that's another issue. It's clear that the utter insincerity of Social Credit has either to be admitted now by way of apology or repudiated by way of action.

We are giving the government one more chance and one more opportunity in this vote to start cutting the fat and to start reducing unnecessary, unjustifiable and, in certain instances, clearly political expenditures. If the government chose, they could reduce right now this particular estimate to $1. They could then transfer from the other estimates that have already passed such sums as may be necessary....

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the whispering member from North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) called across the floor "phony." When he has been part of that phony group over there.... I would just like him to withdraw that remark. I'll withdraw mine after.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Firstly, hon. member, the Chair did not hear the remark. Secondly, it is very difficult for one member to ask for a withdrawal of a word and in the same breath use the same word to describe the member of whom he is asking the withdrawal. If we abide by the rule of debate in the House that only one member speak at a time and we keep the personal remarks out of our debate, then possibly we would not have these problems. I would advise both members who have just spoken to bear that in mind. Possibly now we can continue with debate on the vote before us, vote 188.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, what we're trying to do is suggest that the government take this opportunity to clear its own name and to demonstrate to the people of British Columbia that they mean it when they say that they're cost-conscious. We've now offered, I think, literally 15 or 20 amendments on previous votes. With utter disregard for the need to save money, Social Credit has rejected all of them. With utter disregard for their own campaign promises, Social Credit has dismissed and voted against all of them. With the heavy hand of Social Credit — and we've seen how that works in this committee — they have refused any initiative taken by the official opposition to reduce unnecessary expenditures. Well, this final estimate in this particular ministry is the remaining opportunity for this minister to end her own embarrassment and chagrin which will surely result if we have to go into her riding and hold up our charts — which are legal almost everywhere in B.C. — and demonstrate the total insincerity of a government that poses and parades and prances around as cost-cutters everywhere except where it counts, which is in this chamber at this moment in these estimates.

If the government were persuaded that cost-cutting was valuable, this is the committee where it would happen. If the government had respect for the traditional role of this committee, they would accept these particular amendments from the opposition, and would thereby end the charge of insincerity and lack of consistency on their part when it comes to cutting costs. But, no, apparently they want it both ways. They want the Premier to be able to run around the province, posing and parading as a cost-cutter — and some people might believe it — yet in this particular estimate neither the Premier nor anyone else, it would seem, will take the remaining opportunity presented in the votes of the Ministry of Tourism to reduce costs. So once more I propose to the government that they, at their initiative — because apparently if the opposition takes the initiative, it's instantly refused, no matter what, no matter how reasonable — take the opportunity to reduce this estimate and transfer from other funds for other purposes such moneys as may be legitimately needed for this, and thereby proportionately reduce the unnecessary and indefensible expenditures in other aspects of this ministry. Clearly the government would have no great problem, we presume, going to the comptroller-general and saying: "In the name of cost-cutting we've reduced one particular estimate. We need money for this particular purpose. Let's take it out of another aspect of our administration." I'm sure the comptroller-general would grant authority for that purpose.

We are sure that this committee should not grant authority at all to the continuing bloated expenditures in the Ministry of Tourism that have not been justified by this minister and that cannot be justified by logic or precedent or by any government that is meant to be taken seriously when it tells us it's interested in saving tax dollars in a year of restraint.

[ Page 5104 ]

They turned us down for $12 million in Forests, $500,000 in Universities, Science and Communications, and $400,000 in Municipal Affairs. So far, they've rejected $1.9 million worth of cost-cutting amendments that we've put forward. Let them now take this opportunity to exercise a change of heart, and reduce at their own initiative — which we will support — this particular estimate, and thereby, at least potentially, save a quarter of a million bucks here and reduce fat elsewhere, and make the transfer within the ministry itself. We think this is a creative and sensible proposal from the official opposition. We make it now for the first, but not the last, time.

MR. COCKE: I too am sad that the member for North Island isn't here to raise some of the arguments that I'll raise. I want to ask the minister a question or two. She's been strangely silent. I gather that she's been silent by virtue of the fact that her colleagues told her: "For heaven's sake, keep your seat." But, you know, Mr. Chairman, we are here to question ministers. We ask questions.

Incidentally, I would also like to suggest that I'm very suspicious of anything that occurs that has the word "computer" attached to it. My suspicion is that this government is being bilked by the whole computer system that was set up in that Systems Corporation. Two or three years ago we hardly ever heard the word in terms of the estimates. Now we have a massive estimate for computers in each ministry.

Last year the minister estimated that she'd be spending $337,000 on computer work done for her ministry by the Systems Corporation. Of course, we only have the first three reports, which is nine months of the 12-month period. However, if they were to continue spending at the same rate they would spend about $192,000; whereas this year they're asking for $258,900. In other words, there's been a drop.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

One of the reasons we didn't move an amendment to reduce was that there was actually a gross decrease. However, let's look at the net for a moment. If they continue to spend at the same rate they will have spent $192,000 by the end of the year. Therefore $258,000 indicates to me an increase of $66,000. Even knowing that, we decided to be totally and completely responsible and give the minister an opportunity to justify this amount that she has before the committee. Certainly the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) would have been making this argument much stronger than I because of his willingness to be totally honest and to demand that from others. I would wonder if the minister at this time could stand in her place and tell us what she's doing. So far she has batted a thousand. Not one intelligible answer....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) agrees with me totally. She's batted a thousand. She hasn't answered intelligibly one question that we've been asking in the last three days. What about a first? What about giving us some reasons for the variety of figures we see before us?

Let me review them. Last year's estimate was $337,000. This year's estimate is $258,900. This is a drop. However, last year's spending rate for the first three-quarters indicates to us that there will be an expenditure of only $192,000.

Therefore it would indicate to me that there was an increase of $66,000. Does she need it?

HON. MR. FRASER: Take your hands out of your pockets.

MR. BARBER: Take your hands out of the people's pockets.

MR. COCKE: That's right. If I pick any pockets it'll be my pockets, Mr. Chairman, not the people's.

Mr. Chairman, let the minister reply. In her reply, let her tell us about the marvels of the computer age. Let her also tell us whether or not she's satisfied with the working being done by B.C. Systems Corporation for all government services. She might also give us a little personal information with respect to her family. I wonder whether or not her husband is satisfied with the computer system of this province. I've yet to talk to a doctor who hasn't told me that the whole computer system is a mess since it's been moved to B.C. Systems Corporation from the old medicare computer system of their own — months late. I wonder if they're doing as good a job for the Ministry of Tourism as they're doing for other ministries. It's an utter disaster, Mr. Chairman.

Anyway, can we have some justification of these figures?

I know the minister was ordered to sit in her place, but I've asked a very simple question. Surely that order can be countermanded by someone. Surely someone can give her permission to rise and answer a very simple question. I know the rules of the House. Ministers do not have to answer questions if they do not feel like it, which makes the whole thing a mockery to some extent when they really adhere to that. We've already been treated to Fairyland all the way through these estimates. I'm now asking a very simple question on the last estimate of the minister. Can she justify this expenditure of $258,000 pure and simple, in view of the fact that last year she had $337,000, which we gave that ministry with gay abandon? "Go your best licks, ministry." They're only spending $192,000. We're being asked for $258,000, and justification for that is all we ask.

MR. NICOLSON: This is remarkable. We've asked some....

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I was trying to extend to that member the courtesy of listening to his question. If he wishes to proceed on the matter, I would answer the other member's question. He asked, pure and simple, if I could justify the expenditures that I'm putting before the House at this time. My answer is yes. I can and I will.

MR. BARBER: Was that a point of order?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair saw the Minister of Tourism rise, and the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) sit down. If it was a point of order and the Chair didn't recognize it, the Chair apologizes. The committee allows reciprocal debate. The member for Nelson-Creston has the floor. Please do not interrupt.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I would have hoped that the minister would have been rising to.... I was

[ Page 5105 ]

ceding the floor to the minister if she wanted to answer. If she wants to answer the question in some detail now, I'll do so again if she indicates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, if the minister wishes to speak to the she will take her place.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't rise lightly to criticize the use of computers in government, in medicine, in assisting the handicapped or in the many ways in which computers are improving our lives. But one has a greater responsibility and that is to see if the money which is being spent on computers is being allocated in the most prudent and efficient manner, particularly when onerous tax increases have been necessitated this year. It's our duty in each and every one of these votes to look at ways in which savings might occur.

Look at last year's experience. The ministry came in and asked for $337,000 for this item and by the 10-month period had expended an amount of about $160,000. At any rate, I've prorated that and for 12 months it would be $192,000. That's a good $140,000 difference. We've got hundreds of these votes. If we could pick up $100,000 on several of these votes, I'm sure that our savings will amount to something over $100 million. When we're finished going through all of these votes, it'll be more. It'll be up in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The public deserves some explanation.

We see there is some admission of guilt, because the vote has been reduced this year from what it was last year to some extent — some reflection, some admission. There was considerable underspending and overestimation last year. Let's look at this in terms of zero-based budgeting, as if we were starting right from the beginning. Maybe we should say, "Let's start at zero dollars," and not "What did we spend last year? Let's increase it 10 percent or 12 percent. That's the rate of inflation." Let's look instead at what we do need. What are we trying to do?

First of all, I ask the minister: are you getting service from a time-sharing central computer service? Is it timesharing from one large main-frame centralized computer? If the answer to that is yes, has the ministry investigated the option of looking at a minicomputer for their needs — something which probably comes in the range of $20,000 to $40,000, with several discs, printers and umpteen megabytes which can hold pages or a book of information? That's probably more than what the minister has outlined. She said: "We're going to put the green book on computer." Indeed, they might even be able to make do with a microcomputer? Maybe they could get by with an Apple III computer — a good solid business computer — a TRS-80 model 2, Texas Instruments or Heath. There are many that medium-sized businesses are using. For instance, I know that in my area Kootenay Forest Products have a payroll of about 500 people. They have a huge inventory. They're into both plywood and lumber. They have a tremendous woods inventory, forestry analysis — all kinds of things to do — and they do this on a minicomputer. It's a stand-alone system. They certainly have more people, I believe, than the minister's entire establishment in her ministry, but they manage. I think they probably have a much more complex problem to solve. They have modelling that they have to do in terms of their forest management, their timber supply analysis — everything internally, as opposed to the Ministry of Forests.

Has the minister investigated other options? Does the minister realize that the improvement in computers has been so dramatic that if the same improvement had occurred with the automobile, a Rolls-Royce would cost $2.50 and would get 200,000 miles per gallon? Does the minister realize that each year, instead of things getting more expensive, they're getting cheaper? In fact, the committee might be interested to know that just a few weeks ago I bought a line printer. A line printer is something that has to be obtained so that one can get some solid printout, because we still read print. Things that are on screens have a nasty way of disappearing and getting lost, so we have what we want as hard copy. Line printers just a couple of years ago cost $3,000 for just about anything you would care to look at. Very fine line printers with all kinds of options — spacing, which I'm sure would probably fit the minister's needs — are selling today for as little as $500. A few years back, they sold for $40,000 and $70,000 — machines that didn't do any more than what is being done today on a $500 machine. Everybody knows that computers that used to fill a room this size are now on one little chip and occupy a space of maybe a couple of millimetres, and they are less than half of a millimetre thick.

I'm asking the minister that if instead of having the Systems Corporation put them more and more — if that is the case — on a main-frame computer, they have explored the option of microcomputers. Because the Systems Corporation is not putting the high schools and the elementary schools in this province onto main-frame computers. They are buying Apple computers for the schools. They're buying them in lots and getting some economics by buying in bulk, so obviously the Systems Corporation has seen fit to do that in some cases. I would like to know from the minister then — and perhaps she's ready to respond — whether she is time-sharing on a large main-frame system. Have you looked at some of the other options? Is your ministry aware of the tremendous breakthroughs in terms of reducing computer costs, the ways and means of reducing computer costs and the fantastic ability of small 8- and 16-bit machines which are on the market today?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I thank the member for Nelson-Creston for his comments and his questions.

Yes, we are overviewing the whole process of internal management within the ministry. We've made a lot of changes, as the member knows, both from general discussions we've had and the discussions under my estimates at this time. You'll see by looking at vote 188 that we have already reduced the costs here by $78,000 for this year — a 23 percent reduction. It would be my hope that as we move on and our new team fits into place.... As you know, we are a new team working together. We've done a lot in reorganizing the ministry and creating many new programs. We give the member our commitment, as we do the taxpayers. As I mentioned many times in our estimates yesterday, the ministry is under constant review. We are looking for better ways to be more efficient, to give better service and to make better use of the tax dollar but still meet the commitment of our mandate. This is one example.

As far as the type of computer system to use, I am not a computer expert. One of the reasons that we are so fortunate to have our new deputy and assistant deputy of operations, and the reason why they came from the area of expertise that they did, was to be sure that our ministry would in fact be accountable and that as minister I would have the opportunity

[ Page 5106 ]

of having the best possible advice in areas in which I'm not an authority; and certainly computers is one of them.

I share the member's sensitivity to computers. I think I'm on record in this House as saying that I think they can probably be a great asset in life and save a lot of time, money and energy. But like anything of a highly technological nature they are man-created, and like man they can make mistakes. So while we made these changes this year, Mr. Member, we're using the B.C. Systems Corporation in major part for Beautiful British Columbia magazine: for billings, tracing lost billings, lost letters and lost subscriptions, or confirming subscriptions and checking our subscription lists on an interim basis. We're using it for policy development and planning, and at this time it's our intention to work with them in our research branch helping to coordinate, if we can, the myriad of pieces of information of a statistical nature that we get in the ministry.

Again, I mentioned that the hon. members were concerned that our annual report was not available for my estimates. I appreciate that, but in the past we've been in a position — not necessarily our fault — as a ministry, because we coordinate statistical gathering with the federal government and other bodies so there's no duplication, of being at a disadvantage in getting that information in the time-frame we would like. So we feel that with our new research system and by using the computer we'll be able to give you and the industry faster answers.

We'll take your comments to heart, Mr. Member. We've got them noted, we'll be looking at them, and by next year I hope to be able to give you a more definitive statement as to what the final policy will be. We will utilize different systems, but we will be most cautious that we don't spend money unnecessarily in utilizing or trying a system that might be more effective.

MR. NICOLSON: In terms of the use of the computer for keeping track of subscriptions and, I suppose, for doing labels for Beautiful British Columbia magazine, how large is the subscription and what does B.C. Systems Corporation charge for that specific service? Within a few thousand, what's the breakout on that charge? How many subscriptions, and what's the breakout for that charge?

HON. MR. JORDAN: We're just checking the figures. I think we're around 369,000 for direct mailing subscriptions. But one would have to recognize that that's not the only work we do. When I became minister I was astounded to find the number of letters that relate to Beautiful British Columbia magazine. Pardon me, it's 367,000. People write from all over the world, and from time to time I go into the ministry to the mail-sorting desk and put my hand on a stack of letters they're working on that day and just say: "Would you send me those letters when you've finished with them?" I'm sure the member would be interested to know that they're from all over the world. It's amazing.

The members have been talking about publicity and the attachment of the minister's name. They've been very complimentary in this area, and I agree. When I became minister I said to our assistant deputy of marketing: "Do you think we could take my name off some of these things?" I had long discussions about this, and we compromised. He said: "You have to understand this is a very personal type of business. People relate to you and your name is easy to remember."

I've been shocked myself by the number of letters that come as a result of the picture and message inside Beautiful British Columbia  magazine. As you've noticed, I've tried to turn it into more of a personal invitation to come to British Columbia, because I feel this magazine is almost a heritage piece in itself, and it has a very high standing. But also it must serve, without upsetting that quality, as a lure piece for British Columbia, and it does that very well. The number of people that write "Dear Pat Jordan" or "Dear Mrs. Jordan...." To date we've had over 25,000 responses from our spring advertising, and you would be amazed at the number in there that refer to "Pat Jordan." So I've had to accept the advice that I received from our marketing assistant deputy that this, in fact, is a selling piece. Then with Beautiful British Columbia magazine we get hundreds and hundreds of letters referring back to previous articles and previous subscriptions. Often when we're shipping overseas, there will be a delay in the bundling; it's not our fault — they leave our warehouse and they leave British Columbia — but they may get hung up in trans-shipment on the airways. We even traced one group that was missing and we found that somebody left it out in the rain — I think it was in Ghana somewhere. So there is a tremendous amount of correspondence relating to the magazine, and by using the commuter system they can trace back very quickly, and then we're able to give that person almost instant service.

I'm sure the members would agree, because we are a marketing ministry, that our job is to create a good image for the government, for the people of British Columbia and for the industry, and to invite people here. So it's very important to give service as quickly as possible. I'd like to see the member who brought it up, I'm sure, express his appreciation as well as my own to the staff of Beautiful British Columbia magazine. They're the ones who have brought this magazine to its pinnacle among world publications and who have produced the type of product that has taken the name of British Columbia around this world, which has brought us so much acclaim and which, of course, is bringing us so many visitors.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to concur with the minister; I too think Beautiful British Columbia is a wonderful magazine. I give it to friends I meet from around the world. I think there are around 367,000 subscriptions right now, and I would like to ask the minister for one piece of information: how much of the computer service charges do the various services for Beautiful British Columbia magazine represent? You mentioned policy planning and other items, and I guess that they take other parts. I'd like to know what the breakdown of this is in terms of what we've been spending this last year. How much does it cost, and should it continue to cost that much? It's just a little bit of updating each year; I doubt that too many people are cancelling their subscription to Beautiful British Columbia, so it's mostly just a few cancellations and lots of additions.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I think the member must have misunderstood. There is a tremendous amount of work related to Beautiful British Columbia magazine. It isn't a matter of just plugging in a name that comes in as a subscription and not having that name come up except once every four months until the next year; that isn't the case at all. There is a tremendous amount of recall needed, a tremendous amount of addressing to those subscriptions and the letters plus the

[ Page 5107 ]

other services that I advised you we apply. I'm told by the magazine people themselves that they are running it very efficiently. We're not in a position at this time — because we've been entering into new programmings in the middle of the year and, as I mentioned, have the whole matter under review — to give a detailed breakdown. I'm sure we'll be able to get into that area next year, but we're in a transition stage and, as the member knows, we would get involved in a cash-flow situation.

I'm sure the member would not suggest for a moment that to go back to a hand-recording system in Beautiful British Columbia would in any way save us money — I don't believe it would — or would in any way increase the service or even meet the service we're offering to those people, who are so vital to the tourist revenues in British Columbia. I also thought the member might know that we have approximately 40,000 to 45,000 magazines on the stands each production.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. HOWARD: I feel like starting off my remarks by saying "Dear Mrs. Jordan" or dear something of that sort, but I can't because that would be contrary to the rules. One of the things that amazed me a moment ago was that a question was asked to the effect: "Can the minister justify this estimate of $258,900?" The minister rose and said very quickly and briefly, "Yes," and sat down. Now that misses the point of the whole thing. The question carried with it the implication that somebody would like an explanation, not just: "Can you justify it?" "Yes, I can justify it." The minister can justify anything, at least to herself. She may not convince many members of the committee or many members of her own party, but she can certainly justify pretty nearly anything.

Let's have a look at what this amount of money is. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that this estimate before the House is a padded figure. It does not reflect the real expectation of expenditure for computer services. I submit to you that the minister knows that to be the case as well. I submit that the purpose is, somehow or other in concert with all the other ministries, to build up a surplus, to overestimate the expenditure.

Maybe you want some rationale for that. In the 1978-79 fiscal year, computer services for the Ministry of Attorney-General underexpended their estimate by over $700,000. In 1979-80 the Attorney-General's ministry overestimated the funds they would require for computer services by over $100,000. That's just one department spread over an encompassing two fiscal years, for which we have information. In 1978-79 the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs overestimated by $1 million.

Let's look at the Ministry of Tourism. Here in this year's estimate of the Ministry of Tourism the minister says she wants $258,900 for computer services. She justifies that by the bold, fattened declaration: "Yes" — no explanation or anything. If we take the figures for the immediate preceding fiscal year, 1980-81, we find that the minister then asked for — and got — $337,000. For the ten months for which figures are available of the last fiscal year, she spent $160,000 of that. That's roughly $16,000 a month. If you move that ahead into the remaining two months of the last fiscal year, it comes to $192,000 spent out of an allocation of $337,000. That is a deliberate overestimate by this ministry of 43 percent.

The story is the same all the way across the board. In the 1978-79 fiscal year the Ministry of Economic Development overestimated by three-quarters of a million dollars — soaked the taxpayers an additional three-quarters of a million dollars in order to hide the money some place for some other purpose, not for the purpose required. In 1978-79 the Ministry of Travel Industry — admittedly it was combined with a different ministry; it was the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Travel Industry.... We're talking about the Ministry of Tourism as it was in 1978-79, in order to show that there's a pattern of activity. If the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) were here, this is what he'd be doing. Regretfully, that is not the case.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. First, we must be very specific on vote 188. It is most improper, as the member, I'm sure, is in his heart aware, to go back, for example, three years.

MS. BROWN: She went back to 1972.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please permit the Chair to finish. I ask the member to be a little more specific to vote 188.

MR. HOWARD: I thought I could not be more specific. I didn't go back to the election of 1975, like the minister was permitted to do, which had nothing whatever to do with tourism or anything else. I was not doing that. I was talking about the Ministry of Tourism and the vote before us relating to computer service charges. I'm pointing out what the history of computer service charges has been in that ministry and how they've consistently padded the accounts. If I could just make that one reference to the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Travel Industry, which was the forerunner of the Ministry of Tourism in 1978-79, it was underexpended or overestimated $383,000. It was 27 percent padded — a 27 percent grab of the taxpayers' money for no real purpose except to overtax in order to build up a surplus for some other reason.

What about the following year, 1978-80, when it was the Department of Tourism and Small Business Development? It's another example of excessive estimating. Overestimation in that year was $82,000 — 25 percent overestimated.

As I said earlier, for the last fiscal year, the minister's department was overestimated by 43 percent. Now she wants another $258,900, She says flatly, without any equivocation, question or explanation, that, yes, she can justify that. That's not good enough.

The only thing that appears to be factual in all this....

The common thread throughout the whole of the government activities in computer services.... We can run down the list: Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Economic Development, Energy, Environment, Forests, Health. One year Health was almost one and a half million dollars. All the way down the line the government has padded the amount of money they said they required for computer service charges in order to overtax the population of this province and build up a little side kitty of money to drag out for electoral purposes at election time. That's the purpose. Realizing that as a fact of financial life with this government, that's why the New Democratic party is intent upon trying to save the poor taxpayers of this province some money. Every motion that we've moved to reduce estimates in an area which does not

[ Page 5108 ]

affect services, in the lavish travel cost and the lavish office expense and the lavish office furniture cost and the padded accounts like these.... Every single motion we've moved — 15 or 18 — to reduce expenditures and save the taxpayers' money, that crowd across there has had the unmitigated gall to stand up and vote against them, to vote against the general public in this province, to reach their hands out and keep them in the general taxpayers' pocket — pickpocketing by padding the accounts.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: The minister's not a pickpocket, Mr. Chairman. I'm talking about the aura and the atmosphere surrounding the government. They are intent on simply building up a manufactured set of accounts, to say: "We want so much money." I think what the minister is obliged to do is more than that just crass.... I won't say that; it slipped out, and it should not have. She should do more than just that off-the-top-of-her-head, or wherever it was, comment: "Yes, I can justify this amount of money." Given the history of this ministry and this government for padding the accounts of money they need for computer services all across the board, all across every ministry and over every fiscal year for the last three years, I submit that the minister is obliged to stand up and be candid with this House and tell us in some detail what she wants the money for so that the committee will have some understanding as to whether or not this is a real figure.

As the first member for Victoria did earlier, I submit that we've attempted to cut some of the lard and fat out of this ministry, as in previous votes the committee dealt with. There's lots of excess there. You could easily completely wipe out this computer service charge, leaving a dollar for purposes of authorization to spend the money, and from the other fat and waste and extravagance in the department you could find the money to pay for the computer service charges. There'd be no problem in doing that at all. But for the minister to simply say, "Yes, I can justify that," leads the committee and me to believe that that is not a statement that truly reflects the minister's true knowledge of what's going on in her department. She knows full well that this amount is padded. She came to the House and said they needed that money. She knows full well they don't need that amount of money. She is not providing the committee with factual or truthful information. So long as she is just content to sit back and say, "Yes. I can justify that," I think the committee has no other choice open to it but to come to the conclusion either that the minister has not got the foggiest idea what goes on in her department — that seems to be closer to the truth, given what certain cabinet ministers have told me — or that she knows what's going on in the department; she knows she doesn't need this amount of money, and she's trying to lead the committee to believe that she does. It's improper to do that.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Last year she didn't even know if she was getting paid or not.

MS. BROWN: She said she was stunned.

MR. HOWARD: I think she said: "I'm astounded." It was the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) who said he was stunned. I think they may be synonyms among Social Credit ranks.

I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that the committee has got to have a better explanation of what's going on in the department than that blown-up account that simply says: "Yes, I can justify it." The minister's not prepared to go any further and provide the committee with any further information as to why there was a 27 percent padding of this account for computer services in 1978-79, why there was a 25 percent padding of the funds required in 1979 and 1980 and why there was a 43 percent padding last year. If she can't give the committee any better explanation than the simple one "Yes, I can justify it," then she doesn't deserve to be the minister. We'd be better off with no minister, letting the department run under a deputy minister without a political head. I'm sure we'd do a lot better.

If the minister is prepared to provide the committee with some information as to why she padded the accounts, why she came in here with figures which are.... I'm not going to say false, Mr. Chairman; I gather that's a no-no. It's a no-no to say the accounts that she is presenting to us — the estimates of expenditure — are false figures. I would be offending the rules of the House if I said they were false, Mr. Chairman. If I said to the minister that she knows they are false, I would be offending the rules of the House. So I'm not going to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, four examples are more than sufficient to say what is not in order.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, Mr. Chairman, four examples are sufficient to indicate that the minister knows that the figures she brought before the House are not accurate figures. As long as the minister sits there in a slump, making no indication of any effort to get up and reply to this sort of thing, the only thing I can do is move the committee rise, report progress or resolutions — whichever is the appropriate and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 27

[ Page 5109 ]

An hon. member requested that leave be granted to record the division in the Journals of the House,

On vote 188.

MR. HOWARD: I was hoping after that that the minister, in front of all her colleagues — the people she sits with in secret, in closet, to discuss matters — would stand up and tell the House why she wants $258,900; but she sits silent like a burnp on a log, ignores the whole question and expects the whole committee to go ahead and say: "Yeah, you betcha! Here's your $258,900." What arrogant nonsense is that? What way is that for a minister to treat a committee that's trying to do justice to the taxpayers of this province? It's a disgraceful display of arrogance. Or maybe she just doesn't know. Maybe it's ignorance rather than arrogance.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I've given the member a number of answers to his question. I've told him that we're utilizing our services for Beautiful British Columbia magazine, policy development and planning, the research branch and.... I don't want to be repetitious and tedious. The member commented on the saving. We have re-evaluated our systems, we have streamlined the ministry, and we made a saving of $79,000.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. It seems that the opposition doesn't seem to know a damn from a damn, because they can't seem to understand what's going on. They don't seem to understand their own debate; it's very much in conflict.

I won't repeat it, but I would assure you, Mr. Chairman, that our request in this vote is for $258,900. We have been able to save $78,100 for the reasons I've mentioned. I would say again that, to the best of my knowledge, this is very necessary, and it will be spent in the best interests of the taxpayers and the mandate this ministry has. If I could save one cent between now and the time it's spent, then I certainly would. I don't think we'll be able to; but we're in a cash-flow situation, and I give my commitment to the voters. We're very pleased with what we've done with our budget this year, and we believe the citizens will be very pleased with what we do with our budget next year.

One last thing. If you'll check Hansard, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) asked me to say very simply whether I could account for it. I said: "Yes, I could." I think I answered his question very much in the terms that he meant it to be.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), I know that sometimes in debate we use terms that on reflection would be better not used, and I wonder if the minister could possibly, for the benefit of the Chair, in maintaining decorum, withdraw the word "damned" as a matter of courtesy to the....

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps the members don't know that there are two types of dams. There are the major dams, such as at Williston Lake, and there are the dams for the dyking system.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the minister just withdraw the term.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: By all means.

MR. HOWARD: The minister made some reference to being in a cash-flow situation. That's why she had to pad the accounts over and above the amount of money needed. Did she mean the cash flow was short, and therefore they've got to levy extra taxes? Or did she mean the cash flow was sufficient, so she'll have a surplus at the end of the year? Or does she have the faintest idea what cash flow is?

We're just not getting any response out of the minister. It looks like we're probably going to be here the rest of the afternoon trying. We'll try. I've got to do some more figuring.

MS. BROWN: Unlike the minister, I'm not going to be talking about the election of 1972 or discussing the election of 1975, because I recognize that as a member of the opposition I'm at a decided disadvantage in this House. If I say anything which upsets the member from Point Grey or any of the other government members, they can move a motion to have me thrown out of the House for three days.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: As a member of the opposition, I recognize that the government now uses this ploy in order to ensure they never lose a vote.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, it is most improper to reflect upon a vote in the House. On numerous occasions this afternoon passing reference has been made, but the member presently recognized by the Chair has carried that well past the bounds of good taste, and I must ask that we now go on to vote 188.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I want to draw to Your Honour's attention that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds was not casting reflection upon a vote; she was talking about the arrogance of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and the political intention they have of doing anything to stifle the proper examination of things in this chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. That was not the observation of the Chair at the time. But the member continues on vote 188.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, in continuing, I wonder if you can advise me what recourse I have when the Chair accuses me of poor taste, because I certainly resent that comment on the part of the Chair, and I don't know whether I can ask the Chair to withdraw it or not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the member takes offence at anything the Chair said, then the Chair certainly...in no way tried to do so. If the member feels that way, then certainly the Chair is more than willing to....

MS. BROWN: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I accept the Chair's apology, because I'm sure that's what the Chair is trying to do.

[ Page 5110 ]

I was merely pointing out — and quoting from Hansard in doing so — that in participating in the debate this morning the minister wandered far and wide dealing with the 1972 and 1975 elections and a number of other issues. I'm suggesting to the Chair that it was not my intention to do so. I think one of the reasons I mentioned what happened to the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was simply to say that as a member of the opposition I recognize that it's been established as a precedent that a government member can have a member of the opposition thrown out of the House. I recognize that I am an endangered species in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I think it is incumbent upon the Chair, in reviewing the member's comments, to reflect that the decision taken was one regarding a parliamentary process, not one as suggested by the member. The points that you make regarding the debate this morning are well taken. Latitude was taken at that time. It's very difficult for the Chair to insist on curtailing debate. I would ask for the member's assistance, though, in responding to the comments made earlier this morning.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a fascist.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're a communist.

MS. BROWN: I'd rather be called that than be called a marauder and a predator, which is what your government has been called. I think Calvert Knudsen was being generous to your government when he called you that. He should have called you thugs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Firstly, I must ask the hon. member to withdraw the term "thug."

MS. BROWN: I withdraw the word "thug," Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Secondly, my remarks at this time are not addressed to the member who is standing, but to the remainder of the members in the chamber who are not allowing the member to take her place in debate, which is certainly a member's right. That member, whoever she or he may be, deserves that right and should have no interruption from other members. I warn members of this assembly that interruptions will not be tolerated.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, your admonishments are well directed to all members of the House. I would hope, too, that it would be added that members must remain in their own seats if they intend to participate either informally or formally.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. We really only have one formal type of debate in this House. There is no informal type. Nevertheless, the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition are most timely and appropriate.

MR. NICOLSON: To expand on that same point, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is presently occupying the chair of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). He was interjecting. When one reads Erskine May on interjections, interjections are not tolerated, but it is grave disorder when they are made from another member's seat. I would ask Mr. Chairman to consider that very carefully.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The purpose of the committee could be well served if all members would afford each member the courtesy that that member deserves in having an opportunity to speak in the chamber.

MS. BROWN: The minister, in speaking in response to the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), said that in fact the ministry was saving something in the order of $78,000 on this particular vote. I think what we really need to do is clarify for the minister's sake exactly what's happening here.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

A year ago the minister's estimate of $337,000 to be spent on computer and consulting charges was approved because at that time the minister said that that was what her ministry needed. What we learned from reading the interim financial statement is that until January 31, 1981, the ministry had in fact spent only $160,000. My colleague the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) did a projection on this and said that if all proceeds exactly as it has for the last ten months, by the end of the fiscal year the ministry would have spent $192,000. If that is the case, Mr. Chairman — an underspending of something in the neighbourhood of $66,000 — why is the minister now asking for $258,900, an increase of 33 percent? In every other of the minister's votes which we discussed earlier — the building occupancy vote and the other votes — we find overestimating for 1979-80, underspending and again a request for another increase.

What I pointed out this morning and what I want to point out again is that money doesn't fall from above. The government raises its money through the process of taxation. What we have is a ministry deliberately overtaxing people. In other words, the people of British Columbia were taxed last year to raise $337,000 for this particular vote. The ministry is only going to be spending $192,000. What is going to happen to the balance of $145,000? Is it going to be returned to the taxpayers of this province? Has it been returned to the taxpayers of this province? The answer is no. Once again we find that the government is overtaxing the people of British Columbia in order to build up a surplus, because once again — as they did last year, the year before and the year before that — we're going to find an underspending of their estimates. Who pays these taxes? Everyone who works in this province pays these taxes.

I pointed out to the House this morning — and I'm going to point it out again, and I'm going to point it out every opportunity that I get — that a report released by the federal government shows that British Columbia is the only province in Canada where the number of people who work and still live in poverty is increasing. There's a reason for that. Part of the reason why the working poor get poorer in this province is because of the taxation policies of that particular government. If there was a system that the government used that said only the very rich pay taxes, then maybe the opposition would not be so exercised by this talent on the part of this government to overtax everyone, to under spend their budget by cutting

[ Page 5111 ]

services, and then to turn around and use that surplus to purchase votes come election time. The opposition resents the establishment of this porkbarrelling account which this government is continually involving itself in simply because most of the people who are being forced to put their hands in their pockets and contribute to the election fund of that government are the working poor.

Mr. Chairman, the report goes on to say that there are 50,500 families living in B.C. in which the head of the household is working yet earning less than $4,000 a year. The report goes on to say that this comprises 12 percent of the national total, and it is the only province in which that number is increasing. In every other province in Canada the number of people who are working and living below the poverty line is on the decrease except in British Columbia. The reason for that is because of that government's policy of deliberately overtaxing the poor people of this province so that they can have a surplus fund to contribute to their porkbarrelling account. Maybe the opposition would not be so exercised if, for example, that government did not indulge itself.... I think the minister is trying to get your attention, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'm listening to this debate with great interest, but I wonder if the hon. member would refrain from suggesting that I am part of collecting tax dollars for a pork-barrel. I'm not. I would ask her to withdraw; otherwise I'm enjoying what she has to say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, actions speak louder than words, and if the minister, in fact, is not a part of the government's plan of overtaxing people, she can prove this by simply cutting back the budget of her ministry, as was requested by the opposition, to the tune of $1.9 million. Words mean absolutely nothing. The only thing that we can judge that minister on is her action. She has an opportunity now, while we're still debating the estimates of her ministry, to cut her budget as was recommended.

The minister has left the House. Should I move the committee rise? Yes, I think what I have to say is so important to the minister that I would move that the committee rise, report progress, resolution or whatever turns the Chairman on.... There are only three government members over there anyway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The appropriate motion would be "progress."

MS. BROWN: Yes. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived. on the following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 27

MR. LEA: What we're doing, Mr. Chairman, is discussing this Legislature voting money that this Minister of Tourism will have the authority to spend. Now I don't know whether it's wise when I'm looking at the record of this minister. For instance, is it wise to give a minister money to spend when that very same minister went to a conference in Manila and when she arrived there found out that she was ten days late for the conference? It seems to me that there should be a little bit of discretion used when voting money for a minister who actually jumped on an airplane and travelled thousands of miles at taxpayers' expense to find out that the conference was over when she arrived. I think I'll just let my case stand.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, a serious accusation has been made against the minister that I want clarified. We have reports that the minister arrived to attend a conference ten days after it was over. Now I'd like the minister to get up and say why she got on the plane after the conference was over and went there. What did she do when she got there and she found out that the conference was over? I'd like the minister to explain that.

There are a lot of taxpayers out there who would have liked to attend the conference on time, let alone ten days after it was over. But it's the taxpayers who were spending the money to provide her with air fare to get over there. Now I want to know....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Agriculture and Food rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're dealing with the vote concerning computers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken, hon. members. We are debating vote 188, computer and consulting charges. If the committee could relate the remarks to that vote, the committee would be well served.

MR. BARRETT: I would hope that the minister would not make unnecessary points of order. Everybody knows that airline tickets are ordered through computer, and if the minister doesn't know that, then I just don't understand why he would interrupt that way.

Now I want to know why the minister ordered airline tickets through the computer to attend a conference ten days after it was over. There must be an illogical explanation, and if there is an illogical explanation, then that minister is capable of making it. Before we pass this particular vote, I want to know why the minister went to a conference ten days after it was over. Was she sure that that way she wouldn't have to speak?

[ Page 5112 ]

MR. BARBER: Was the Premier sure?

MR. BARRETT: Or was the Premier sure that that way she wouldn't have to speak?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I want to thank you, but you're not the minister. There must be some explanation. Now I heard that this was the same question that was asked at Lumby when the minister blurted out an expletive in response to the taxpayers there — a word that even I would blush to use, but that minister used it with taxpayers in her riding. The initials of the word, Mr. Chairman, were....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I think we might be approaching unparliamentary language.

MR. BARRETT: For the edification of the members of the House, the minister did not say "brown sugar," but she told the folks in Lumby what she thought about their criticisms. I ask the minister: were their criticisms related to the fact that she attended a conference ten days late? Did she reimburse the Crown for the expenditures of going to a conference after she found that she got there ten days late through the computer?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You're not the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Agriculture and Food rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I appreciate the humour of the Leader of the Opposition in attempting to relate plane tickets to computers under the minister's vote. However, I would ask that he be brought to order and that he deal with the vote at hand.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. In fact, if we look at the vote before us we'll see that it provides for payments to the British Columbia Systems Corporation for data processing and management consulting services. If members of the committee could relate their remarks — as has been done in most orderly fashion by other members of the committee from both sides of the House — the Chair would appreciate it.

MR. BARRETT: I ask the minister under this vote: did she hire a consultant to help her prepare the speech that she didn't give at the conference, where she was ten days late in arriving?

Mr. Chairman, I think the minister has been told to shut up. I think she's been ordered to be quiet in the House and not answer any of these questions, or she might get thrown out.

Now I ask the minister directly, through you, Mr. Chairman: did you hire a consultant to help you prepare a speech for that particular conference that you missed by ten days?

Mr. Chairman, what kind of response is that? I ask the minister, so we can get on with other things in this House: did the minister hire a speechwriter to help prepare her speech for the conference in Manila, at which she arrived ten days late? If so, how much did it cost us to prepare the speech that wasn't given?

Mr. Chairman, it's right under this vote. I've been waiting all through the estimates to ask her this single question. I've been in order all along. I've only taken about 30 seconds of time. I've asked a simple question on behalf of the taxpayers. Did she hire a consultant to prepare a speech for that conference in Manila, which she missed by ten days? And if she did hire a consultant to prepare the speech, how much did it cost?

Can the minister answer just this simple question: did you miss the conference?

Mr. Chairman, there's nothing in the rules that can require the minister to respond to questions. But isn't there something akin to British army rules on dumb insolence?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I advise you that the Chair would find it quite unparliamentary if you're imputing it to another hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Insolence is unparliamentary?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The other expression, "dumb," would be.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I'm asking for guidance from the Chair. Is there anything that is akin to the British army regulation against dumb insolence?

The taxpayers of British Columbia are out there working every day. The money comes here to Victoria, and it's spent in Manila, in China and all over the world by that minister, allegedly in performance of her duty.

In this one time of accountability, once a year, when the poor taxpayers, through their representatives, ask a few simple questions about their tax money, we want to know: did the minister hire, with tax money, a speechwriter to prepare a speech for her, under this vote, to attend a conference for which she was ten days late when she arrived? The question, as I understand it, is completely in order, because it's confined to this vote and directed to whether she hired a speechwriter to prepare a speech for that conference. I'd be happy with an answer, Mr. Chairman; that's all I want.

MR. HOWARD: The Premier told her not to answer those questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are on vote 188. I might remind the committee that, with respect to travel, it's a vote we have voted on and passed. We cannot reflect on a vote that has already gone before the committee.

Can we proceed on vote 188, computer and consulting charges?

MR. BARRETT: You're absolutely right, Mr. Chairman. I would never make reference to the thousands of dollars it cost for her to get there. No, I won't make reference to that. I won't make reference to the money it cost to keep her there in a hotel room, because that's a different vote. I won't make reference to expenditures of any staff she may have taken with her. On this specific vote, I won't mention all those other things. I just ask this simple question: under this vote, did you hire a consultant to help you prepare a speech for the conference at which you arrived ten days after it was cancelled? That's all.

[ Page 5113 ]

HON. MRS. JORDAN: The member obviously doesn't understand what this vote is about. There is no way, even if one wanted to hire any type of person relating to any of the 50 things he's mentioned — you wouldn't do it under this vote. I would like to help the member, but unless he stays in order and directs himself to vote 1881 can't help him. I'd like to.

MR. HOWARD: What arrogance!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Once again, vote 188 provides for payments to the British Columbia Systems Corporation for data processing and management consulting services.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition on vote 188.

MR. BARRETT: Does the minister use any of the management consulting services?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: No.

MR. BARRETT: Will the minister please tell us who in her ministry uses the management consultant services? You don't use them. Who uses them in your ministry?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: This is an internal matter. I'm advised by my assistant deputy that we use management assistance only as it relates to the system's programming.

MR. BARRETT: Are they outside management consultants, or are they internal consultants that you have to replace salaries for internally?

I don't want my answer whispered to the Chair. If you don't know what's going on in your department, I give you enough time to consult the people who the taxpayers pay to tell you.

I ask you a simple question. Are these inside consultants or consultants from outside government?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Vote 188, computer and consulting charges — BCSC data processing and management consulting services — that's what our vote is. If the member would like to confine his questions to my vote, I would do everything possible to assist him. The Chairman has reminded the chamber and committee over and over again that we must confine ourselves to the vote which we are debating. I'm doing my very best to assist the Chairman. I'm doing my very best to assist this House get on with the business of the people of British Columbia. I think that many of us have strayed from time to time in the heat of debate, but for my part, I'm trying to comply with your requests and the rules of this House. I would say that I'm very concerned about the fact that it's probably been very costly for the taxpayers to see the House involved in this sort of debate that doesn't relate to the business at hand.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. minister, confine your remarks to vote 188, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I will accept your guidance, but I refuse to be lectured to by the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will take care of that, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Would you please read the vote again, Mr. Chairman, so we both know what we're talking about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think all members are aware of the estimate. The Chair has pointed it out. For the information of the committee, vote 188 says "computer and consulting charges." The description following states: "This vote provides for payments to the British Columbia Systems Corporation for data processing and management consulting services."

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Specifically related to the management consulting services under this vote, I ask the minister to tell me where these management consultants come from. Are they internal, in her own department? Does she have any management consultants in her own department under this vote? Does she hire outside management consultants under this vote, or are they all exclusively from the B.C. Systems Corporation? If they are, what specific assignments do they do in her department, under this vote, in conjunction with their charges from the British Columbia Systems Corporation? That's all in order.

MR. MUSSALLEM: On a point of order, I respect the leniency of the Chair, but as a member I would like direction. I see no possible way that we can stretch the debate that's going on into management. The vote provides for payment to British Columbia Systems Corporation for data processing and management consulting services. That is a connection with data processing.

The hon. member who's just spoken could have brought this up under vote 186, marketing and advertising. This has nothing at all to do.... He could even have brought it up under vote 185.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're entering into debate now, hon. member. I have read what the vote provides for and the amount of money that we're being asked to vote the minister, and unless the minister can advise the Chair that the questions do not pertain to the department, then the questions are valid.

MR. MUSSALLEM: On the point of order, the Chairman must decide what is valid questioning in the vote before this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Records will show that the Leader of the Opposition has asked questions with respect to management consulting services, which are listed under vote 188.

MR. BARRETT: Perhaps the minister is now getting the answers I seek.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate the hon. member's patience, but there is no way I want to stray from the vote, nor is there any way I wish to give the member any false impression.

The payments under vote 188 are made by the ministry to the Systems Corporation only. The payment is for the management consulting from the corporation for the purpose of developing the systems that we will be using for the services that they will be providing us. That will be in the research branch. This is new to our ministry. We will have a number of systems to be developed in a new way because we are trying not to duplicate research in any way. We are trying to draw on

[ Page 5114 ]

all the sources we can, whether it's the federal government, the private sector or other governments, so that when we initiate research it will be in an area that is already lacking, or there will be a very specific purpose for moving into an area where it might be considered overlapping and I don't anticipate this at the moment. It's in putting that sort of complex system together that we utilize their management consultant. As far as I know — and we're checking very carefully to see if anybody in the ministry might have — we have no reason to suggest that anybody has in any other area.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we now have an understanding. The minister says that this vote deals with the consulting process — management consulting plus the actual service of the computers — in terms of her ministry's needs as defined by her ministry and, as I interpret the answer, also to avoid duplication where other ministries may be seeking information in the same area from the computer.

I ask the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, do you have anybody on your staff who is directly responsible for the decision-making under this vote in the input of the computer services? Does that person meet regularly with the management consulting bureau — either individually or in groups, in government service or out of government service — and with the B.C. Systems Corporation structure that sets up this research? Do you have anybody in your ministry assigned to meet with those management people?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to reflect on other votes but the member will notice that there was provision in my budget — and it has passed in this House — for the position of a director of program and planning development. We haven't hired that person yet but presumably that will be the person who will dialogue from our ministry with the Systems Corporation.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we finally got to where I want to get to. Through a long process we have an admission now by the minister that they're going to hire somebody who presumably will be coordinating the needs of the ministry through what we've budgeted here. What I'm getting at is that we've got a great big lump of money in here with the minister now admitting that there is no one coordinating her ministry, but once they hire someone they possibly will be doing so. It took me all this time to get to that point and the point made very well by other members: we're voting on a vote here that is a pig in a poke because there is no one coordinating what this money is going to be spent on — not one bit of it.

It's taken 20 minutes of taxpayers' time and money to discover that this vast sum of money has been thrown here in the budget, and we now have an admission from the minister that they haven't even hired the person who — and I use the minister's own words — "presumably" may be supervising this expenditure. And you ask us to endorse that kind of flipflop floating budget that has no controls and no accountability. You're spending money all over, going to conferences that are already over, and then you say in here that "presumably" there will be somebody looking after this. You're blowing money with no controls. You arrive in Manila and the conference is over. You made no statement of what's going on. You have no idea. And then you admit in here after all this debate on this vote that you haven't hired the person yet. And if you do, "presumably" that will be the person who supervises for your ministry.

How did you arrive at this amount with a person in your ministry, who is not yet hired, "presumably" being the person who supervises? Was it by licking your finger in the air? Did the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) tell you how much it was going to be? Did the Systems Corporation send you a letter that said: "Your share will be X"?

Mr. Chairman, we have exposed again a minister who has admitted in this House that the sum in there is probably nothing more than a figment of imagination or a guess figure, because they haven't even hired the input person for her department who she says may presumably be supervising those tax dollars.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

If we've ever had an admission from a minister in this House on a specific vote that they don't know what's really going on in their department, we sure have had a prime example of it here today from that minister. She doesn't even know when a conference is over but arrives and spends the taxpayers' money anyway. She arrives in Manila and blows all that money on airfare for a conference that was cancelled, while people in British Columbia are going hungry, as the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) pointed out. And then she admits on this vote, Mr. Chairman, after 25 minutes of questioning that she hasn't yet hired a person to supervise this vote, and if she does "presumably" they may have some accountability for this money. It's a scandalous admission of complete lack of accountability by a minister who was thrown into that job before there was even legislative permission for her to have it. We had to clean that up and give her back salary because she'd been wrongfully appointed — there wasn't room in legislation for her to be appointed.

Sloppy! Lack of accountability, disregard for the taxpayer, conferences that don't exist, Manila flights out of nowhere, and now there's an admission under this vote that there is no one in her department who supervises the account — they may hire somebody, and "presumably" they may do it. What kind of an admission is that? You don't even know, through you, Mr. Chairman, what's going on in your department, and you're asking us to approve tens of thousands of hard-earned tax dollars from people in this province. You don't even have one iota of knowledge of what's going on. You don't! And you say that you presume that somebody's going to come in and supervise this money. I'll be darned, Mr. Chairman, if I'm going to lend my vote to one penny of taxpayers' dollars going into the hands of that minister when she can't even tell the House what the money is going to be spent for, how it's going to be spent and where it's going to be used.

Mr. Chairman, do you not find it significant that the minister sat silent for all that time before she asked specific questions under this vote? I do. She had a hunch that she didn't know what was going on in there. Then she found that her hunch was true. She proved that she didn't know what was going on in there. How long has the department gone without a person supervising that money? How was it that the opposition finds these things out? Oh, yes, Mr. Chairman, I confess. It took me a long time to get her to admit what I already knew. How long did she know that that job was vacant that she says will "presumably" do the supervision of this account? It's a shocking failure by that minister to protect taxpayers money in this province, It took 25 minutes of

[ Page 5115 ]

prodding, questioning, easing and pushing — all in order, despite the defense mechanism of that poor battered Whip from Dewdney and other cabinet ministers. The fact is that no matter how much they try to cover for that minister, and silly things like going to conferences in Manila that were already cancelled, she cannot say to this House that she's got a handle on this vote and can account for every penny. Shame!

It goes on through this whole budget and this whole system here. We are speaking purely of this one vote, and I want to keep it to this one vote. But others may expand it to other parts of the budget. Not me, Mr. Chairman. This one vote, this disgraceful performance this afternoon by the minister (a) admitting she's not quite sure where the management consultants come from; (b) silence on whether or not she got to Manila ten days late; (c) admitting that there is no one hired yet in her department to be directly accountable for this sum of money for the B.C. Systems Corporation; and (d) admitting that when they perhaps hire that person, "presumably" they'll be the one in charge of taxpayers' dollars. There isn't a business in British Columbia that says: "Here's a big lump sum of money. Presumably we're going to hire somebody who will presumably look after it, but please give us the money anyway." Those people out there who pay the taxes, Mr. Chairman, are the shareholders of the company of British Columbia. There is a member of the board of directors. That member of the board of directors should be fired for incompetence, because she doesn't even know what's going on in her own department.

All that tax money and you sit there, Mr. Chairman, with what I must say is a satisfied grin; yet you are able to sit here in this House and admit that there is no one in her department who is supervising this. When they hire that person who's researching it, presumably they'll have the input. Now you go out and tell that to the people of British Columbia. That's how you're looking after their taxpayer dollars. You go out and tell the people of British Columbia that that's what you do to look after all the money that some people out there working hard — single mothers, who have another 2 percent on sales tax coming into your department.... And you can't give accountability. You arrive in Manila at a conference ten days after it's over.

Mr. Chairman, I've kept right on the vote. It's taken me 25 minutes to get the following fact out of the minister: that the money under this vote goes to the B.C. Systems Corporation. She admits that there's no one in her department that supervises this money. They hope to hire somebody, and "presumably" that person will have the input. Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't accept her presumability. I don't accept her record of arriving at conferences ten days late. I want a guarantee that if this money is voted in this House none of it will be wasted.1 don't see how any responsible person could vote for it unless there's someone who can give accountability, and that minister hasn't shown one shred of evidence.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask a question. I'll only know when the minister tells me whether it's on this vote or not so I ask for a little bit of latitude. I don't know whether the person I'm going to refer to was being paid out of this vote.

The minister fired someone from her department because she was not pleased with who that person saw socially in the evenings. I'd like to know from the minister whether that person was being paid under this vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the conduct of any staff member outside.... As the hon. member can appreciate, I'm having some difficulty in relating this to either this vote or anything else.

MR. LEA: A staff member who worked for the minister was fired. I know that person was fired because the minister didn't approve of who that person was seeing socially. What I'm asking is: was that person fired out of money under this vote?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Not having any other information, you may proceed. We can ask questions, but we cannot insist on answers. On vote 188, the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: To give the minister an opportunity to reflect, I move that the Chairman now leave the chair.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 27

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. LEA: I have one question to the minister before we conclude. Does the minister have anything to declare?

MR. COCKE: I asked a rather simple question, Mr. Chairman. She answered me, and I want to thank her.

Vote 188 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

On vote 10: minister's office, $160,971.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I know that we'll be able to proceed with my estimates in an orderly fashion. They will probably go through fairly expeditiously this afternoon and we might possibly wind up by tomorrow. In the

[ Page 5116 ]

lateness of the hour I'd just like to make a few comments and then attempt to do my best to answer any questions. I would advise the members of the House that I've had my staff on red alert since 10 o'clock this morning, but at 4:45 p.m. I suggested to them that they could go home. If there are some questions I can't answer tonight, Mr. Chairman, my staff will be here with me tomorrow morning.

First of all I have a few opening remarks. As the members know, my responsibilities cover the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Agricultural Land Commission and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. I would assume that under my minister's vote we would be discussing these three areas of responsibility, and I'd be pleased to respond to any questions on them.

The estimates give the minister the opportunity to respond on the activities of his ministry for the past year and, of course, to outline programs and activities for the coming year for which the estimates are voted. Looking back on the year 1980, I can say that it was a good year for agriculture. All sectors of the agricultural community have shown growth. My staff have sent information to various agencies and to members information regarding the growth of agriculture in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member for Cowichan-Malahat mentions that she hasn't received one, and I apologize for that.

MRS. WALLACE: I said: "Don't display it."

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, it's not an exhibit.

Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to touch on a few items in that fact sheet. The economic indicators show growth in population of British Columbia that has increased since 1977 — and this document relates to a four-year period — by 6 percent. We've attempted over the past years to develop a plan or a strategy to become more self-sufficient in food production. As the members opposite will know, we set a target in 1976 to achieve 65 percent self-sufficiency by 1985. It's a tough target to meet, and we haven't seen the growth I would like to see, except we have been able to meet the population increase in this province. Although our percentage of market penetration hasn't increased substantially, we have been able to meet that population growth of 6 percent over the past four years.

The number of farms in the province has increased by 5 percent over the past four years. In 1977 we had 19,800 farms in British Columbia. We now have 20,800. That's an increase of 5 percent over four years, whereas across Canada the number of farms has decreased by 2 percent. We've had a growth of 5 percent in lands brought under cultivation in British Columbia. Across Canada the increase has been nil. Again, our agriculture industry is expanding. We're putting more land into production to meet the expanding population of this province.

We've had good increases in farm cash receipts. They're up 44 percent over the four years. Just to touch on some of the commodities, Mr. Chairman, milk sales by farmers are up 13 percent over the past four years, whereas Canada's only increased by 3 percent. Poultry sales are up 25 percent, whereas across Canada they're only up 13 percent. Egg production is up 7 percent, whereas across Canada it's up 9 percent. So we didn't do as well as the Canadian average there, but we do show an increase. Apple production is up 32 percent, whereas across Canada it's only up 22 percent. Vegetable receipts are up 53 percent, whereas across Canada, in four years, they're only up 30 percent.

One of the main areas of activity in this province in the past four years — and I think we've been very successful — is in hog production. The agricultural critic across the way and other members will know that back in about 1977-78 we had a major problem in hog production in this province, to the point that the processor was closing down his hog-kill line, which caused a serious problem for those producers in the province that depended on the processor. We worked with the hog producers and with the processor. He reopened his kill line. He said: "You guarantee me a supply, and I will process it." I can tell you now that there are approximately 5,000 hogs a week going through that processor, which is Intercontinental Packers in Vancouver. We've seen, since 1977, a 177 percent increase in hog numbers in this province. I think that's a credit to the industry, the hog producers of this province, the processor and to my staff, who worked very closely with the producers and the processor in that regard. There are other indicators here, but I would think that gives you an indication of the activity that's gone on in agriculture over the past years.

One further point. Farm cash receipts are up 44 percent over the past four years — a realistic increase in farm receipts.

In 1980 we expanded our mandate from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. In our reorganization we've attempted to become more involved beyond the farm gate, in the food sector of our economy, to assist in the attempt to find markets, to look at the economic benefits of adding value to our raw products, to look at further processing and to obtain new markets. I look forward to the coming year of additional activity in that area beyond the farm gate, which will benefit our processors, retailers and wholesalers by moving that product to market and creating jobs. This will at the same time assist our primary producer, the farmer, on whose back rests a lot of economic activity. Without him, we couldn't have that value-added sector. If we do increase our activity in the value-added sector, then the farmer will reap the benefits with regard to increased production.

So we've expanded our mandate. We reorganized our ministry and regionalized our activity with regard to extension in field services. We now have five regions in the province, and we have five regional directors. I think you've seen a major change in 1980 in the thrust of the ministry. With that activity we hope that in coming years we will see greater market penetration for B.C. home-grown products.

It's been a good year, with one exception. Basically that exception is this: it boils down, more or less, to inflation. In that four-year span that we've looked back at with our economic indicators, farm receipts have increased by 44 percent. Expenses for the farm operation have increased by 48 percent. So the farmer, like every other sector of the economy, is faced with ever-increasing costs. In addition, the farmer has to face the weather, something which a lot of our commercial activities don't have to concern themselves with. They have to deal with imported products and imported produce. In many cases they don't have protection at the border like the eastern manufacturer does, and our farmer has to compete with low-cost imported product — often a surplus product that comes across the border.

[ Page 5117 ]

The farmer in this province is an independent businessman and, I think, a prime example of the individual opportunity that exists for people in British Columbia and Canada. Over the years that I've been Minister of Agriculture, and now Agriculture and Food, I must say I've come to know these people quite well and to appreciate the contribution they make to British Columbia and Canada. Today it's a lot different than 50 years ago, because 50 or 100 years ago the farmer produced food on the basis of the farmyard and produced food for the immediate area. He didn't have to be too concerned about what went on outside his farm gate. Today that farmer has to be a jack of all trades. If he's going to keep his costs down he's got to be an electrician, a plumber and a mechanic. In order to deal with the tax situations that he faces and to be able to properly manage his business he has to be an accountant. If he's got livestock he has to be somewhat of a veterinarian. He has to be all those things, and quite often it's a difficult task. Not only does he have to be that diversified in his capabilities, but he has to face the weather, imported products, disease, etc.

On top of that he has one other situation he must face. He is restricted, in most cases, in what he can use the land he works and owns for. That land is frozen in the agricultural land reserve. The farmer doesn't complain about that situation, but he has done a lot for this province in accepting the fact that his land is locked into the agricultural land reserve for future food production for the future generations of this province. In return for that commitment the farmers of this province have made, I say there is a social responsibility of the government and the people of this province. I'm pleased that my ministry has a number of programs in place which I feel help meet that obligation to the farmers of this province to take away some of the restrictions that we've placed on them, or to help offset some of those restrictions by saying to them that their land is to be preserved for future food production and future generations.

These programs aren't giveaway programs, and they aren't identified as subsidy programs. They're programs which, as I say, meet our commitment to those farmers who recognize that the land must be preserved. At the same time, those programs can meet the scrutiny of economists and of consumer groups alike.

I don't have to go into too much detail. Our financial programs deal with the Farm Income Assurance Fund, which assists in a depressed market situation so that the farmer doesn't suffer greatly with regard to market return. In many cases he has very little or no control over that market return. He pays a premium for that and he's prepared to do it. It's like buying insurance on your house or your car. He buys insurance to level out those valleys of depressed markets that he experiences from time to time.

We have the ALDA program, which we planned to expand in 1980 and which we did in 1981. We've expanded the amount from $15,000 to $25,000. We've increased the amount of off-farm income that can be used, and the rate of interest on that program is one-half of prime. That ALDA program, which is the Agricultural Land Development Act program, assists in developing the land within the farm gate.

We've also got our interest reimbursement program, which assists the farmer in helping to cut down the cost of financing his farm operation. That program has credibility in the marketplace. The farmer is not getting a handout, but he is getting some assistance, because he doesn't have the protection that many industries have with regard to duties and protection against imported products.

Our ARDSA program, the agricultural rural development subsidiary agreement with DREE, is, I would say, our most successful program in the ministry. It's the flagship program of the ministry, as I've called it many times when I speak to groups. It is not a subsidy but a support program that assists in improving agricultural activity in the province. It deals with improved technology of operations in the value-added sector. It creates new jobs and assists in creating new products in some instances.

I have a number of ARDSA projects that I would just like to touch on. We looked at our community resource management programs, which deal with grazing units. We have gone as far north as the north Peace River. We've committed $1.6 million to the upper Cache Creek community resource management program. We've committed $437,000 to the Beaver dam range unit in the Cariboo. As far east as the Columbia River and the East Kootenays we've committed $107,000. We've done work in flood control and drainage outlets in Saanich and the Islands. In the East Kootenays we've done irrigation systems. We've done work in the Okanagan with the tree-fruit industry and, of course, the Fraser Valley, which is one of the main areas of agricultural activity in this province.

The ARDSA program has four parts: research and planning, where we spent a lot of dollars in developing the feasibility of some of the activities in the other sectors; coordinated resource management programs which deal with the beef industry; primary resource management which deals with flood control, drainage and irrigation; and our support services and community development which deal basically with the value-added sector in agriculture.

In the 1981-82 budget we've seen increased activity. We've expanded our youth employment program from $73,000 to $523,000. Our field operation has been increased from $9.9 million to $10.8 million, which is direct services to the farmer. Our Agricultural Land Commission budget has increased from $1.1 million to $1.6 million. That additional money is primarily directed at the fine-tuning program that the Land Commission is carrying on to better identify agricultural land and non-agricultural land, in order that we can truly say that we have properly defined agricultural land with agricultural capability in this province to protect it for future food production. We've increased the economics and marketing sector of our votes from $1.2 million to $1.3 million. It deals basically with management techniques to the farmers.

Dealing briefly with the Land Commission itself, last year we expanded the number of commissioners from five to seven, we appointed a general manager, and we have developed a fine-tuning schedule so that the Land Commission can, as I said before, go about properly identifying the agricultural capability of land. The Land Commission and the agricultural land reserves are an emotional issue wherever there is discussion of an inclusion or an exclusion. It becomes a political issue from time to time. The long-term goal of the Land Commission and the commissioners and staff is to properly identify agricultural land, to preserve that land for future food production, and to eliminate poor land from the reserve in order that we can make available it for other uses, whether it be housing, industry, or whatever.

To move from agriculture in the few minutes I have left, I just want to mention that the other part of my responsibility — other than the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Land Commission — is ICBC. I just want to comment that

[ Page 5118 ]

we have now moved into the FAIR program. I'd just like to say that in 1979, when the Automobile Insurance Nondiscrimination Act was passed, it basically said — and it's a concept I totally support — that all good drivers are treated equal, regardless of age, sex or marital status. I think that's a fair way to go. I think that for too long we've identified groups of people, lumped them all into one group, and said: "Because you're under age 25 or because you're a single male, you're a bad driver." I don't take that approach, Mr. Chairman. I think our approach under the FAIR program says: "All good drivers are treated equally, and bad drivers will pay additional premiums."

I'd just like to mention that we're not the first. Jurisdictions such as Hawaii, North Carolina, South Carolina and Michigan have all moved to the same type of concept — to properly identify where the concern is. I don't see how a young driver with no accidents should pay more than a bad driver over age 25 who causes three or four accidents. I think the bad driver should be penalized to the point that he recognizes that it is not a right to drive an automobile but a privilege. The people who drive automobiles must be responsible and take into consideration other people on the road.

With regard to the assessment under our new FAIR program — assessing bad drivers under our driver-accident premium — I might mention to the members here that, again, we're not alone in our thinking. The province of Saskatchewan is moving towards assessing additional premiums to people who have accidents.

When we deal with the 38 percent average increase that ICBC brought down this year, I'd just like to make the very precise statement that ICBC doesn't cause the rates to rise and the government doesn't raise the premium rate. It is the drivers of this province who raise those premium rates. If we can cut down the number of accidents in this province, we'll cut down the cost of buying automobile insurance.

At this time, I'd like to compliment the task force under the Attorney-General's ministry, with the Ministry of Highways and the ICBC staff, in working out a new concept in dealing with this problem of ever-increasing accidents on our roads. If we can reduce those claims, we can reduce the property damage and the high cost of repairs to automobiles. But more than that, we can probably save a lot of people, their friends and relatives, from personal injury and suffering. I think that would be a great accomplishment. So ICBC's role is to provide that insurance. I know I can say that the role is to provide the best coverage at the lowest possible cost and to give excellent service wherever possible.

Those are my opening remarks. In the period of time we have left before 6 o'clock, I'd be very pleased to respond to any questions from the members.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister began with his usual selected readings from Agri-facts. I must compliment the minister this year, though. He did go a little further than he did last year in stating the position. But they were definitely selected readings. By the figures he chose, he tried to indicate that the farm community was doing very well and that their economic position was improving. However, I give him credit for this: he did mention that expenses were rising more rapidly than receipts. Last year he completely omitted that particular piece of information when he used this document.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It's interesting to note just how much that is affecting the farm community. For comparison, he gave you.... I have worked out the actual net return to the farm community over the various years. For example, between 1978 and 1979 that net income rose by a miserable 7 percent. As if that weren't bad enough, the increase in net return to the farmer between 1979 and 1980 was only 5 percent. That's half the inflation rate, yet he expects the farming community to thrive on that kind of limited return.

He talks about an increase in the number of farms. Using his own figures it's true we've had 200 more farmers, but if we take the total net return for the year 1980 from the minister's Agri-facts and divide it into the number of farms, we find that the average farm family is existing on a net income of $6,600 per year. I think that's a sorry commentary on the state of agriculture in this province. It certainly isn't an adequate return to an individual who has to be all the things the minister said: very diversified, an accountant, a bookkeeper and an agricultural scientist, as well as all the practical things and the hard work and long hours he has to put in. Most farmers work far more than an 8-hour day. They work 10, 12 and 14 hours a day, and for that they get a miserable return of $6,600 a year. The minister has the audacity to stand in the House and say that the farming and agricultural industry is in great shape in British Columbia; that's just not so.

If you look at the figures put out by the federal agricultural statistics division in conjunction with the Canadian Wheat Board, you find that British Columbia has without exception, according to these statistics — and they're very close to the ones that I worked out from the minister's figures; I came to $6,600 there — the net income for British Columbia farmers is $5, 528 per year. That's the lowest annual net income of any province in Canada. These statistics are very close to the minister's. I suppose the difference, perhaps, is that one is on a fiscal year and the other is on a calendar year. Certainly, they're very much in the ball park. It does compare with all the other provinces in Canada, and it's the lowest of all. For example, just to indicate that the figures are comparable, this one shows 20,600 farmers in 1979 and 20,800 in 1980. The figures are comparable and related. They indicate that British Columbia farmers have the lowest net return of any farmers in Canada. For example, in Prince Edward Island the net income was $6,584; in Nova Scotia, $8,450; in New Brunswick, $8,405; in Quebec, $8,921; in Ontario, $8,513. Then we get into the prairie wheat-farming provinces: Manitoba, $11,465; Saskatchewan, $13,070; Alberta, $10,288; and British Columbia, $5,528. Yet the minister would stand in his place and tell us that the agriculture industry in British Columbia is doing well. Those figures dispute those remarks.

The minister has indicated in this House during previous debates that it isn't the amount of money in the budget that says whether the industry is doing well or not. I wonder if he will go out and tell that to the farm community in the face of the estimates that he's bringing into this Legislature this year.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know how I'm going to say this, Because I think the word "fraudulent" has been declared out-of-bounds. In my opinion, it's certainly dishonest to present the figures in the way in which they are presented in the budget speech, because, Mr. Chairman, the budget and this minister would have us believe that, in fact, the estimates he is presenting this year represent an increase of 11.2 percent over last year. That is incorrect, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 5119 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's most acceptable. I should remind all hon. members of the committee that words such as "fraudulent" and "dishonest," I guess, are part of our vocabulary; however, when they're applied to another hon. member, they become unparliamentary. I'm sure the hon. member understands that.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't think I'm applying it — much as I might like to — to the hon. member, but I am applying it to his estimate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is my point, hon. member.

MRS. WALLACE: That 11.2 percent increase, as shown in the budget book, is incorrect. It's wrong and fraudulent and dishonest to include such a figure in there, because that is absolutely not what this budget represents. In the first place, it shows a revised estimate of $65.8 million. This is compared to the $72-plus million actually voted on and passed in this House. That minister was an easy mark for the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), when the Minister of Finance went on his little crusade to cut back on government spending. He was a very easy mark and he said: "Oh, sure, I'll cut right back, I won't spend any more." There are many pieces of evidence that point to what an easy mark that minister was.

In the first place, in answer to an order-paper question of mine as to what the number of vacancies was in the Ministry of Agriculture at the time of the freeze, the minister replied: "A total of 38." He also indicated that the freeze was lifted for Agriculture almost immediately. And that's right, it was lifted almost as soon as it was put on. So it was still 38 vacancies at the time the freeze was lifted. But how many months ago was that, Mr. Chairman? Do you know what the answer was to the other part of the question which I asked him as to what the present vacancy rate was in the Ministry of Agriculture? Exactly the same: "Vacancies for 38 people." Not one move was made to fill any of those 38 vacant positions. Why? Because he caved in to the Minister of Finance and said: "No, I won't spend any more money." I would suggest that, try as he may, and in spite of his refusal to hire more people and cutbacks in every other direction, in spite of cutbacks with the Agricultural Land Commission and refusing to let them carry on their fine-tuning and spend money holding hearings.... There was a refusal to do that on the part of that minister, and refusals to settle farm income assurance agreements. He dragged his heels so he wouldn't be forced or put into the position where he would owe money to the farmers for just and due payments on farm income assurance. With all of those things, in trying to keep his budget down to this very easy low mark that he gave to the Minister of Finance, he caved right into him and said: "Sure, I'll cut back." At the end of ten months, he had spent well over $57 million. I don't think it's going to be possible for that minister to keep these expenses down in the next two months and come in under this $65.8 million that's estimated. In the first place, Mr. Chairman, that amount is low. I'm convinced of that.

Now let's look at the amount he's showing that he's going to spend for this coming year. Is $73.2 million a correct figure, Mr. Chairman? No, that is not a correct figure. By no stretch of the imagination can you include the $6.1 million which is being allocated to make the adjustment to the senior citizens under ICBC as part of the Agriculture estimates. By no kind of Social Credit jiggery-pokery or financial manoeuvrings can you consider repayment to senior citizens for their ICBC premiums as part of the Minister of Agriculture's estimates — as part of the money going into the agricultural industry in this province. I say that it is wrong, incorrect, dishonest and fraudulent to present this budget in that matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, as I mentioned earlier, of course, the words "dishonest" and "fraudulent" are in the vocabulary. However, the Chairman has ruled in times past that reflecting on a member or a minister's estimate and using those types of terms is quite unparliamentary. I'm sure the hon. member did not impute false motives to the minister.

MRS. WALLACE: All I'm imputing to the minister is that he's ineffective and incapable of supporting the agricultural industry in this province because he backed down to the Minister of Finance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. WALLACE: Rather than having an estimate that is $73,157,000, what we're really talking about here is an estimate that's only $66 million. In fact, it's even less than that. The minister mentioned the increased youth employment program. Sure, it's increased in his budget, but it's not new dollars. There's $450,000 transferred out of the Ministry of Labour over to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to cover the youth employment program. It's a new way of counting it, and it's not correct to indicate that those are new dollars into the agricultural industry, because those dollars were in the Labour estimates last year. So in effect what we're talking about is a budget of $66,577,828. That is an increase of less than 2 percent — not 11 percent, but well under 2 percent.

At that point I would like to move that the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

FIRE DAMAGE TO FINANCE DOCUMENTS

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement.

At the outset may I say that I'm pleased the hon. second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) is in the House at the moment, inasmuch as he is the Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs.

I made a statement earlier with respect to an electrical fire in a storage room in the parliamentary precinct. I have now received a further report on the damage done by the electrical fire which occurred towards the end of March.

The boxes containing the vouchers have now dried out sufficiently to more accurately assess the fire and water damage. I'm sorry to have to report to the House that the extent of the damage is more severe than was originally estimated. The vouchers affected are those of March and

[ Page 5120 ]

April 1980 — the period, as members know, at the close of the fiscal year. A significant number of vouchers and supporting documents are between 50 percent and 80 percent destroyed. The fragments left have been disturbed by the action which was taken — the appropriate action, I might say — in putting out the fire. This makes it a difficult job to attempt to relate fragments and support documents.

At this time the vouchers are being examined to identify how many of the 4,200 are missing or are incomplete to a point which would make them useless. When I said earlier that the damage was more severe, it still relates to approximately 4,200 vouchers. Once we can determine the extent to which they are damaged or perhaps useless, since the vouchers in question cover only inter- or intra-ministry transactions, checks with the appropriate ministry or ministries can be made. The ministries have been advised to retain all their copies of journal vouchers, which is what these are, and supporting information for the 1980-81 period.

The extent of the loss is expected to be determined fully by the end of this month. When that is received, I will certainly pass it on to the hon. second member for Surrey. There is a letter en route to the member in his capacity as chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs which deals essentially with that which I've reported to the House.

With leave I could table the Victoria fire department company incident report, which is very brief but indicates what was determined to be the cause of the fire as far as the investigating department was concerned.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Frankly, I want to express concern, Mr. Speaker, as I did earlier over this incident and assure the members opposite and all members of the house that everything will be done so as not to impede the work of the public accounts committee this session or in a future session. I trust that the second member for Surrey will contact me if he finds any problem whatsoever. We certainly do want to cooperate to the best possible extent.

MR. HALL: In response to the minister's statement, I want to thank the Minister of Finance for immediately coming to the House as he does and has done if he has some information to give us and to do it in the way he's just done. I just have two points: firstly, in his reports and in his communique to the public accounts committee could he indicate which ministries are involved, even though they may be internal ministry transfers; what the serial numbers of the vouchers may be in terms of the last known number in ascending order, then the missing numbers and then the first legible number that he has. Secondly, what is done is done and we all regret that. I am a little concerned over the future, because I must confess I was not impressed with the vaults as I examined them the other day. Perhaps, in the fullness of time, the minister could make a statement about the ongoing security of our records in that sense. I was not impressed with the security at the time.

Mr. Strachan, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, presented the committee's second report, which was read as follows and received:

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"That the preamble of PR 401, intituled An Act Respecting Montreal Trust Company and Montreal Trust Company of Canada, has been approved and the bill ordered to be reported without amendment.

"All of which is respectively submitted. W.B. Strachan, Chairman, Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills."

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

ERRATUM

In April 8, 1981, issue at page 5061, column 2, line 9, mention is made of the "Skunk" River. This should read "Sukunka" River.