[ Page 5285 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, third report.

Mr. Strachan –– 5285

Oral Questions

Tourism minister's visit to Manila. Mr. Hall –– 5285

School taxes. Mr. Lauk –– 5287

Use of government video facilities. Hon. Mr. Curtis replies –– 5289

Pharmacare claim delay. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy replies –– 5289

Committee of Supply: Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Government Services estimates. (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

On the amendment to vote 164: minister's office –– 5290

Mr. Ritchie

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Howard

Estate Administration Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 2).

Third reading –– 5295

Company Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 3).

Third reading –– 5295

Credit Union Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 4).

Third reading –– 5295

Senior Citizen Automobile Insurance Grant Act (Bill 9). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt)

On section 1 –– 5296

Mr. Hall

Mrs. Wallace

On the amendment to section 1 –– 5296

Mr. Hall

Division on the amendment

Third reading –– 5297

Committee of Supply: Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Government Services estimates. (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

On the amendment to vote 164: minister's office –– 5297

Mr. Howard

Mr. Barnes

Mrs. Dailly

Division on the amendment

On vote 164: minister's office –– 5302

Mr. Hanson

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I know you'll be delighted to be made aware that in your gallery today are 40 of some of the finest citizens British Columbia has ever had. They are members of the Vernon old-age pensioners association. They've taken Victoria by storm this week. In fact, I suspect that Victoria will never be the same. Under the direction of two very outstanding ladies, Mrs. Dolly Birtelson and Mrs. Eleanor Downs, they are here this afternoon to enjoy the Legislature. I would ask you to wish them well and also to give them a very warm welcome.

Also, on behalf of the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) and myself, I would like to invite the members of this House to welcome 25 students from the Pleasant Valley Senior Secondary School in Armstrong. These students are visiting today in the Legislature with their teacher Mr. Charles Christie and two chaperones. The students are here to become authorities on the legislative process, They also had the opportunity to visit the Ministry of Tourism and become professional tourist people this morning. Crown Zellerbach assisted them in coming here. Would you give them a very warm welcome.

MR. KING: I want to thank the Minister of Tourism and advise her that I've never had any difficulty in speaking on my own behalf. But certainly I do welcome today the class of grade 11 students from Pleasant Valley Senior Secondary School in Armstrong, along with their instructor Mr. Christie. I thank the Minister of Tourism for her participation in making their stay here a pleasant one. I want to advise the House that I also had the good fortune to meet and chat with them briefly this morning.

MR. RITCHIE: I have the pleasure of introducing three people in the gallery today. The first one is Mrs. Eileen Mackey of Abbotsford, a great supporter of our Premier — and myself. We also have a gentleman by the name of Elwood Veitch, who is the bursar of Pacific Vocational Institute and the former member for Burnaby-Willingdon and Minister of Tourism and Small Business Development. My third visitor is Pastor Lennox, director of the department of public affairs and religious liberty of the Conference of Seventh-day Adventists of British Columbia in Abbotsford. Would the House please welcome these guests.

MR. LAUK: I'd like to join the member for Central Fraser Valley and welcome Pastor Lennox, who's been sending me that marvellous magazine Liberty for some years now. I appreciate that. Secondly, I would like to join the member for Central Fraser Valley in welcoming Mr. Elwood Veitch, because in the Douglas Heal report he's given the name of Baby Hughie.

MR. NICOLSON: I notice in the galleries this week that the attendance of one of my former teaching colleagues has been great — in fact, maybe even better than my own in the House this week. I would like to introduce a person who used to teach commerce at L.V. Rogers High School in Nelson when I used to teach physics, Mr. Lorne Vaughan. I hope the members will join me in welcoming him.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'd like to introduce to the House Mr. Peter Abrosimoff from the great city of Grand Forks. Mr. Abrosimoff, who is an alderman of the city, was visiting with me this morning, and I would ask the House to bid him welcome. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to welcome a gentleman whom we see periodically and whose firm assists in bringing many of the students to this gallery, Mr. Bob Porter of Crown Zellerbach.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a brother-in-law visiting here from Winnipeg. I would like the House to welcome Bob Sanford.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. For the second day in a row may I ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) to please observe the rules.

Mr. Strachan, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, presented the committee's third 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 standing orders have been complied with relating to the petition for leave to introduce a private bill intituled West Kootenay Power and Light Company, Limited, Act, 1897, Amendment Act, 1981, except for late filing, but with respect thereto the petitioner has paid double fees in accordance with standing order 98(3).

"The committee recommends that the petitioner be allowed to proceed with the said bill.

"All of which is respectfully submitted. W.B. Strachan, Chairman."

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

TOURISM MINISTER'S VISIT TO MANILA

MR. HALL: It is my pleasure to welcome the Minister of Tourism back to the service of the House and to wish her well. I have some questions for her.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the minister's visit to Manila last year, could the minister advise when she decided to go to the Philippines?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Thank you for your warm welcome back, Mr. Member. I was pleased to note that after over a month and a half of opportunity to question me in the House in question period and during my estimates, when I was ill you finally thought of something to ask.

My decision to go to Manila was made in the line of my duties while I was in Japan in concert with the federal government, the government of the Philippines and my own staff.

MR. HALL: Were any arrangements by the staff of the Ministry of Tourism made prior to the minister's departure from British Columbia on October 14, 1980?

[ Page 5286 ]

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Not to my knowledge, but I'll take the question as notice just to make sure.

MR. HALL: In order that we can get all of the information, were any arrangements by the minister's staff prior to her departure on her far-eastern travels made for any visits, business contacts, arrangements with tourist travel wholesalers or any promoters whatsoever in the Philippines — to be seen by the minister in Manila?

HON. MRS, JORDAN: Could you repeat the first part of your question, please?

MR. HALL: Were any arrangements made by the staff of the Ministry of Tourism prior to the minister's departure from British Columbia on October 14?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: In light of the second question the member asked, I'll take it as notice. But generally, it's been public information ever since I was there and came back that my visit to the Philippines was a business visit — in keeping with my responsibilities as Minister of Tourism — to promote tourism in that great country. There have been a lot of benefits that have and will accrue to British Columbia as a result of that visit.

MR. HALL: Perhaps when the minister answers the question, she would also file any press releases subsequent to her arrival back in this country that deal with her visit to Manila and the Philippines that she just made reference to.

To continue, who did make the specific travel arrangements to fly the minister to Manila during her far eastern trip?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: It was made in concert with my ministry, the federal government, the people in the Philippines — in both the industry and the government — and within the same procedures followed for the whole trip.

MR. HALL: Perhaps the minister could tell us who accompanied the minister to Manila.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: My ministerial assistant, Mr. Ray Dykes.

MR. HALL: Has any part of that visit to Manila been charged to public funds?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, my trip to Manila was a business trip. Unlike the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), when he was Minister of Tourism, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), when they went to Asia, I didn't take a wife, a mistress, a husband or any families and friends. I was there in the discharge of my duties under the proper auspices of the government of British Columbia and in accord with those auspices.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister protesteth a little too much. A series of questions about the minister's travel arrangements are always in order. Any suggestion the minister may have left with the House that any members at any time and any place have taken people who shouldn't have been taken on trips should be withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER: Was the member standing on a point of order?

MR. HALL: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognized him for a question, and I didn't hear one.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that there are times when the Speaker and the Chairman ask for things to be withdrawn without members having to get up to ask for them. With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, if you could not see what was wrong with the statement made by the minister, I would suggest that you and I may have a discussion afterwards.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask whether or not the Minister of Tourism was casting any aspersion upon any member of this House. If she was, I must ask her to withdraw.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: By no means, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HALL: My last question to the minister is: will the minister file with the House details of all her out-of-province and offshore travels since her appointment last year, up to and including March 31, 1981 ?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Those will be before the public accounts committee within the proper procedures of this House. I'll also file my expenses for my Inner Harbour swim.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, reference was made by the minister to a trip taken by me to the Orient, with regard to my wife. I wish the minister had been notified that my wife's expenses were paid by me personally. I ask for a withdrawal of any attempt to imply that any member takes wives or "mistresses." This is an accusation that the minister either backs up with facts or withdraws completely from this chamber.

MR. SPEAKER: I've asked the hon. minister whether or not aspersion was cast on any member. Hon. members, many times in debate statements are made on both sides of the House which are not intended. The Chair asks whether or not that aspersion was intended. If it was not, then, of course, a withdrawal is not required if no aspersion is intended.

MR. BARRETT: I asked for a withdrawal of that statement. I think I am entitled to that by parliamentary rule.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: You don't have the nerve to say it outside the House either. Smearing tactics — absolutely smearing. You can smear me, but don't you smear my wife. That's going too far.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Twist, my eye! You heard what she said. I don't care what else goes on, but I won't stand for that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. When withdrawals are required it is for unparliamentary language or terms. If imputations are made, it is the Chair's duty to inquire whether

[ Page 5287 ]

any aspersion was intended. If no aspersion was intended, then the matter rests. Withdrawals refer to unparliamentary language.

I would recommend to all members that if we use only temperate language, perhaps we would never have to make the distinction between unparliamentary terms and imputations.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I've waited for the appropriate moment to rise on a point of order and I point out that the minister implied that my wife accompanied me on my trip to Asia in my role as Premier, somehow illegally or illicitly. I am asking that the minister declare here in the House that she has no evidence that any such imputation is valid. I ask for a complete withdrawal of that allegation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition knows that any member who stands in this House to make any statement accepts the full responsibility for that statement and its veracity. Therefore the Chair cannot possibly defend its accuracy or otherwise. Each member accepts that responsibility for himself or herself.

I could invite an apology, which the minister may wish to give on her own, but I have no authority to require it. Perhaps the hon. minister would clarify.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member rose and appeared offended and asked if I had intended any offence, I suggested to you that I hadn't. I did not intend any offence. I would hope that the Leader of the Opposition would not try to twist the facts and statements in order to build a case so that he could be thrown out of the House or attract undue attention to himself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, perhaps it would help question period a whole lot if we would be more careful in the language we use. Apologies which cannot be required would then not even be asked for, and therefore question period could progress in an orderly fashion. I recommend the practice to the House. By the way, the time I've taken now will be added to the end of question period.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister has made the matter worse. I did not appear to be offended; I am offended by an allegation that has no foundation in fact. If the minister does not have the sense of decency and courtesy in this House to give a withdrawal or to state clearly that there was no imputation, then I'm prepared to let the matter stand on the minister's conscience, but I find it somewhat distasteful.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, as a member of this House I find it somewhat objectionable that a colleague of mine, and a member of this House, who when asked a question by the Speaker of the House states emphatically that there was no malice intended, is then further accused by the Leader of the Opposition in carrying on this debate after the matter had been dealt with and clarified thoroughly by the Chair.

SCHOOL TAXES

MR. LAUK: My question is to the Minister of Education. Yesterday Vancouver city council voted unanimously to demand that the provincial government refund $12.1 million of school taxes to city taxpayers. This does not represent the actual surplus of the school district budget but represents that overage over and above the contribution of the provincial government in past years. Has the minister decided to allow school districts to rebate their surplus to taxpayers in their districts rather than to transmit the surplus to Victoria?

HON. MR. SMITH: The member knows that the equalization finance formula, which does have its down sides, still has as its fundamental principle that money is shared around this province between the rich districts and the poorer districts and districts that have lower tax bases. That is done so that there will be equality of education. I thought that the member and his party were in favour of that principle. I can answer the question by telling you that, first of all, Vancouver school district is not going to be sending more money to the province than it raises. It's going to be receiving a small net amount from the province and some direct-aid grants, but it will not be sending money back. I have not decided to do what the member suggests.

MR. LAUK: Apart from the jiggery-pokery, can the minister explain why his answer is not in accord with statements made by the B.C. School Trustees Association? They state that over the whole province in 1981 the province will provide 33 percent of education costs compared to 48 percent provided by the province in 1975. The percentage of the provincial share of school-district costs across the province has been steadily dropping under this administration, yet his answer indicates it's equalization that's the issue. How does the minister explain that lack of accord with the views of the elected educators in the school district?

HON. MR. SMITH: I always have difficulty because this member doesn't understand the finance formula or the difference between the money the province puts into the basic program — which has reduced in percentage terms but not in dollar terms — and the amount of money in percentage and dollar terms that the province puts into education. As the member knows, this administration is putting more money into education across this province overall — in excess of 65 percent, plus the universities — than it was in 1974.

MR. LAUK: The question to the minister was: how does he make his statement on equalization accord with the statement of the school trustees, who challenge the government and state that the ever-decreasing percentage of their contribution to school costs is not consistent with what's happening in every other province of Canada, particularly provinces like Manitoba, where 80 percent of the school costs are provided by the provincial treasury? How does he make his statement accord with that?

HON. MR. SMITH: The question gets ever wider and more confusing — like the member. There is absolutely no correlation between equalization and the percentage that is put into the basic program overall across the province, as the member knows.

MR. LAUK: That was my point.

HON. MR. SMITH: They have nothing to do with each other at all. Equalization is the basis upon which the money that's collected is distributed. The member knows that. This province is paying a higher percentage of the cost of education, as I've said, than when you were sitting on Treasury Board, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Not true.

[ Page 5288 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, it most certainly is true — in percentages and dollars. It's only in the area of the basic program that you're talking about. I've acknowledged many times that that percentage has gone down, not the absolute dollars.

MR. LAUK: Does the minister by his earlier answer undertake that no transmission of taxation funds collected in the school district of Vancouver will be sent to Victoria? None? Not including so-called special grants that every school district is entitled to if they show need, on the basic education program is the minister undertaking that no surpluses of taxes in the school district of Vancouver will be sent to, the central treasury?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm saying that the overall net position will be that money will be received by the city of Vancouver, and not given to it.

MR. LAUK: You're a charlatan.

HON. MR. SMITH: You are grossly intemperate, as usual.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to get your guidance. During question period the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) made a statement, if not exactly, very close to what I'm going to say. When asked about her travel outside the province, who accompanied her and who paid, she said that the public paid because she was on a business trip, unlike — she used that word — us when we were in government, the Leader of the Opposition and others who took their wives and their mistresses. She said that hers was a legitimate business trip, paid for by the public, unlike when we were in government and we took our wives and mistresses on the public.... Sir, how do we deal with that? It is a charge that was made in this House by that minister. Is there no recourse?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think that I dealt with it in question period, but I'll repeat it now. If unparliamentary language is used, we can ask for a withdrawal. If imputation was made of wrongdoing by any member, then it is the Chair's responsibility to ask whether or not that imputation exists — whether it's intentional — and if it is then the chair asks that it be withdrawn. If it is a statement, whether correct or incorrect, that statement is the responsibility of the member who has spoken and must be dealt with by that member; it cannot be dealt with by the Chair.

MR. LEA: Then am I to say to the minister — or anybody — that she's a charlatan? That's an example. If I should say, "You are a charlatan, a crook and a liar," and she takes offence; and if you, Mr. Speaker, say to me, "Did you mean anything by that?" and I say: "No, I didn't," you say: "Well, that satisfies me." How can that be? I don't care what word she used. It was an accusation that when we were in government we travelled on public expense, paid for our wives and our mistresses. It's not an imputation; it's an accusation. "Imputation" means something a little more subtle than that, surely, Mr. Speaker. Is there no way that a member of this House is not required under those circumstances to either put up the facts to prove what she has said, or to withdraw? I can't see any other way to go.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it would be an onerous responsibility to ask the Chair to determine if the contents of every speech were absolutely correct. As a result the Chair must ask the members. Unparliamentary language is clear; the Chair can make the decision that it is unparliamentary. It is asked that it be withdrawn. It is offensive not just to the members but to the House itself. With regard to accuracy of statements or accusations which are made across the floor, it would be impossible for the Chair to determine whether or not those are accurate. As a result, if a member objects, it is the Chair's responsibility to ask whether or not any accusation of wrongdoing, imputation of wrongdoing, or any impugning of a character is involved. The Chair asks that member then for clarification of that matter. If the member denies that such intentions exist, it closes the matter. If the member admits that such intentions exist, then it is the Chair's responsibility to ask for a withdrawal.

MR. LEA: I have one final question. Would it be the proper form, then — if I understand you correctly — for those people who feel they've been offended, or are offended, to treat this as a question of privilege in order to find out whether or not the charges being made by the minister are indeed correct or incorrect? Would that be the proper method to follow?

MR. SPEAKER: A motion of privilege could be made. It would then have to be determined whether or not the motion was indeed a prima facie case of privilege. If it was, of course, it would at the will of the House be referred to a committee, I'm sure. I can't begin to forecast the wish of the House in that instance.

MR. BARRETT: On the same point, there are two aspects to this. One, of course, concerns matters that members take personal offence on, and the other, grave charges in front of the House. One of the most serious charges that can be brought in a house of parliament in the British Commonwealth system is a charge of misuse of public funds. That is a serious charge with many references to it in Sir Erskine May and Beauchesne. As a matter of fact there may be an appropriate standing order of our own House that deals specifically with that; the former Liberal member, Mr. Gibson, made the famous statement, "money talks," and was ejected from the House for making that statement.

What we have here in front of us, Mr. Speaker, is a need for direction. An allegation has been made by a member that other members, while in public office, misused public funds. In my own case — which I'm at liberty to speak about since I have the floor; I'm not referring to any other allegation — the imputation was that there was a misuse of public funds through my wife travelling with me. It was a charge, not an imputation. It was a statement that, unlike other members of the government, the former Premier — as I was — took his wife and somehow misused public funds. That is a direct, serious charge. That cannot be dealt with by saying: "Oh, no, I didn't imply anything by that charge." The charge itself is a statement of allegation.

Now either the minister backs it up with fact, or there are other means of dealing with that charge in the House. Those other means have not been dealt with, in my opinion. Frankly, I would have been satisfied with a straight withdrawal by the minister. But I wasn't offered that by the minister; I was offered a further compounding statement by

[ Page 5289 ]

the minister, making remarks questioning my sincerity in terms of my right to ask, which I found even more aggravating and somewhat offensive. I can handle myself in this House and speak for myself, but when a member makes an allegation about my wife, suggesting that my wife misused public funds, that goes too far. I am controlling my anger, but I'm very angry and unhappy about that very false, malicious statement. I don't think as a member I have been satisfied with the dealing of it. I think it is a very serious charge. I would ask you, sir, to consider some method, perhaps later this afternoon, and advise the House how such a matter can be dealt with. It is an absolutely false statement and it is made against somebody who does not have the ability to defend themself in the House, as I have been able to do for 21 years and I hope for a long time hereafter. My wife is a separate citizen. The statement is false and it leaves a false impression.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I just address the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I can understand how the member could be visibly shaken and disturbed. However, in making his objections the Leader of the Opposition has underscored the Chair's responsibility. It is the member who made the accusation — in this instance the Minister of Tourism — and it is that member who must accept responsibility for the statements made. If the Chair were to accept that responsibility, the Chair would first of all have to do the research to be sure that the statement was correct or incorrect. Following that the Chair would have to either ask for a withdrawal or.... You can see the conundrum. The House does provide the measures for correction in this instance.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I've been listening to this debate with great interest. I would first like to say that when something I inadvertently said — certainly not with any malicious intent — offended some of the members of the opposition, I complied with your request to make it very clear that I was not laying any charges and that I had no malicious intent. It would appear from the debate that for some reason the Leader of the Opposition is entwining this around his wife, Mrs. Barrett. I believe that Mrs. Barrett is a very honourable and well-respected lady in this province. I think the Leader of the Opposition is very fortunate to have her as his wife. I would not in any way offend her.

To my recollection 1 did not in any way — as the Leader of the Opposition now seems to be trying to say — accuse Mrs. Barrett of travelling on public funds. I would ask any member who felt offended to please accept any reassurance I can give them that the statement was not meant maliciously and was not meant to offend them. It was not meant to suggest that their wives or whoever travelled with any members of that very large party that went with the Premier to Asia travelled on public funds irresponsibly. That was not in my mind. It was not my intent, and I certainly hope it was not in my statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the minister in concluding her remarks also say that if it was misunderstood she would apologize. I think that would conclude the matter.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Indeed, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would suggest that there is a remedy. There always seems to be a remedy in parliamentary procedure. It's found in Abraham and Hawtrey's Parliamentary Dictionary. One example it gives of the duties of the House Leader is that when a member is named, Mr. Speaker cannot initiate a motion. It is the duty of the House Leader to protect members of both sides of the House. Information has been brought to this House. That information cannot be a lie because we are all honourable members.

MR. SPEAKER: That's right.

MR. NICOLSON: The information is that some members, whether it be the Leader of the Opposition or someone else — and obviously it's not the Leader of the Opposition — have taken their wives or mistresses on travel at public expense. Information of a very grave nature has been brought to this House — information perhaps not offered with malice, but nevertheless there.

It is my point of order that in keeping with the suggestions to be found in Abraham and Hawtrey's Parliamentary Dictionary, it is the responsibility now of the House Leader to bring forward a question of privilege in order to defend members of this House, who now are all under a cloud. I suggest that that is the remedy to this if the House Leader will do his duty, as has been done in many previous parliaments.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think that we could likely debate this point of order until adjournment time tonight. I think the House is satisfied that the remark was made and was questioned, that it has been clarified that there is no intent, and that it has been apologized for. I recommend that we move to the business of the House.

USE OF GOVERNMENT VIDEO FACILITIES

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday in oral question period a question was put by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), who is not in the chamber at the present time. I would refer him and other hon. members to page 5179 of Hansard.

With respect to that question, I am informed that the comptroller-general of the province of British Columbia has caused a review of payments from vote 173 for the fiscal year 1980-81, as it relates to section 23 of the Financial Control Act of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia, chapter 129; and I am further informed that the comptroller-general finds no breach of law, as demanded under section 23 of the Financial Control Act, on the several castings of payment made regarding the question raised in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not offering a legal opinion; I'm simply referring to the fact that the comptroller-general, in assisting me with the answer to this question, has indicated that he can find no breach of law.

PHARMACARE CLAIM DELAY

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I believe it was last Thursday that the following question, to which I would just like to give the answer, was asked in the House: "What measures are being taken to alleviate the delays in processing Pharmacare claims?"

[ Page 5290 ]

I am advised that the situation regarding Pharmacare payments is now under control, but that the cause of the problem has not as yet been permanently corrected. A new processing system designed specifically for use in the Pharmacare program was initiated in December 1980, following two years of planning. This new system offers improved efficiency in acceptance of valid claims only, and production of current data as a prime control feature. In theory, the above advantages were to be accomplished with no impairment of established payment efficiencies.

Experience over the first four months has confirmed the ability of the new system to improve the acceptance factor; that is, rejected claims which would previously have been accepted are in the area of 4 percent of total claims. But unfortunately the new system does not appear capable of handling the current volume, and the compromises made to facilitate payments have impaired the data necessary for full audit controls. Compounding the above is a serious delay in cheque production. This frequently requires 10 to 14 days following completion of claims processing and can impair any improvements in our own efficiency. This has been discussed with the Ministry of Finance, and we've been assured of cooperation in the future.

Recommendations on means of correcting the problems we have experienced are expected from the B.C. Systems Corporation on an immediate basis. In the meantime, phone monitoring of claims processing is being maintained to ensure prompt payment times. I would like to thank the member for the question, and I hope that that will suffice.

MR. LAUK: Under standing order 35, Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member state the matter briefly.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on December 1, 1980, the Education minister estimated the basic levy for school purposes at 41.2 mills. On February 27, 1981, the B.C. School Trustees Association announced that the provincial government contribution to school district costs has sunk to the lowest level on record in the province. In 1981, the province will provide 33 percent of education costs, compared to 48 percent provided by the provincial government in 1975.

On April 16, 1981, the Education minister announced the basic levy for school purposes: 41.8 mills. This, combined with increases in property assessment, amounts to crushing property tax burdens on homeowners. This is particularly true in the lower mainland, where property values are skyrocketing due to the lack of Social Credit housing policy. Even the mayor of the city of Vancouver was surprised at the increase in the mill rate after the delegation that was before the minister a month previous. On April 18, 1981 the chairperson of the Vancouver School Trustees Board announced that for the first time the Vancouver School Board will not receive any support from the provincial government for school purposes; in fact, she pointed out that the Vancouver district will have to transmit $2.5 million to the provincial government in excess taxes collected. On April 28, 1981 the Vancouver city council voted unanimously to demand the provincial government refund $12.1 million in school taxes to city taxpayers. This sum represents only the excess beyond the funds required to operate the Vancouver School District.

Vancouver council members are angry at an "atrocious and unacceptable tax increase."

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn to debate the unanimous request of Vancouver city council that the provincial government refund to city homeowners $12.1 million in excess school property tax revenues.

MR. SPEAKER: The statement is rather lengthy. We will consider the proposal put forward by the member. Without prejudice to his place in debate, we will make a decision as to whether or not it qualifies under standing order 35.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I wonder if Your Honour would be kind enough, having made a decision about the request for an emergency debate, to advise the member who raised the question, and in other cases advise members who raise such matters, in order that they may adjust their other duties to be sure that they are here when Your Honour comes back with the ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: I always seek to be as courteous as possible in these matters. If inadvertently a member was not in the House at the time I made the decision, I apologize.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF THE
PROVINCIAL SECRETARY AND
GOVERNMENT SERVICES
(continued)

On the amendment to vote 164: minister's office, $195,103.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I wish briefly to conclude the remarks that I started yesterday. As the members will recall, yesterday I referred to an article that appeared in the Democrat in February 1981, which gives some false information. On this side was heard a member saying: "A typo." That can happen once, but I don't think that we can agree that that should happen a second time.

However, speaking on this amendment, I want to end on a more humorous note, because there's been a great deal of humour taking place all through this debate. The humorous amendment as stated by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) is to reduce the spending to $4.50, the average price of a theatre ticket.

Speaking of theatres, I did a little bit of homework. I have come to some conclusions in respect to the debate that has been taking place in the House. I have a few Oscars that I'd like to hand out, if I may. I'd like to start out with the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), co-stars in the film The Great Escape from Ottawa. I have the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) starring in the film Great Expectations of Becoming the NDP Leader, and the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) in the film Back Roads, but Rocky would have been more appropriate. I will conclude my remarks by saying that I fully support our minister in his endeavour to set up a program that is going to get the message of our government across properly. I and the rest of my colleagues here will, I'm sure, be opposed to this amendment.

[ Page 5291 ]

MRS. DAILLY: The speech we've just heard was a continuation of the speech we heard yesterday by the member for Central Fraser Valley, and just reinforces in our minds the importance of bringing this motion to the House. It's obvious the member from Fraser Valley still doesn't understand the issue. It's a straight issue of political morality and how public funds are used.

The member who was just on his feet has used to support his argument the fact that an apparently incorrect statement was printed in the party paper, the Democrat, paid for by members of the New Democratic Party. So he follows from that and says that it is therefore vital that the Social Credit government beef up their PR machine so they can get out there and correct these terrible false statements made in a one-party sheet. Obviously he and the rest of Social Credit cannot differentiate between straight partisan politics and giving out straight government information. That member has just stated that he thinks it is correct for the government to use public funds to continually correct every misleading statement made about the Social Credit Party. The minister responsible for this portfolio and ministry says: "All we're going to do is beef up our public relations" — if you take the composite sum of all the departments, it's going to be $25 million — "to give out information to the public." Yet one of his own backbenchers has just said that he thinks it's important to use it to correct misleading information. When we hear those kinds of remarks we begin to see that basically this is what it's all about.

The idea of hiring Mr. Heal, and hiring Hollywood people to come up and beef up the images of the cabinet ministers; the whole idea of moving the studio that used to do health programs under the auspices of the media czar....

There is no question in anyone's mind that the whole basic idea is simply to beef up the sagging fortunes of the Social Credit Party. We are all paying for that. The members of my party, members of the Conservative Party and the general public resent the fact that their money, paid through honest taxes to this government, goes to put across the Social Credit Party line. At no time in any speeches made by any of those backbenchers or by that minister has anything been said that does not confirm that this is basically what the reorganization of the minister's department is all about. He has not given us any statement at all that makes us feel this minister has a grasp of the fact that he has in his hands — who told him to do it we don't know, but he has it — a massive public relations ministry that is there for one purpose only: to bolster the Social Credit fortunes.

We keep hearing that it's not true. If it's not true, will you tell us why you have to have Hollywood people brought up, why you have to hire a special Mr. Heal who is going to coordinate all government ministries? We understand that some of the former information officers in the other ministries are rather concerned about this, because suddenly their own PR is taken out of their hands. Why? Why is it all put in the hands of one person? It's not only the opposition that's suspicious about this. We have some quotations here — unidentified, but as quoted in the Vancouver Sun on April 4, 1981, when it first came out that Mr. Heal had been hired and the reporters were questioning why. It says here that one of the government people — whoever that would be — suggested that it would be necessary to try to make the new initiatives of each minister more meaningful. He also suggested that when Mr. Heal was contacted he said that he doesn't feel it is going to be his role. I think that this is important. Mr. Heal actually said that he doesn't feel it is going to be his role to guard against possible abuses of the studio by ministers who are unable to distinguish between fact and politics. We heard another backbencher yesterday say: "We make sure that we tell our bureaucrats what to do." So here we have this super deputy minister of information saying: "I'm going to do what I'm told. It's not up to me to differentiate between fact and politics."

What we're concerned about is that it is quite obvious that the Social Credit cabinet, because of their failing political fortune, have decided as a last-ditch attempt to restore themselves, and the only thing they can do is to beef up their image politically and with the public. And here we have Mr. Heal almost admitting that he has come to do their bidding. This is the whole issue: the differentiation between fact and politics when taxpayers' money is being used. I have some more of my colleagues who feel it is important enough to further discuss this whole issue at this time. I will continue later.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the member for Burnaby North has placed the case very compellingly. I recall that when the last election was called there was an issue of B.C. Government News to rush the details of that budget in a very politically slanted way, at public expense, out to the people of the province, and how the printers were taken from the Queen's Printer's office in Victoria to Vancouver to rush out that propaganda. What we're seeing is — it's been very well expressed here: and I agree that the government pretend, at least, to not know what we're saying — a most dangerous departure in terms of using public money for, private, partisan, political purposes of the government in power.

That's something that has many humorous aspects to it. We can all have a joke about it. Why should the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) with a frizzy hair problem receive attention at the taxpayers' expense, when with the greater such problem I get no attention paid to myself at all? Nor would I take it, because I think it absolutely wrong that you should dip not into your party funds but into the taxpayers' pockets for party purposes. I don't know what more we can say about it.

I would think that there is hardly a person in the province of British Columbia who does not know that this government are compounding the dirty tricks that we've heard so much about, and which are so well documented, by trying to retrieve their reputation at the taxpayers' expense. All I can say is that your Mr. Heal is going to be your Mr. Achilles' Heel, because I think everybody in the province of British Columbia knows what you are doing, and I don't think there's any doubt that they will usher, in as polite a way as they can and at the earliest possible opportunity that they can lay their hands on, this discredited government into the oblivion it so richly deserves. This is a very serious amendment. They should give the boot to Heal, as my friend says.

This debate has got its humorous aspects. It's got things that touch the very essence of the kind of democratic process that we're concerned with. So let the issue be talked about as it will in all of the villages, towns and cities of British Columbia. But when people are being bought by a propaganda machine paid for by their own money, then they should rebel. I'm quite sure that they will and that this government will not last beyond this term of office. It's this kind of thing to which there is no defence that means that we're going to have to see something new in the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 5292 ]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased that the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) put forward a countering argument with respect to one of the matters raised by the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie). I notice he is something like a hit-and-run driver: he is gone from the chamber as soon as he concludes his remarks. That occurs; members are absent from time to time. I think though that one should at least stick around to see if there is any comment about what has been said.

The member for Burnaby North pointed out that yes, it was a typographical error in the Democrat; but, more importantly, it was a publication paid for by those of us who pay our own personal money to become members of the NDP. There is a very distinct difference there.

It's ironic that the member for Central Fraser Valley would have sought to raise such a question, given his history of having knowledge about the misuse of public funds. The member for Central Fraser Valley is the chairman of the Social Credit caucus, having deposed the former chairman in a bloodless coup, I understand. He got unanimous support for doing that. Under the control and the authority of the member for Central Fraser Valley are public funds provided by this Legislature to the Social Credit caucus research bureau. We're talking about advertising and the connection between the essence of what the government is now trying to do by having hired Mr. Heal. The Social Credit caucus research bureau, in addition to having used public funds participating in phony letter-writing campaigns in an earlier period, also used public money to put out a publication entitled Government Reports, now published by the Social Credit caucus, of which the member for Central Fraser Valley is chairman.

The member for Central Fraser Valley was chairman of caucus at a time when the Social Credit caucus put out one of these Government Reports deliberately and consciously mispresenting the position of the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). It deliberately and consciously attributed to the member for Alberni a statement in this House which he never made. This was a deliberate and conscious misuse of public funds to tell a falsehood about what had happened in this chamber. The result was a letter of apology, regretfully resulting in proceedings in court. The Social Credit caucus research bureau, also under the guidance of the member for Central Fraser Valley, did the same thing in a Government Reports headed April 10, 1981, in which they provided information that falsely represented the position of the Leader of the Opposition.

I only put those down as saying that it is unfortunate that the member for Central Fraser Valley — raising the matter of a private publication, which we pay for out of our own dues, that had a typographical error in it — should be the same person responsible for having published on at least two occasions deliberately incorrect and inaccurate information about activities of members of the opposition using public funds to do so. That's what we're talking about when we're talking about the funds available to the Provincial Secretary, to the audio-visual centre, which is under his control, and to the management of that by the political deputy minister of propaganda.

The message is threaded throughout the Social Credit government and Social Credit caucus activities. They're not content to meet political differences of opinion head-on. They don't desire to engage in a debate about merits of subjects. They want to approach them in an underhanded and sneaky way. That kind of history is in the background: the fact — as I said earlier — that Mr. Heal's first venture, paid for by the general public, was to go to a secret meeting of Social Credit and discuss with Social Credit members at the Harrison Hot Springs Hotel how they would manage the news and the information that was going to come out of government.

Mention has been made of the use of the audio-visual centre to produce vignettes or documentaries, television programs that are going to get some kind of message out to the general public. Cabinet ministers are going to be involved in those, using public funds to do it. I want to draw to your attention the May 2 to 8 edition of T.V. Guide. I believe they call it the western Canada edition. In any event, it covers the television programs coming along in that period between May 2 — that's this coming Saturday — and May 8, the week following that. On the inside of that, you see the following advertisement, which I would draw to your attention. The headline of that following advertisement — a full page, paid for by public funds, incidentally — says: "Can You Afford Not to Watch?" It's advertising a half-hour television program which is going to be aired on Sunday, May 3, at 6:30 p.m., when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) presents "Energy Strategy for Survival."

You may remember, Mr. Chairman, that the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) a few days ago raised the matter in the House that such a thing was taking place, or had taken place, in this audio-visual Centre that Mr. Heal is now running, and there was a government denial that they were doing such things. "Oh, no, Mr. McClelland isn't going to be on any television program; oh, no, there is no advice to be given to cabinet ministers; oh, no, it's just the normal programs that we're going to do." Well, now we find that this government has dipped into the taxpayers' pockets for $1, 595 to run a full-page ad in TV Times, plugging a half-hour presentation by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

"Can You Afford Not to Watch?" — that's the title. When they talk about affording things, I think the title should be: "Can You Afford to Have This Government in Office Much Longer?" That's what we should be asking ourselves. It's only $1,595 for a small, full-page ad; a half-hour of prime television time is $8,200. So that's nearly $10,000 of the taxpayers' money used already.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Good.

MR. HOWARD: "Good," he says. The Provincial Secretary says "good"; I'm sure he says "good."

HON. MR. GARDOM: He was speaking to me; put your hearing-aid on.

MR. HOWARD: He was speaking to you and he says you are good. Is that what he was saying?

HON. MR. GARDOM: He's got marvellous judgment.

MR. HOWARD: I shouldn't say the only thing that's good about the government House Leader — he's said many things that are good. But yesterday he hollered across the House to me with respect to one of the members in his cabinet and he said: "She's sick." Well, after today I must admit that he was absolutely correct.

[ Page 5293 ]

But here is $1,595 of the taxpayers' money, $8,200 to buy a half-hour of prime television time for political propaganda purposes, deliberately developed in conjunction with the Kamloops by-election, and the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) chortles about it and says: "Fine." The Provincial Secretary laughs and says: "That's the way to go; that's what we're trying to do." Well, how much time was spent in preparing this half-hour documentary? Who knows?

I don't see too many people in the gallery here, but I would really urge everyone in the public gallery — the media people who are here — to really promote that and got the general public to watch that program; I think it's going to be worthwhile watching. Those television buffs or people who want to tune into channels 6 and 8 next Sunday at 6:30 p.m. and watch this documentary are going to have to give up something in order to do it, because a competing television program on channel 2 is "Disney's Wonderful World." They're going to have to give that up. I think that's a wonderful selection of prime time by whoever arranged to slot this in there at 6:30 p.m. and compete with "Disney's Wonderful World." The title on "Disney's Wonderful World," which people will have to miss seeing, is "Disney's Greatest Dog Stars." Well, they can tune into channel 6 or channel 8 at 6:30 p.m. and see Bennett's greatest dog stars. I think it was the Premier who said it took him only two weeks to train his dog, you know,

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair and the House appreciate the mariner in which the member is addressing this, but under the parliamentary guidelines that we adhere to in the House, somewhere along the line I think the Chair would have to caution the member about the word "dog" in reference to any particular member — be it of any side of the House — by any member. I would ask the member to use the discretion he has....

MR. HOWARD: I withdraw that reference to the individual so named. Perhaps they can tune in at 6 o'clock and watch half an hour of Disney's greatest dog stars and then tune in at 6:30 and see the government's favourite dog star. How will that be? There's no individual mentioned. There's competition on channel 11, back to back with "Star Trek" — science fiction — so folks are going to have to give up watching science fiction and see some other kind of fiction at 6:30.

Sure, we have a little fun about this, as the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) pointed out. Yes, there are amusing anecdotes that one can talk about, because the whole fiasco lends itself so beautifully to humour. The whole fiasco of hiring this guy Heal as a propaganda deputy minister and of having him run off to Hollywood and getting a couple of, I think somebody called them, film-makers or dress-up artists, or whatever they are, to add to it certainly lends itself to a humorous quality. But the main question facing us is not humorous at all. Perhaps we use humour a bit to make the point that there's a gross and abusive misuse of public funds involved here, as there has been consistently throughout Social Credit's history of government since 1976. It's another example of having absolute disdain for the general taxpayers of this province. There's a question of integrity involved.

On the humorous side, as I said, people should watch this program at half past six on Sunday night. I haven't had the benefit of being in Hollywood and seeing how film-makers do things or anything else, but I would urge all British Columbians who are able to watch that program at 6:30 on Sunday night. The way to get the message as to what's happening — as to whether or not the slick artists from Hollywood have been successful in remaking the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources — is for those of you all across this province who watch that television program to just watch the visual part and turn down the sound so you don't hear what the minister says. Just watch him. See whether his eyes are sincere when lie talks about this particular strategy that's involved. See whether his make-up is on straight. Is his hair combed? Have his teeth been gleamed and shined up? Watch for those signs. You cannot beat that technique for determining whether or not the person on the other end of the television program who's talking at you out of the box is really sincere. The only way you can determine sincerity — whether the words are coming from the heart or whether they're coming from some Hollywood script writer — is to watch the individual without listening to the words. Don't be misled by the sound. Watch intently and I think that you will see clearly that this program is a phony program, that this program, paid for by the taxpayers of this province, has one design only and that's, at this point, to influence the Kamloops by-election, using public funds to do it. That's the disgraceful and sad part of what we're faced with. The humorous part is there as well, in terms of the procedures and techniques that go to slick people up to make them look like something they're not.

The essence of it is — this cannot be said too many times — an abuse of the taxpayers of this province. The essence of it is basically — I suppose one could use the word — theft of taxpayers' money for partisan political purposes. Not that the minister is a thief. No, of course not. I'm not saying that. It's the attitude. It's the lack of conscience — and consciousness — on the part of the government as to just what is happening here. So long as that warm muffin of a minister, the Provincial Secretary (Hou. Mr. Wolfe), goes blithely along and tries to tell us, "Oh, nothing has changed, there's no difference, everything's going to be the same," and that sort of thing, how can one balance that with the facts? Obviously the only cabinet minister interested in paying any attention to what's happening in the House is the Provincial Secretary. Now he's even been abandoned by the government House Leader; the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations is walking out. Mr. Chairman, notice that there are two Social Credit members sitting in their seats in the House. They're running for cover.

MS. BROWN: Is that all?

MR. HOWARD: Just two. I don't count the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), because he's on this side. You look lonely down there, George.

In order to see whether or not there's any interest on the part of Social Credit members other than those who are sitting in their places in the House — all two and a half of them — and whether or not they're interested in taking part in this debate.... The only way we can find that out, Mr. Chairman, is to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[ Page 5294 ]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 48

NAYS — 2

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

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 2, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this being Wednesday, and private bills having precedence, I notice there is one on the order paper, Bill PR401, an act in respect of Montreal Trust Co., etc. A leave motion is required.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't believe so, Mr. Member.

MR. NICOLSON: I do believe so, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The bill before us stands in the name of Mr. Ree, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano. If it were his wish to proceed, then that would be the case. If not, then leave is not required, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of the member to be present in the House. He is present in the House, but this is the orders of this day, and if we're to divert from the standing orders then we are without a leave motion. I must say that this has been canvassed. I recall very vividly Mr. Gibson, when he sat in this House, bringing this particular point up in the past. It was reviewed by Mr. Speaker and it was agreed that this required leave. If we're going to depart from requiring leave, it requires a specific direction from a standing orders committee to change standing orders or a substantive motion of some kind in this House. I rise, Mr. Speaker, simply requesting that procedures be followed. The minister has proposed that we go on to something.... I merely rise to preserve the rules of the House, not to oppose the order of business which the House Leader has proposed. I merely suggest that leave be asked — which is the practice.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Notwithstanding all that, hon. member, there is nothing to compel the member to insist on the bill being proceeded with. On that basis, leave is not required at this time to go into....

MR. REE: Without prejudice to debating the issue of that bill at a later date I am not desirous of proceeding or in a position to proceed with debate on it today.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, move adjournment then.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, once the bill is in the House it is in possession of the House, not of the hon. member. The hon. member certainly has his duty to move the motion and so on. Once the bill is before the House, it is the property of the House, not of the hon. member. Just ask leave.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, on this particular point it is not mandatory for the member to call the bill. If the member wanted to call the bill:, then leave would be required. Leave is not required at this stage. That concludes the matter.

MR. NICOLSON: I challenge your ruling.

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS 22

[ Page 5295 ]

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

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the point of order I want to raise with you that developed during the proceedings just a little while ago is this: standing order 25 sets out what the daily routine of business will be and what the business will be after the ordinary daily routine. It sets them out by days, and so on. Standing order 27 says: "All items standing on theOrders of the Day (except government orders), shall be taken up according to the precedence assigned to each on the order paper." Standing orders 31 and 32 make reference to matters either being dealt with or being permitted to maintain their precedence on the order paper when called.

I submit that the implication in all of those is that the items standing on the order paper under headings or classes of subject matters should be called exactly from the Chair or from the Clerks at the table, just as in the Routine Business section under standing order 25. The Clerk at the table generally proceeds to skip over Presenting Petitions, Reading and Receiving Petitions; he doesn't call them, but only calls for Introduction of Bills and then Oral Questions by members. I submit that the Clerk at the table, by not proceeding to call those other items as they are listed in here, denies members the opportunity to proceed if they desire to do so under any particular item listed.

The question I want to raise with you for consideration is this: why do the standing orders appear to be violated by the Chair, by not proceeding to call items in the order that they appear — instead of leaving it to any individual member to decide whether or not to proceed when it gets to that class of business in which they may be interested?

I submit that what the Chair should do — and what I asked the Chair to rule — is the ordinary, routine business under standing order 25. Mr. Speaker asks us to rise for prayers, and the next item should be read — Presenting Petitions, Reading and Receiving Petitions and right the way down the line. When we get beyond the ordinary routine business and get into the order paper on government days or anything else, those items should be called as they appear on the order paper and not be allowed to be glossed over and forgotten about.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The processes that have been followed in this House have been similar in consistence since 1966 when I came here. The House has developed its own practice. I think the member has raised a point that is deserving of consideration, although I don't think it's valid, because the House has developed a practice which the House has accepted since everybody in this Legislature has been elected, as a matter of fact. I think it's a matter that you, Mr. Speaker, could take under review.

MR. HOWARD: On a further point of order, I submit that the standing orders are precise and clear. The only way that you can do something other than what the standing orders require is by leave by unanimous consent. There may have been a practice established, but nowhere in the standing orders, in May or anything else does it say the practice of the House — whatever it might be — shall override the standing orders and shall be taken as leave for unanimous consent.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the member for Skeena and the government House Leader make good submissions on this particular point. I am going to ask for maybe a day or two to consider the point. Certainly the practice of the House has been one that we are currently following. Nevertheless, the point made by the member for Skeena is a valid one. I will undertake to have that reviewed in the next two days.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 2, Mr. Speaker.

ESTATE ADMINISTRATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

The House in committee on Bill 2: Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 2, Estate Administration Amendment Act, 1981, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

COMPANY AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

The House in committee on Bill 3; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 through 39 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 3, Company Amendment Act, 1981, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

CREDIT UNION AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

The House in committee on Bill 4: Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 26 inclusive approved.

[ Page 5296 ]

Title approved.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed: Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 4, Credit Union Amendment Act, 1981, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 9, Mr. Speaker.

SENIOR CITIZEN AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE GRANT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 9; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, you will remember, I'm sure, that during second reading of this bill I regretted on behalf of the official opposition that the government had seen fit to finance this legislation the way it did, and in particular had sought to dress up the Agriculture estimates by a huge sum of money. I think we have to remedy that. Therefore I think we should move an amendment to this section. The Agriculture critic for our side will be dealing with that as the next contributor to this debate.

MRS. WALLACE: The second member for Surrey has stated much of what I was going to say. I do feel that, seeing we are discussing a piece of legislation which sets up the practice in no uncertain terms as to how this is to work....

Section 1 details that persons over 65 shall have the reduction and: "A regulation made under this act may (a) provide for financial assistance in respect of premiums payable after November 14, 1980, and (b) provide that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia give credit in the amount of the grant in respect of a prescribed portion of premiums payable...."

The point is that there is no way that the legislation is going to set the amount of dollars that are required. The legislation is saying that whatever the ICBC figure is, that amount will be matched. The one thing lacking in the legislation is that it doesn't say where the money is to come from. Therefore I move the amendment standing on the order paper which would change section 2(b)(i), line 1, which now reads: "The government shall pay the corporation for the amount so credited." My amendment, by adding after "corporation" the words "out of the consolidated revenue fund," would change that to read: "The government shall pay the corporation out of the consolidated revenue fund for the amount so credited." That is my amendment, Mr. Chairman. It was sent in earlier; it's on the order paper.

Speaking in support of that amendment, it would appear to me that the act is remiss in not including any particular direction as to where that funding is to come from. I'm not talking about amounts of dollars, Mr. Chairman, because that is specified in section (1) of the act, which indicates that the dollars will be set by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia according to the amount of the rebates they give to seniors over 65. What I'm saying is that there should be a provision in this particular bill that will include the source of those funds, and then we don't have to have the kind of nonsense that we had when we were discussing a previous item of business in committee in this House. This would set it once and for all; it would be over and done. It would be dealt with from the consolidated revenue under this piece of legislation without having to find a place to put that money somewhere else. Because that's where it's coming from anyway, Mr. Chairman; it's coming out of the consolidated revenue of this province. That's what this bill should specify, and that's why I'm moving this amendment.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I cannot support the amendment for two reasons. First of all, I've referred to section 42 of the Interpretation Act, which, if I may quote from it, says: "Where an act provides for a payment of public money for the administration of or for any of the purposes of the act, the provision shall be deemed to authorize the Minister of Finance to make the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund with money authorized by the act of the Legislature to be paid for those purposes." In other words, the Interpretation Act indicates that if an act stipulates that moneys shall be paid out, as this one does, it automatically follows that it would be paid out of general revenue.

The second point I make, Mr. Chairman, is that we had the opportunity to introduce this bill in 1980, and that gave us the time to provide for the funding in the budget and in the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, as I as minister am responsible for the insurance corporation. So we had the ability to provide that funding in the estimates and therefore in the supply bill. That is the normal and, in my opinion, the preferred route to go, because it identifies that expenditure with the minister responsible.

To make a comparison, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if you look at the other sector of my estimates — that other responsibility I have, which is as the minister responsible for the Agricultural Land Commission — it shows the expenditure to be made for that responsibility. I see very little difference in that responsibility and being responsible for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and therefore authorizing the payment of the grant to senior citizens under my estimates. Therefore I'm not in favour of the amendment and cannot support it.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, it is exactly because we know the Minister of Agriculture and Food doesn't see the difference between the money that is going into his vote for the ALR and the money that's going into the vote for ICBC that we feel this amendment should go through.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

[ Page 5297 ]

NAYS — 27

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

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

MR. NICOLSON: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 9, Senior Citizen Automobile Insurance Grant Act, reported complete without amendment.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill 9, Senior Citizen Automobile Insurance Grant Act, 1981, read a third time and passed.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF THE
PROVINCIAL SECRETARY AND
GOVERNMENT SERVICES
(continued)

On the amendment to vote 164: minister's office, $195,103.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yesterday during my estimates the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) took exception to a recent release of the Social Credit caucus document, Government Reports. He seems to feel that the way this report comes out, there's an inference in it that during the debate in this House on the bill covering medicare having to do with extra billing and so on, he did not attend that vote to absent himself from it. I'm rising now to assure this committee and the member through you, Mr. Chairman, that in fact he did attend a special concert on that evening at the University of British Columbia along with myself. I saw he was there and wanted to satisfy the committee on that score. The article as it's written is merely a quotation from Hansard of statements made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the opposition leader. I guess a person could make any inference he wanted to from that, but I'm rising to explain, as a courtesy to the member, that he did attend that concert with me on that occasion.

MR. HOWARD: The matter just dealt with by the Provincial Secretary is a very welcome and pleasant observation on his part, putting the factual matters before the House that way and agreeing that the Government Reports in question issued under the authority of the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) did carry an inaccurate and incorrect reference to the Leader of the Opposition. In light of what the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday standing in his place and which is confirmed today by the Provincial Secretary, I wonder if we could ask if the member for Central Fraser Valley in his capacity as caucus chairman responsible for this particular document will issue a subsequent issue of Government Reports with a retraction and apology for having given incorrect information about the Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I only wanted to point out, as I did earlier, that the account in this report is simply a verbatim account of what was said in Hansard on certain occasions. If one wants to take an inference, that's fine. I wanted to make clear, in courtesy to the member, that we did attend a certain function, I presume that would set the matter to rest.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, with leave of the House I would like to introduce some very distinguished guests.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: We are indeed honoured to have in your gallery this afternoon a most distinguished delegation from the People's Republic of China. They are a head office delegation from Beijing to Canada under the direction of deputy general director for Travel and Tourism China and the vice-president of China International Travel Service, Mr. Yue Daiheng, The members of the delegation are some of those whom I met when I was in China: Mr. Wu Daozhi, Miss Yang Shihua, Mr. Liang Jie, Miss Chen Jianhua and Mrs. Maria Flannery from eastern Canada. This most distinguished and most welcome delegation is here to discuss a number of matters relating to their interest in British Columbia and to further discussions with our government that were initiated between some of this delegation and other members of the Chinese government when I was privileged to be on business in China on behalf of the government of British Columbia and the Ministry of Tourism. I would ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. BARRETT: May I respond by welcoming my wa da po ying Richard Lui in the gallery, accompanying the delegation from China. May I say on behalf of the official opposition, nehow — Wa ning! Wa ning!

[ Page 5298 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Some latitude has been allowed by the Chair with respect to caucus business and other items. I think it's incumbent upon the committee now to return to the amendment on note 164.

MR. BARNES: I rise to support the amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: The $4.50.

MR. BARNES: That's an overpayment. Maybe we could make it $1.49.

I won't be speaking too long. I just wanted to say a few things at this perhaps most serious point in British Columbia's history. It's somewhat of a sobering reality that the government was serious when it hired the Hollywood team of Norm and Gayle Sedawie to assist the government in trying to improve its public image. At first I thought that this was an indication that Social Credit was finally developing a sense of humour, and that we'd all be having a good laugh next day, and that the headlines we had seen about Hollywood coming to British Columbia, mainly in Victoria, were really just a put-on, not being too far from the Fourth of July. Apparently it wasn't meant as a humorous ploy or joke. It was a very serious attempt, believe it or not, to actually believe that it could hire someone to do more damage to it than it has already done to itself. This team of people was really being asked to accomplish the impossible.

I think the committee would perhaps benefit from reflecting on a character from Greek mythology referred to as Achilles. This celebrated warrior was feared by most of his enemies, until it was discovered that he had his strength from the heels up, and that he had apparently been dipped in the river Styx. He was dipped in the river with his ankles still above water; he was invincible and superhuman only from the ankles up. His enemies did not realize this for some time. But once they discovered that he was like any other ordinary human being from the ankles down, they soon reduced him to an ordinary mortal. Mr. Douglas Heal has been celebrated as somewhat of a warrior in his own profession as a public relations man for Lovick advertising. No doubt he was very good at what he was doing. You know, it's typical of Social Credit to embark upon projects half-cocked, rather than doing their homework and the preliminaries that are necessary to ensure that their schemes and ideas can be successfully pursued. Obviously the Premier and those advisers would have been well-advised, when they were interviewing Mr. Douglas Heal for the impossible job of overhauling a too far-gone government image, to have asked Mr. Heal to remove his shoes. Perhaps they would have discovered that there were wings attached to his heels, and perhaps they would have realized that he was vulnerable, unless he intended to do his work by flying around. Surely he has proven himself to be a perfect example of a symbol of vulnerability with respect to his duties since he has been acting in the capacity of trying to improve the government's image. I'm sure that they could have done much better without his assistance, not to mention the immorality of the idea in the first place. As I said, I thought it was a joke and never took it seriously. Apparently the government really believes that it can import morality and that it can be something other than itself. That's really tragic.

I'm standing here this afternoon to suggest that it's never too late to recognize faults and mistakes. Surely the government will not continue with its project of producing its own programs, of trying through some kind of canned scheme of fantasy imported by some marketers from another sphere in our community to change an image that is truly reflecting what the government believes in and stands for. It's one thing to have fun in Hollywood and create images so that we can all enjoy fantasies such as Walt Disney did with his Disneyland, but I think for public officials, elected to remain sober and conscientious and to reflect the requirements and needs of the community, it's worse than gross indecency to even suggest that they would in any way attempt to manipulate the image that truly reflects what they are. We get plenty of this through the electronic and printed media, and other kinds of soothsayers out there who think that they can captivate the public fancy by exploiting their vulnerable nature, by stimulating the instinct of greed or in some way diverting them from the realities of day-to-day existence and responsibility to encourage them to go too far in debt, to disguise the fact that they should be more frugal in the management of their affairs in order to have a good time today, and all these kinds of things.

What moral and honourable reason could this government have in suggesting that it should do anything about its image other than the very best possible that it can for the people of British Columbia? It's still very difficult for me to believe that the government is continuing to carry on with this $62,000 political appointee and these $14,000 advisers who are coming up to suggest that there is some simple way of governing the province of British Columbia through media manipulation, through techniques of advertising and deception and by creating a world of fantasy. I find that one of the most ugly revelations that I have had the opportunity of observing since I've been in this Legislature, which has been for nearly nine years. It's so grossly indecent that it's really one of the most unbelievable things.

I think that the only excuse I can give this kind of pathetic restriction and the kind of inability to recognize what really matters in this province is that the government is just desperate. It has overextended itself. It built this coalition on the premise that it knew best what the people of British Columbia needed, without any recognition for the understanding of the value of the commitment on the part of those people who would be elected to actually go beyond political aspirations and considerations and to actually try and do things that would be constructive and positive for the average person in this province. The government received a very huge mandate after its campaign in 1975, after having suggested that the previous administration was irresponsible — accused them of shovelling money out of the back of a truck. We were trying to make up for inequities that had existed in the basic services for the basic human requirements in this province, The people bought it because we were just a plain old lacklustre administration doing what we thought was best for the people, and not spending a lot of money on our images and for propaganda about what we were doing — we were just doing things for people. Now it seems as though that is coming in style again. It seems as though now — some six or seven years later — even the public is beginning to realize that they don't want any razzle-dazzle; they don't want the canned mentality, fantasies that are imported from somewhere else to try and smokescreen the people of this province. They are now saying: "We don't want to see you. We want to observe your actions. We want the benefit of what you're doing. Don't bother about whether your hair is in place or how you're dressed. We've played that game too long."

[ Page 5299 ]

That's something, Mr. Chairman, that really should have been in place a long time ago, because of the high cost of political propaganda and the high cost of marketing foods and commodities that should be far cheaper, because the amenities of life could be a lot cheaper. If people did not feel they had to deceive the public in order to give them their fair share of the resources of this province, we would all be a lot better off.

Mr. Chairman, we're looking at an administration that will spend nearly $25 million on political propaganda to perpetuate itself while, at the same time, it will spend barely $75,000 to disseminate information with respect to human rights in this province. I think that that graphically illustrates the concern that every British Columbian should have, not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars that this government has very cleverly rearranged, through its fiscal policies and programs, which allow it to put its hands on huge amounts of public funds to pay off friends like the B.C. Buildings Corporation, when they wiped out Public Works and allowed themselves an opportunity to pay off friends in the convention centre, where they have feasibility studies going and no commitments but lots of money going out for all kinds of commissions and investigations. But we know that. We know that this government didn't invent these ideas; it just recognized an opportunity to deceive the public, who were conditioned by many prior administrations, including the W.A. C. administration. But it's about time we recognize that it cannot go on forever.

The kind of image that that government over there needs I don't think it is capable of even recognizing, let alone carrying out. You don't need Douglas Heal to tell you what morality is about; you just need to take a look at the people who are out on the streets as a result of greedy, insensitive and indifferent people, who are inclined to think that money is the only factor that really matters in this society today, the only thing that they can trust and count upon. It's a revelation, perhaps, that is not entirely the fault of the government, when they attempt to sell the people an image which is an illusory view of what is really happening. Perhaps they, in their own limited vision, believe that it is appropriate to do whatever you can to hang on to power — because, after all, that's what the free marketplace is all about. That's what our licensing systems are about: those people with the power get their licences to exploit and take advantage of those without in the free marketplace.

MR. KEMPF: You're absolutely disgusting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member for Omineca will please come to order. Hon. member, your remarks are quite unparliamentary.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your intervention on my behalf. I don't believe that that member for Omineca requires any retort. The member suggests that a discussion in this Legislature about morality and the creation of false impressions by public officials in this Legislature is gutter stuff. He says that there is something wrong with talking about morality and about public officials beginning to try to do something for the people instead of for themselves. He says that that's all wrong — and he was once a mayor of a city. I think it's quite clear that that is one of the faults of a coalition. That's one of the faults of an overambitious neophyte, who comes in and thinks that he can gain power by trickery rather than by performance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will now ask the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre to come to order. We are on the amendment to vote 164, and the committee will be well served if we can stay on that amendment and remain, all of us, parliamentary, in the finest traditions of parliament.

MR. BARNES: There's no need to belabour the point, because I think we're talking about — pardon the pun — a BCRIC wall invented by the Premier of this province, a person who, despite himself, has been successful in turning everything he touches into BCRIC. It is very appropriate for this whole concept of bringing in Hollywood. That has even turned to BCRIC: it has backfired because of short-sightedness. Unbelievable as it is. this Premier didn't even recognize the risk he was taking when he was asked, "Do you have seatbelts in your car?" with cameras right there before him.

Mr. Chairman, you're suggesting — I can tell by your getting twitchy — that I'm out of order, but I'm suggesting to you that I did not come up with this idea of hiring Doug Heal and bringing him in for a subterfuge over this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please, hon. member. That is quite acceptable. We are discussing the administrative actions of the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Government Services, and we're discussing an amendment to the minister's vote. If we could contain our comments to the administrative actions of that minister then the committee will be well served.

MR. BARNES: Absolutely.

That minister has been given a lot of responsibilities for things which I'm sure he does not necessarily understand nor is in any position to take responsibility for, although he does sit there and do his best to take the responsibility. I don't believe he invented the ideas that are coming forward with respect to that Hollywood team, but he is the sacrificial lamb on behalf of the Social Credit administration and is quite prepared to take his lumps like all the other ministers, because they are all on a Titanic together.

The decision to deceive the public has serious ramifications, because I think it gives us an insight into this government's mentality. The reason I say "canned mentality" is because I don't believe they look within themselves. They believe they can go out and purchase a mentality, purchase something that would be sellable. They do not have faith in the public's ability to perceive and understand a genuine human effort and the faults of being a hard-working MLA for better or worse. They don't trust that. They believe they have to hide their faults, hide the reality that we're all just people trying to do a job on behalf of the public.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment, hon. member. The committee will come to order.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's fine. Interjections are okay. We have a lot of time. I'm not perturbed by the interjections from the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), I don't blame him for being twitchy. He's never sat happily or comfortably over there since he joined that group. Now he wants to attack me because I'm suggesting....

[ Page 5300 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I don't think you should throw him out. Leave him alone. He's making my case better than I could ever make it every time be opens his mouth. He doesn't even have the courtesy to sit quietly in this Legislature and show the common courtesy that the Chairman has admonished us all to observe in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The opinion of the Chair is that the Chair must interrupt when other members are interrupting the member who has his feet. If the member speaking now will continue, and all other members will not interrupt, the committee will be well served and we can do the business of the committee in the vote that's before us.

MR. BARNES: The dilemma that the government faces is one in which, inadvertently, they may still be able to save themselves, as least as far as their credibility is concerned, and try and do what, as decent human beings, I'm sure they would aspire to do, notwithstanding the fact that they are running rather rudderless right now and have no direction or focal point around which to rally, no real leadership. As you know, Mr. Chairman, it's very difficult to take a coalition of political expedients and opportunists, pull them together and try and do the people's business. I recognize that fault from the beginning, but notwithstanding any of those things I would suggest that if the government were to hire their political adviser at $62,000, and thank the Sedawie team but say no thanks at the same time, and perhaps give them something for their troubles and the embarrassment that you may have caused them and try to have them sign a disclaimer so they don't sue you for this.... Although it was great publicity, it may have detrimental effects on their careers in the future. All of these things taken into consideration, the government could turn around and begin for once to come clean, to simply say: "Look, who are we kidding?" It's really ridiculous when you've got your hand in the cookie jar and you're trying to tell people you were putting something in rather than taking something out. Even little kids learn that lesson.

Your only problem is that you're so obsessed with trying to deceive that you don't realize that you're on stage and everybody is laughing like you know what. This is why I said I thought it was a joke when you came in with this idea. How can you be serious? If you want the public to know what's going on and you don't trust the media, don't trust the free press, then bring in television: televise the debates. Let the people see and make up their own minds. Why are you trying to create in the back room what people should be able to do themselves in a free and democratic society?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I wish they could see you.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Minister of Housing, I'll be dealing with you later. I'm sure that you will want to get up and explain why you knocked out the B.C. Housing Corporation and all of its assets and paid off your friends.

HON. MR. CHABOT: How about now?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing will please take his seat.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, he asked me a question. I'm ready to respond.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister will please take his seat.

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, please take your seat. There will be lots of time to discuss other estimates during committee when the votes come before us. However, we are on an amendment to vote 164.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. CHABOT: When the Chairman stands up, you sit down. Learn the rules.

MR. BARNES: You've been here too long. You've got your pension; why don't you split, Mr. Minister of Housing? You must be getting pretty bored with this place by now. My goodness!

Mr. Chairman, when a body gets the death wish, there's very little you can do for him. You'll recall that great poet Dylan Thomas. He used to say: "Do not go gentle into that good night." I believe that he was trying to give a message to those of us who desire to live, but that group is going so gently that it's unbelievable. They're just walking right into the trap. I can't understand it. They're just dying to get hooked. In fact, we have to get out of the way. I don't know why they hired somebody to do for them what couldn't possibly be done any better than they're doing themselves.

Let me just wrap up by saying that the people of British Columbia are very angry at this government, for valid reasons. In question period this afternoon we hoped to question the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing — who has been speaking from his seat — and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) with respect to the punitive things that they're allowing to happen to the people of British Columbia, such as removal of rent controls, no construction of affordable housing and all of these realities.

Mr. Chairman, don't call me to order, because if these things are not relevant, how in heck can you talk about images? These are the kinds of things that build your image. You're going to spend $60 million to acquire land to put up a stadium, plus $126 million to construct this thing. You indicate that you have top priority for what's best for British Columbians, but you don't say a thing about the commitment to housing that's supposed to go on the same property. How can you convince people that you're committed to their best interests when senior citizens are being pushed out of their homes in the West End and all over this province by greedy, indifferent speculators? This government says: "That's okay. It's a free marketplace. Let them do their thing."

Now, we all know about how free the marketplace is, but I'm not going to get into that. That's beside the point, except that it helps to bring into perspective my next point: that everything the Premier touches turns to BCRIC.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

[ Page 5301 ]

MR. BARNES: Is that not correct? That must be in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What is correct is that we have an amendment before us to reduce the Provincial Secretary's salary vote. That is what we should stick to.

MR. BARNES: Okay. Here's an example of what I mean. A little while ago this government attempted to infringe upon what has been an untouchable area regarded by most freedom-loving people as the one place in which politicians would not intrude: the letters to the editor section. Then they did their number on the letters game, which backfired on them. Zappo! They tried to do a number on the people and got caught. Then it comes time for redistribution. They tried to play another little game to get Gracie's Finger. Zappo, they got caught — another piece of BCRIC. Northeast coal. It's not only hard, but it's now turning red. That's BCRIC too.

Mr. Chairman, your coalition of Liberals, Progressive Conservatives and whatever else you may have over there agree, I'm sure, that they feel like they have a BCRIC wall around them when it comes to their leader. Again the minister touched them and said: "I promise you everything." They got over there and they found that they too were faced with a BCRIC situation. The final straw is when the Premier cannot even go to his own constituency — cannot even go home — without the people yelling: "He has a BCRIC wall around him."

I'll tell you, there's no end. It's doomsday for that government. There's nothing I can do but to try to shake them up a little bit so that they will cut the games and the manoeuvres, no more tactics and ploys and just come clean. That really frightens me, because if they did that they would start to behave like human beings. If they did that they would begin to seriously rival us in the opposition. I don't think there's any problem. They're so committed to the idea of deception and image-making that we're on safe ground. Unfortunately the people of British Columbia are on sad ground, because they are aiding and abetting these people who already deceive the public too much. We're already paying 200 and 300 percent more than we should for consumer goods and for the ordinary amenities of life. It is a tragic situation, Mr. Chairman. The people of British Columbia are seriously angry. It wasn't anything that I did; I'm just observing. If they were wise, Mr. Chairman, that government would observe as well, step back and take the advice of Dylan Thomas: "Do not go gentle into that good night."

HON. MR. WOLFE: I've listened very carefully without responding or trying to make comment on a number of speakers. Over the past two days we've had a continuous personal attack on Mr. Douglas Heal. After all, Mr. Chairman, fair is fair. Mr. Heal is a public servant appointed under the Public Service Act just like any other deputy minister. As a public servant he is not able to defend himself from the innuendo bordering on smear which has been mounted systematically by this opposition. There is not a shred of evidence to support the opposition's accusations. Look at their sources. What are they? They are newspaper clippings and stories containing assertions from unknown sources and attributing quotes to people who may or may not agree with the way the stories came out. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, who in this House has not had comments distorted by being taken out of context. Who in this House has not felt the frustration and distaste that arises when sly writing is used to indirectly ridicule, defame without being libelous and skate around the truth while implying wrongdoing?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, fair is fair. There has been a statement that Mr. Heal was not appointed under the competitive process. The opposition knows well that deputy minister positions are not filled by the usual competitive process. An examination of their record when in office would show that they well understand this fact. No, Mr. Heal was not appointed under the process to which the opposition refers. He was chosen from a great many applicants for the job. There may be a number of these applicants in the press gallery today. Mr. Douglas Heal came to the service of the government of British Columbia with fine qualifications in public communications. He was hired to perform the very important job of ensuring that the public's communication needs from government are met effectively and efficiently. I might point out that there's nothing unique in this. Mr. Heal's predecessors in the important work of coordinating government information include not only Mr. David Brown, his immediate predecessor, but individuals who carried similar responsibility when the opposition held office as government.

I don't remember this kind of protracted debate regarding his predecessor, who was here for some four and a half years. Mr. Heal's function is no different than his predecessor's. It's to coordinate the activities of communications and to try to make them more effective. That's within the interests of the people of British Columbia, not just the government and the politicians. We would not be doing a proper service if our communications were not efficient and effective. Once again, fair is fair.

Having expressed my concern about this ongoing attack against a public servant, may I suggest to all of those here that the debate now move on to other areas of my ministry. I believe that the debate of the last days has canvassed this matter quite adequately, based on a lot of innuendo and ridicule of a reliable and responsible individual who is not able to come here and defend himself. There are a great many areas under the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary — all the way from libraries to museums to cultural grants — and I would look forward to having some matters dealt with under those topics.

MRS. DAILLY: We, too, are very interested in all the other aspects of the Provincial Secretary's ministry. We certainly intend to canvass them. The very fact that the minister says, "let's get off it; let's move on," proves that he still does not understand the importance of the discussion that's taken place here for the last two days.

I think if you went through Hansard since we started this debate, you would find no personal attack on Mr. Heal, The attack is based on what Mr. Heal has been assigned to do by that minister and the Social Credit government. That's the basis of our attack.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Manipulating the news'?

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Heal himself has been quoted as saying that he doesn't see it as his responsibility to separate fact from politics. This is a quote of Mr. Heal's views. All right, that's the way he sees his role. If you're talking about us accusing anyone of manipulating the news, then we have to

[ Page 5302 ]

put the manipulation of the news where it belongs — if we follow what he has said — at the doorstep of the minister and the Social Credit government.

We have canvassed a number of areas of concern not only with the appointment of Mr. Heal but with the whole idea of building up a large public relations organization within the Social Credit government. As a matter of fact, when the announcement first came, it was not the NDP who mounted the first concerns and attacks. I have a quote here from the Province of February 17 in which, after the appointment of Heal, a government source, who must have been asked about said: "They're looking" — referring to the government — "for a more political, less bureaucratic kind of organization. All they really want is an information service that will wash away all their problems." That's what one government source said. Another government source described the new department that's being planned as "a propaganda arm." This is not the opposition talking; this is a government source.

AN. HON. MEMBER: A public servant.

MRS. DAILLY: They must have been concerned. All governments have information officers and they have a job to do to get information out. Now we have government civil servants who are saying themselves that they are concerned. They have never seen this before in this province. They sense something sinister. The public of B.C. finds this whole thing sinister. Can you tell me why any opposition should sit quietly and rush through a vote that is obviously asking us to approve the spending of money. The basic intent of this vote and of the minister in hiring Heal and the public relations machine is to manage the news. Worse than that, it's not only to manage the news — not with Social Credit Party funds. No one could knock them for that. They have a right, just as the NDP does, to put out their own party literature.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Would you care to reveal that source?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not hear the full point of order. Would the member make his point one more time?

MR. MUSSALLEM: The point of order that I raised is that the hon. member from Burnaby North who's just spoken stated that she is reading from a government source, regarding certain remarks she made. Would she care to reveal that source?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it's difficult for the Chair at this particular time to entertain that as a valid point of order. It could conceivably be brought up at the conclusion of the member's address. The member, however, has heard the point, and if the member cares to remark on it, so be it. But the Chair has no way of instructing on that point of order.

MRS. DAILLY: I'll just refer the member who brought it up to the Province of February 17, 1981, from which I quoted, and he could check that out.

I think this is really the essence of our whole discussion over the last two days. It is not a facetious motion; it is a motion that we sincerely believe has to be made. We cannot sit back and let news be managed by any government in this province, and that is why I would now call for the question, so that we can see how many people believe in political morality in government and who doesn't.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 27

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

On vote 164.

MR. HANSON: A couple of minutes ago in this House the Provincial Secretary indicated that he wanted to deal with something other than Mr. Heal, something related specifically to his vote. I want to outline for him a particular series of events, and then have him give it to Mr. Heal to see if he can correct the image that will be portrayed after this information is laid out for us all.

Within the Provincial Secretary's responsibilities he is in charge of the cultural affairs of this province — the heritage resources. In the Fraser Valley there is the oldest continuously occupied farm in British Columbia, the Edenbank Farm. The Edenbank Farm story is very interesting, because it has political connotations in the same way that the Spetifore land decisions have political connotations. The Edenbank farm was established about 1867 as a dairy farm by a Mr. Wells. Not only is this farm of extreme importance, this family is a very notable British Columbian family. They did a number of things which were very significant in the history of British Columbia. Mr. A.C. Wells established this farm in 1867, and for five generations that farm was held in the Wells family. The grandson of Mr. A.C. Wells was a man by the name of Oliver Wells, who came to a very untimely death a few years ago. For five generations Mr. Wells and his entire family were committed to developing the dairy and sheep industry within British Columbia in a most innovative way that would benefit British Columbia. That family was characterized by their commitment to the heritage resources of British Columbia. They were committed to Indian people in the Fraser Valley. On many occasions they worked closely with Indian bands to develop the various cultural traditions that were dying out, to have them perpetuated and maintained within the Fraser Valley.

A few years ago the heritage conservation branch of the Provincial Secretary's department initiated a study. They got a very well-qualified man by the name of Jack Herbert, now deceased.... Around 1977, I believe, they contracted Mr.

[ Page 5303 ]

Herbert to carry out a study of the Edenbank Farm. The object of the study was to determine whether the Edenbank Farm should be designated as a heritage site in the province of British Columbia, and should be brought into the public domain, either purchased by the province, designated and protected by the laws of the province or assigned in conjunction with Fraser Valley College or some other educational institution. Mr. Herbert completed his report and made a series of recommendations. He indicated in his report that not only was the Edenbank of local and provincial heritage significance, but according to criteria which are utilized by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, of which Mr. Herbert was a secretary for six years, the Edenbank Farm could be recognized as a national heritage site.

Let me read to you, Mr. Chairman, a couple of Mr. Herbert's remarks, In his first recommendation he states:

"...that the Edenbank Farm be designated a provincial heritage site under part 2 of the Heritage Conservation Act. It is considered to be an outstanding example of the best in British Columbian agricultural tradition. It is also felt that it could qualify under both genetical and unique categories. The writer would go so far as to suggest, based on six years' experience as secretary to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, that it would also stand up very well subjected to the thematic approach that is sometimes used by that board to designate sites of national importance."

What we have then is a farm in the Fraser Valley near Chilliwack. A report was carried out. A first recommendation is that the site be designated a heritage resource, because for five generations it was the finest of agricultural tradition of British Columbia, the very first dairy cooperative in British Columbia and, I believe, the second dairy cooperative in all of Canada.

The second recommendation was:

"...that every effort be made to provide for the preservation and conservation of the house and farm buildings together with sufficient land to guarantee their setting, to protect around them enough of the environmental landscape to create a buffer zone that would screen the homesite from any further development or activity that would tend to be detrimental to its function as a heritage site.

"Thirdly, that Edenbank heritage site be used to interpret" — I would just like to underline that point — "the evolution of the dairy industry in British Columbia using the life of the Wells family, and reconstructed for the growth in animal husbandry, farming technology and so on."

In other words, Mr. Herbert, a very capable historian, had carried out the study under contract and indicated that yes, it should be designated, it should be protected, it should be in the public domain because it is a living farm. For five generations the family had contributed to the agricultural traditions and well-being in British Columbia, and therefore it should have been designated. That, in a nutshell, is phase one of the story.

Phase two of the story is that under the Provincial Secretary there is a board that advises the minister on what sorts of sites are of significance in the province and should be designated. This board is called the Heritage Advisory Board. In conjunction is a separate body referred to as the Heritage Trust, and that body attempts to secure funds if funds are not available in the province.

What did this board say about the Edenbank Farm? Before I tell you I'd just like to tell you who is on this board. This board is composed of academics and lay people of various types whose judgment is authoritative and responsible, and presumably they should have the confidence of the minister. The chairman of the board is Dr. Donald Mitchell from the University of Victoria, and the members include Dr. Roy Carlson of Simon Fraser. There are two Indian representatives on the board for the Indian heritage matters, Ms. Ardyth Cooper and Ms. Gloria Cranmer-Webster. Also members are Dr. Ed Gibson at Simon Fraser: Dr. J.E. Hendrickson, Dr. Margaret Ormsby; Mr. Martin Segger, who is from the Maltwood Museum here in Victoria; a lay person, Mr. Ronald Sutherland Dr. Charles Humphries; Dr. R.W. Davidson; and Mr. William Sloan.

MS. BROWN: That is hardly a frivolous board.

MR. HANSON: That is not a frivolous board, a board that would make frivolous, overly academic or arcane suggestions or recommendations to the minister.

In their deliberations as a board on October 20, 1978.... This again is a matter that has taken a great period of time and extends up to just recent times in its deliberations. They reviewed Mr. Herbert's report and thought it was excellent. In fact, their minutes state: "that their committee accept and appreciate the excellent report on Edenbank Farm and refer its first part, the research guidelines, to the guidelines committee for consideration and study." They didn't make a snap decision. They referred it to a committee of their board for full review and by the staff of the branch. They then went on to deliberate on the recommendations, and the board dealt with recommendation (a), which was for the designation of the Edenbank Farm as a provincial heritage site under this minister's responsibility the minister that now directs Mr. Heal's activities.

While I'm giving you my comments, I would like you to think about the image challenge of Mr. Heal on a particular case like this, which is extremely well-documented. Here we have the board dealing with the recommendation. This is what they say in their minutes: "that Edenbank be designated a provincial heritage site under part two of the Heritage Conservation Act. It is considered to be an outstanding example of the best in British Columbia in our agricultural condition. It is also felt that it could qualify under both general and unique categories." The board unanimously endorsed the proposal to designate this farm and to forward that recommendation to the minister.

The deliberations then go on. Mr. Herbert's recommendation (b) states: "Every effort be made to provide for the preservation and conservation of the house and the farm buildings, together with sufficient land to ensure its preservation for subsequent generations." The board unanimously endorsed Mr. Herbert's recommendation that the Edenbank heritage site be used to interpret the evolution and growth of the dairy industry in the Fraser Valley, using the life of the Wells family to trace the growth in technology, farming, animal husbandry, product utilization and marketing within the context of Fraser Valley society. Let me remind you, Mr. Chairman, that there is only a very small amount of farmland in British Columbia. The agricultural community is fighting for its life under this government, and such a designation for a living museum — not a cobweb one, ignored and out of the mainstream of British Columbian society — would help

[ Page 5304 ]

British Columbians not acquainted with farming and the history of farming in the province to become acquainted, to appreciate it and to fight for the preservation of farmland, which is coming under such intense pressure as a result of the speculative friends of this government, Mr. Chairman.

That in a nutshell is phase two. Phase one was Mr. Herbert's report. Phase two was the board bringing it to the attention of the government and the minister for his action. Were they asking for a lot of money? No, they were not. The family — the recent occupants of the farm — were very generous in their contribution to the province in offering to sell that land well below current market value to ensure that it was preserved and protected. They were, by the way, willing to rebate back to the province a portion of the asking price to aid in the development of this farm to interpret it for future generations.

Now an interesting thing happened. The minister, after receiving the recommendations of the board and assurances from the trust and Mr. J.V. Clyne, who is a great supporter of this government, that money could be forthcoming from various sources.... These sources, Mr. Chairman, were the Devonian Foundation, the Woodward Foundation, the local heritage committee and so on. I might point out that the local heritage committee and the farming community in Chilliwack greatly supported this recommendation.

But what do you think happened, Mr. Chairman? A very unusual thing happened. The minister not only discounted entirely the recommendation of his board. The board had given so much thought, attention and research to their recommendations that the minister would approve these recommendations pro forma. But he also denied the designation after a special meeting of cabinet. There was disagreement within the cabinet over this matter — the recommendation that he carried with him from his board to acquire, for $1 million, this land to be brought into the public domain. He took that recommendation to cabinet, and cabinet ruled against the designation.

Part three of the story is the old beaks in the trough story. It's the Spetifore, the Wenger, the Gloucester property, the beaks in the trough, political interference story.

The minister remarked earlier that he didn't want to deal with Mr. Heal, image and all that, and that he wanted to deal with something of substance in his ministry. Here we have it: the recommendations of an excellent board and an excellent report.... All of a sudden there's a little group of business people well known to Social Credit who call themselves Royal International Equities Ltd. Has anybody heard of the Save the Farmland Committee that are fighting for the 1,700 acres in Chilliwack? They're the same boys. They're the same people. Guess who they are? One of them was official agent for the member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) in 1975, and the other one was his official agent in 1979.

MR. HOWARD: What party?

MR. HANSON: Social Credit. Now what did they do? After the government turned them down after this offer, the recommendations, the research and the support, along come Mr. Eldon Unger, Mr. Ben Voth and Mr. Ebbe Olsen, and they pick up the property for a condominium development. Isn't that interesting. Is this going to be low-cost housing? No. This is going to be what they call a security development, with a 2.5-metre brick fence all around it. Seven acres, and guess what the farmhouse is going to be. The farmhouse is going to be a clubhouse. The other buildings are knocked down now. They knocked them down so Socreds could pick up the property. It is the most disgusting bit of political patronage, and it ranks with Spetifore.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The second member for Victoria has the floor. He will be afforded the courtesy and privilege of speaking in this debate.

MR. HANSON: The last day and a half we've talked of Mr. Heal, and the government has said they're trying to correct their image problem. It is not an image problem, it's a matter of substance, policy and action by this government. It's patronage.

MS. BROWN: That's right. It's not the frizzies and the beards.

MR. HANSON: It's the George Spetifores, the Sepp and Joan Wengers, the Eldon Ungers, Ebby Olsens and Ben Voths. It's the payoffs to your friends we object to.

You insulted that board. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if you get resignations. Why should they come over here and sit and work in committee and try and protect the Indian, European, Asian and other heritage resources of this province'? Why should they give their time? Why should Margaret Ormsby, Ed Gibson and all these other people come over here? Willard Ireland would be sick to death to see you doing this. It's a disgrace. I'm asking you what happened. Why did they turn it down?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the second member for Victoria on his first attempt at mud-slinging in this Legislature. He fits the mould very precisely. Over many years in this House that's the sort of picture I've heard painted so many times: down in the muck, dirt and slosh trying to make a really sick case, suspecting the absolute worst out of every turn of events.

We've heard him ask the question after going carefully through the litany of events of the Edenbank Farm. Certainly a lot of British Columbians are mindful of the place. It's a beautiful area. He asks why the application for heritage consideration was turned down. The member who just spoke worked in the branch for some considerable period of time and would certainly be aware of many of the archaeological sites in this province. In the branch he had some information that a lot of us are not privy to. Despite all that, we have an application which was before the trust and the provincial government for a long period of time for a very substantial amount of money.

I want to say at the outset that the heritage branch, just to put this thing in perspective, has funds of some $2.3 million in support of archaeological and heritage matters in the province. In addition, the funds put out by the trust for the restoration of sites and for the publications financed through this agency are something approaching $2 million per year. The booklet turned out for their 1979-80 annual report lists many of these grants. They range from $1,000 up to the highest grant that year of $50,000 to help restore the Congregation Emanuel synagogue in Victoria. We've all witnessed the improvements; they've taken the stucco off that building and restored the original brick. It's becoming a beautiful site in downtown Victoria.

[ Page 5305 ]

I only want to indicate that an application of the size we're referring to here was very difficult to give serious consideration to insofar as allocating the capital funds to purchase this farm and, secondly, to provide ongoing operating support for this farm. I don't think that the studies the member referred to directed themselves to who was going to take care of the operation of this site were the Crown or the heritage conservation branch or anyone else to assume operation of it. I think what it said was that they thought there might be a local partner who would join with the Crown or whoever bought it to operate this facility in the future. That's not an idle consideration, Mr. Chairman — perhaps a quarter of a million dollars a year or more to operate that farm in the future. There's been no local partner come forward. I might say that going through the history of this proposal, the municipality of Chilliwack is certainly not on record as supporting the proposal, notwithstanding the fact that the Heritage Advisory Board must study these matters and make recommendations.

We have responsibility to the whole province insofar as they're faced with a great many grants and there are restrictions on the availability of farms. It's just as simple as that. At the time this matter was under consideration the farm might have been available from the owners at something around $1 million. The member refers to the fact that the owners were prepared to discount or sell below the market price. This was indicated by the proposal. In other words, the owners felt at the time that the property was worth something like $1.2 million, but the available price they were asking was $1 million. Here was the proposal: to purchase the farm with no local partner indicated for a purchase price of $1 million, to reinstate the building — somebody had to provide for that — for an estimated $0.25 million and then to leave the question open of what the cost of operating and maintaining this facility in the years forward. I'm speaking in very round figures.

I understand the property has since been sold by the owners. I'm sure they regret the fact that the government or some other body couldn't have maintained it. There are many sites of heritage value within this province which are also worthwhile maintaining. With available funds we cannot consider buying every one which comes before us. It's a simple and honest consideration that the cabinet and government in their wisdom could not allocate these funds.

I think the member stated that the advisory board said they had the funds. Well, the advisory board have no funds. The Heritage Trust have allocated funds each year, which they designated to many projects. The Heritage Trust have funds, but they did not have $1.25 million — no way — to expend on such a project. It was a decision of the government at that time which had nothing to do with the other inferences the member refers to. He knows that. He's trying to make the usual facade of getting down in the muck, which we're quite used to, and we'll just choose to ignore him.

MR. BARNES: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if you could ask the minister if he would explain to the House how he defines "honest." He made reference to it in his remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not hear the particular remark, hon. member. If the minister would care to enlarge on anything.... I'm at a loss.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think it's a facetious question, Mr. Chairman. I said the cabinet made an honest consideration of this matter, and the decision was made based on the facts before it.

MR. HANSON: My information is that $1 million was the ballpark figure, with the possibility of a rebate to the province of $200,000. The parcel was actually in two parts: a small part 73 acres — was outside of the ALR, and the other part 75 acres, I believe — was inside. My information is that the $1 million was not for all the farmland, the ALR land. Let me tell you this. The Royal International Equities people — Mr. Voth. Mr. Olsen and Mr. Unger — were willing to pay over $12 million for that piece of property, 90 percent of which is in the ALR. Does that bode well for that piece outside of the 2.5-metre brick wall?

The minister mentioned no partner. Discussions were taking place with Fraser Valley College. Fraser Valley College was interested in running that as a living dairy farm. When you're asking if there was any local interest and participation, I don't think you explored that as strongly as you could have.

My question to you is: did the MLA for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) make representation to you or any of your cabinet colleagues, that you are aware of, to not designate the Edenbank Farm?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I have absolutely no recollection of any approach from an MLA on the matter. I might say that I neglected to mention that not included in the estimate I gave you of the cost of this acquisition was the cost of restoring the famous barn. This was a major part of the study's recommendation — another $500,000 to restore the barn. We're now approaching $2 million for the segment of the site which was under consideration for development as a heritage site.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move that the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

MR. HOWARD: I propose an amendment thereto, which is that the motion be amended by deleting the words "10 o'clock a.m." and substituting therefore the words "2 o'clock p.m." If I could give you my reasons for doing that, the essence of it is that I'm proposing the House not meet tomorrow morning. While I cannot, at this point, include a motion about the House meeting tomorrow evening, I submit that if the House does not meet tomorrow morning, that time could be readily and easily made up by sitting tomorrow evening, so that no time of the Legislature would be lost.

The reason for proposing the motion that the House not meet tomorrow morning is based upon statements of the Chairman of the Committee on Crown Corporations that it's impossible to find a time for the Committee on Crown Corporations to meet because the House is meeting. I propose that if we do not meet tomorrow morning, there are no other com-

[ Page 5306 ]

mittees meeting, and Giggling Gertie over there, the Chairman of the Crown corporations committee, will have an opportunity to call that committee together to consider its activities. I should point out that the Chairman of the committee is under unanimous instruction from the committee to meet on the third Thursday of each month, which he has failed to do now two months in a row, using some obscure reasoning that the House was meeting. He has failed to give the House and the government this opportunity to provide a chance for that committee to meet tomorrow morning. Beyond that, when it comes to committees meeting when the House is meeting — and it has been used as an argument by the Chairman of the Crown corporations committee that he can't call meetings because the House is meeting....We're giving him this opportunity to do that.

Apart from that, the question about committees meeting when the House is meeting was raised in Hansard, Wednesday, July 30, 1980, page 3611, a statement from the government House Leader: "In response to the Leader of the Opposition, who suggests that we ask for leave now" — I'm talking about a committee meeting when the House is sitting — "if we continue to sit in the mornings and leave is requested for committees to sit, the leave will be granted, subject, of course, to availability of ministers, and so forth." So government policy is that a simple request of the Chairman of the Crown corporations committee for the committee to meet when the House was meeting would have been granted if that request had been made. But falling back on the argument of the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), Chairman of the Crown corporations committee, that committee cannot meet; he, the Chairman, finds it necessary to violate the unanimous order by the committee to him to call meetings — and he's failed to do that. We give him this opportunity if this motion passes. Then, of course, if the government feels that the time of the House is unnecessarily put to one side by not meeting tomorrow morning, we would be very happy to support a motion for the House to sit tomorrow evening and make up that time.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The government doesn't accept the amendment. The times for sitting were clearly indicated by this House at the beginning of the current session. The difficulties that may arise with regard to committees of all sorts meeting when the House is present is a matter for the committees themselves to resolve, not for the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment says that the motion be amended by deleting the words "10 o'clock a.m." and substituting therefore the words "2 o'clock p.m."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

NAYS — 28

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

MR. HOWARD: The point of order I want to raise relates to a standing order which says: "A member who has a pecuniary interest in some subject matter should not have his vote allowed." I submit to you that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who voted in this division that we just held, has a pecuniary interest in that he's getting $4,000 a year extra for doing nothing. Either his vote should be disallowed or he should be dumped from the committee, and we should get somebody in there who can do a job.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please. I think the hon. member knows that standing order 18, the standing order to which he referred, undoubtedly refers to a pecuniary interest outside of this chamber. If that were not true, then even the members' salaries inside of this House would not be voted on at any time. So the point of order, although I'm sure it is of concern to the hon. member, is not in order at this time.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:04 p.m.