[ Page 7971 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act To Establish An Institute Of Native Languages For British Columbia

(Bill M207). Mr. Hanson

Introduction and first reading –– 7971

Oral Questions

Donation of Xerox copier to Vancouver Junior League. Mr. Macdonald –– 7971

Expenses of Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 7972

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 4). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Fraser)

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 7974

Mr. Lorimer –– 7975

Offence Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 3). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 7975

Mr. Macdonald –– 7976

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates.

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On the amendment to vote 28: minister's office (continued) –– 7976

Division

On vote 28: minister's office –– 7976

Mr. Macdonald

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mr. Howard

On the amendment to vote 28 –– 7984

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Barrett

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Mr. King

Division

On vote –– 28: minister's office –– 7994

Mr. Howard

THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention that we have in the galleries today, visiting from West Vancouver, Joan and Graham Powell. With them are three visitors from Liverpool, England: Chrissie Murphy, Pauline Senior and Alice Williams. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. HALL: Visiting with us today in the gallery are three very good friends and constituency workers from the Surrey–White Rock area. I'd like the House to join with me in welcoming Mrs. Gwen Clark, Mrs. Mary Fee and Mrs. Isabel McKechnie.

MR. RITCHIE: I am pleased today to introduce Mr. Fred Middleton to the House. He is a retired school district superintendent and a hard-working community worker. With Mr. Middleton are three Rotary exchange students from South Africa: Wendy Istead, who is billeted in Abbotsford; Carla Sutherland, who is billeted in Haney; and Tracy Ritchie, who is billeted in Prince George.

Also in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, I note that we have the beautiful wife of our member for North Vancouver–Capilano, Cheri Ree. Would the House please welcome these guests.

MR. KING: I'd ask the House to join me in extending a welcome to a group of grade 6 students from Mount Begbie Elementary School in Revelstoke. They are visiting the parliament buildings with their teacher Mr. Lewis.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Sometimes in the rough and tumble of legislative debate, we miss the true beauty that surrounds us. Today I had such an experience when I met with the grade 7 students of the Haney–Pitt Meadows Christian School. They are with their teacher, Mr. Tuininga, and their chaperones, Mrs. Groenewold and Mrs. Vander Veen. I'd ask this House to make them welcome.

MR. LAUK: Would the House please welcome my constituency secretary, Mrs. Thelma Pankiw, who is being accompanied today by a member of the NDP judicial committee, a member of the Vancouver bar, Mr. Chris Harris.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like the House to extend a welcome to one of my constituents who is an inventor of no slight success. He's here in Victoria today demonstrating his most recent invention. I welcome Mr. Vince Walters.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH AN INSTITUTE
OF NATIVE INDIAN LANGUAGES
FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

On a motion by Mr. Hanson, Bill M207, An Act to Establish an Institute of Native Indian Languages for British Columbia, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

DONATION OF XEROX COPIER
TO VANCOUVER JUNIOR LEAGUE

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can the minister confirm that without authorization he bestowed a tangible gift upon an organization, The Junior League of Vancouver, in March, 1981, in the form of a Xerox photocopier?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, most assuredly my answer is no.

MR. MACDONALD: When Mr. MacMunn, the director of finance, informed the minister that he couldn't bestow such tangible gifts, did the minister not then write to Mr. MacMunn and say: "Surely this is a case of the tail wagging the dog"? What were you saying when you wrote that?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: In view of the tail to the question which now emerges from the member, that turns out to be a topic the auditor-general is investigating. I will be very happy, following the release of her report, to discuss that with the member publicly in this chamber. For that reason, I take the question at this time on notice.

MR. MACDONALD: Has the minister been interviewed by Erma Morrison, the auditor-general, with respect to the Xerox photocopier?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I have taken the question as notice, but as the member should know, as this is a matter of public record that has been well reported and released, referred to her by me were all of the items raised by the Vancouver Sun and that is one of them.

MR. MACDONALD: Did the minister refer this matter of the Xerox photocopier to Erma Morrison by a letter specifically mentioning it?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: If the member has read the material I released at the time I wrote Mrs. Morrison requesting her to undertake the inquiry, he would see that I specifically sent to her, and asked her to kindly inquire into, all of the material delivered to me by the Vancouver Sun.

MR. MACDONALD: On the same subject to the Premier, the memorandum of Stewart Goodings, Assistant Deputy Minister of Consumer Affairs, says his understanding is that the original agreement with respect to the granting of the photocopier machine was for half this amount to be assumed by the Premier's office. So I ask the Premier: did you authorize this gift to the Junior League, either in money or in kind?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Before I take the question as notice I will say that I can't recall if any of my staff or I have authorized a number of things worthy of donation. If I didn't authorize such a thing I certainly would have.

MR. MACDONALD: The Premier is taking as notice whether or not he authorized this thing. You don't remember that, after all the publicity?

[ Page 7972 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: He asked if my office has authorized it. I have a number of people in my office who assist me in doing good work for the people of British Columbia. While I cannot recall every event, I want to let him know, most assuredly, that I believe very strongly in the good work done by the Junior League of Vancouver. I would have made some commitment to try to assist them. I know that the member wouldn't be asking the question if the donation of a Xerox was to DERA, but there are many societies that work for the benefit of British Columbians. I am on record very firmly as trying to help them help people.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members will please remember to answer only within the scope of the question.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a supplementary for the Premier. I don't know whether any of your authorizations are before Erma Morrison or not, but I'll ask the question anyway: did you know that the Junior League hadn't even applied for this thing? There are many organizations who do good work in the province of British Columbia who make applications to the government for grants. This is the first time in recorded history that somebody has suddenly received a gift that hadn't even been applied for. Did you know that, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can't respond, as I've taken that particular part as notice. But I can say that I do spend a lot of time assisting societies and groups that assist British Columbians. I get out there, visit with them and try to help them help people. I don't wait to be asked. I get out out there and help the people get on with the job of working for others.

MR. HOWARD: Just like BCRIC!

HON. MR. BENNETT: I see the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who was quite contrite this morning about things called across the floor, is back in form.

MR. BARRETT: What a sleazy statement!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Is that the same member...

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: ...who was on his feet this morning....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I have to ask the hon. Minister of Energy to come to order. The Speaker is on his feet. So that all members will be advised and not caught by surprise, the same rule that applies in committee will apply in the House: when the presiding officer is on his feet, there will be silence. In the absence of that silence, the offending members will be asked to leave the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in general, our government will seek to try to assist organizations very strongly, no matter what part of the province or what part of the city of Vancouver they're in.

EXPENSES OF MINISTER OF ENERGY,
MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to questions taken as notice yesterday in the House. On Wednesday afternoon the member for Skeena asked me a series of questions dealing with an official government visit to New York by me and a senior official of my ministry, notably my deputy minister, on June 11 and 12 of 1980. The purpose of the trip was one of the questions. The trip was made four months after the announcement of B.C.'s energy policy, and its purpose was to meet with senior representatives of financial and investment houses, energy consultants, the province's principal financial agents, and representatives of newspapers and publications such as the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Newsweek and several oil and gas journals in New York.

During the afternoon of June 11 we met in Boston with senior executives of Arthur D. Little, an international energy consulting company. On the evening of June 11, after our arrival in New York, my deputy and I attended a working dinner meeting with officials of the Canadian consul-general's office in New York. This dinner was also attended by an investment house representative and an energy consultant.

On the morning of June 12, we had a breakfast meeting with the media representatives I have already mentioned. This was followed by a meeting with Salomon Bros., a New York financial institution which acts as one of the province's banking agencies. We next attended a luncheon meeting with Lehman Bros., Kuhn Loeb, another major financial institution and provincial banking agency. In the afternoon of June 12 we met with representatives of McKinsey and Co., another large consulting firm.

Throughout these meetings we were accompanied by Mr. Nicholas Coolidge, a U.S. consultant, Mr. Peter Restler, who is now with Lehman Bros., Kuhn Loeb, but was with another financial company at that time — I've forgotten the name of the company — and by either Mr. Paul Theberge, the deputy consul-general in York, or other senior consular officials, depending on the meetings we were attending. In addition, the senior official of my ministry, Mr. Roy Illing, my deputy minister, held separate meetings with representatives of other U.S. financial institutions and oil and energy companies.

I would like to deal now, specifically, with other matters raised yesterday by the member for Skeena: the expense involved in the use of a limousine and a visit to a Broadway theatre.

In regard to the limousine, upon our arrival at New York's La Guardia Airport about 5 p.m., which was one of the questions asked by the member for Skeena, I did not take a limousine to the hotel. My deputy and myself travelled to our hotel by taxi. We were met by consul-general staff at the hotel, where we discussed and confirmed our itinerary while in New York. This was followed by the visit to the theatre which was mentioned and the working dinner which I referred to earlier.

My deputy minister and I and the other participants who travelled to the meetings I have outlined did so in a limousine which was provided by the consul-general. As many as six people at a time were involved in its use. I did not order this limousine, and the schedule of meetings to which it took us had been prearranged by the consul-general. It was my understanding that the organization of transportation and other services was normal practice by the consul-general in New

[ Page 7973 ]

York for visiting government missions. I was not aware until yesterday in question period of the cost of the limousine or the fact that it had been paid for by my ministry. No bill or voucher to authorize payment ever came to my attention. My deputy minister was unaware of the cost, and no bill or voucher to authorize payment ever came to his attention.

On examining the matter, following the questions raised by the member for Skeena, I learned that it is normal procedure between the provinces and the federal External Affairs department that services provided by the consulate-general are billed back to the province in question. This bill for limousine service was handled under this procedure.

I wish to assure the House, in answer to the question, that had I ever seen the bill, I would have checked the cost against that of other modes of transportation, and if the cost was justified by the service, bearing in mind the tight schedule of meetings we attended and the number of people who were in attendance, I would have approved its payment. If the cost was not justified under the same procedure, I would not have approved the payment. However, the opportunity to make that decision was not available to me.

Regarding the second matter on the itinerary, following the end of the June 11 afternoon meeting at our hotel I was advised that through the consul-general's office arrangements had been made for me, my deputy and other members of the party to which I've already made mention to visit the theatre. The theatre visit was followed by the working dinner meeting which I have already mentioned.

As in the case of the bill for the limousine, I was not aware that the cost of the theatre tickets was to be charged to my ministry. I was not aware of the cost of the tickets, and no bill or voucher to authorize payment ever came to my attention. No bill or voucher to authorize payment ever came to the attention of my deputy minister. The cost of these tickets was included in the billing submitted by the consul-general to the government of B.C. As in the case of the limousine, I was not aware until yesterday during question period of the cost of these tickets, or that we had been billed and had paid for them.

I want to assure the House that had I been advised of this matter, I would never have authorized payment, and neither would my deputy minister. I would have paid the cost of my ticket, my deputy would have paid the cost of his ticket, and the office of the consul-general, I would hope, would have paid the cost of the tickets for the other persons who attended the theatre. I did not arrange for the tickets, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to say that quite clearly.

An expenditure for theatre tickets, in my view, is not a proper expense for government to meet, and I would not have authorized it under any circumstances.

While these expenses were processed and paid by my ministry, particular attention will be paid in the future to ensure that all expenses charged to my office will be personally reviewed by me. I thank those members, despite the way in which it came to the House, for that information that will allow me to do that in future. If the practice of ministerial responsibility is to be applied in this case, then I accept that responsibility. But I must repeat that neither I nor my deputy was ever made aware of the costs, the billings or the fact that the accounts had been paid.

Finally, in answer to those questions, Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to repay the government for the cost of my theatre ticket; it is my deputy's intention — freely offered by him — to repay the cost of the ticket to the theatre that was incurred in his name. This is in keeping with the belief that I have that the cost of those tickets was not a justifiable use of government funds. In this regard I also intend, either by myself or through one of my officials, to write to the consul-general in New York and ask that they pay for their tickets as well.

MR. HOWARD: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, relating to the answer just given by the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Please state the matter briefly.

MR. HOWARD: The question of privilege is basically that the minister has given to the House information which is not in accordance with the facts as outlined in official government documents. Let me refer you to them to lay the groundwork for a motion I intend to move, if Your Honour finds that I do have a prima facie case of privilege.

The first one is a Telex. A code at the top says NYK025. I checked with the communications centre of the government of the province of British Columbia, and NYK is the code for New York. It was addressed to CNGNY, which I'm advised is the consul-general's office of the Canadian government in New York. It is stamped: "Received, 11 June 80, 1448, CNGNY." The text of the Telex says:

B.C. MINISTER ENERGY, MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES VISIT JUNE NEW YORK 9 JUNE. B. WARBURTON, DIRECTOR, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, HAS PROVIDED FUNDS AND SPENDING AUTHORITY TO COVER COST OF HOST AT LUNCHEON, DINNERS, RECEPTIONS, MEETING ROOMS. LIMOUSINES, ETC, FOR SUBJECT VISIT. PARTY INCLUDES HON. R.H. McCLELLAND, MINISTER, R. ILLING, DEPUTY MINISTER. R. ILLING WILL APPROVE PAYMENTS UP TO BUT NOT EXCEEDING THE $5,000 (CANADIAN) AUTHORIZED FOR THIS VISIT. ADVISE VOUCHER NUMBERS AND MONTH OF ACCOUNT AS SOON AS EXPENSES INCURRED. INSURE ALL VOUCHERS IDENTIFIED AS "MINISTRY OF ENERGY, MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES."

Then there is a code. At the bottom of the last portion of that Telex, which I will table, appear the letters AFFP 5622. AFFP 5622 relates to a telephone number here in the November 1981 edition of the government directory. The directory indicates the location of that telephone number as 1117 Wharf Street. In 1980 the number was assigned to the magazine Beautiful B.C., published by the Ministry of Tourism. The government Telex supervisor says that that number is no longer valid. There is another number that has replaced it. That other number is also that of the Ministry of Tourism's Beautiful B.C.

There is a memo dated December 12, 1980, which is also in the file of documents, to Mr. R.R. Davy, Director of Finance and Administration, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Buildings:

"Re: visit of the minister, Hon. R.H. McClelland, and the deputy minister, Mr. Roy Illing, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, to New York, June 1980.

"Further to our discussions and my memorandum of June 13, I am attaching External Affairs invoice...for a certain amount of money covering expenses incurred by your minister and deputy minister while in New York. The amount of $1,298.91 coincides with and includes the hotel rooms of the minister and the deputy minister, the limousine at five

[ Page 7974 ]

hundred and some dollars and the tickets to 'Sugar Babies.'"

I won't go on and read the whole amount, but it refers to vouchers, how to deal with them, how to pay the bill and so on. It's signed by Brian Warburton, director of administration.

In discussion with the Canadian consular office in New York, I'm advised by Mr. David Adam, whose name appeared on the "Sugar Babies" bill, that the consul-general's office in New York is not an agent of any province, that it does not act for any province or any ministry and that it has no budget to cover provincial visits. It normally does not handle arrangements of a social nature, such as "Sugar Babies," and does so only upon a specific request, which would come.... Mr. Adam was not able to tell me from whom, but he said: "It could come from the minister or somebody representing the minister."

Mr. Speaker, I submit that there is sufficient information there to indicate, especially inasmuch as the minister in his closing remarks said that he accepts full responsibility for the activity, that he has brought to the House information which is misleading and not in accordance with the facts as identified by the documents to which I have referred.

I submit that the minister, operating through Nick Coolidge, whom he identified as having a consulting firm or something in New York — the person who used to be associated with the firm of Kidder Peabody up until a couple of years ago, a person whom the Premier used whenever he went to New York, a person whom the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) apparently used whenever they went to New York for purposes of the provincial government....

They were acting on the instructions and with the knowledge of the minister.

If you find that I have a prima facie case of privilege, I intend to move that a special committee of privilege be appointed to consider the answers given today in response to my question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the Chair has been very lenient in the length of this statement. I hope that is not an affront to the House, and certainly it is not meant to establish any precedent. It has been allowed in this case, and I take full responsibility.

We will review the matter and the motion and bring a decision back as quickly as possible.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

MR. GABELMANN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) was advised by the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) that this particular bill would not be called this afternoon. Because of that commitment and that promise by the minister, the order of business as presented by the House Leader is completely out of order, in my view.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is not a valid point of order in this House. That is a matter between Whips, and the House has no interest in it.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm happy to make some general statements regarding Bill 4, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1982. This bill is an expression of the government's concern over the number of accidents which cause death and injury on our highways. To meet this concern the government appointed a task force of senior public servants from the ministries of Transportation and Highways and Attorney-General and senior officials of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. It was called the Motor Vehicle Task Force, and was to study in broad aspect the causes of motor vehicle accidents and make recommendations that would result in the reduction of the number of accidents. This carnage on our highways resulted, in 1981, in 859 killed and 44,033 injured, with costs to society of millions of dollars.

Bill 4 is a result of some of the Motor Vehicle Task Force recommendations. When the enforcement situation was examined by the task force, it found that great concern was expressed by the police and the police community with regard to the point system and its effectiveness. This is the system whereby a driver who violates a traffic rule receives only demerit points on his driving record as punishment. While this system is an effective constraint on the good drivers of the province, it is ineffective in controlling the poor driver. The police indicated that they felt the ineffectiveness with many drivers when enforcing the traffic rules on the highway. The poor drivers were aware of it, and showed this in their driving habits, which were an example to the young drivers of our province. Approximately 100,000 persons on our highways in British Columbia are considered bad drivers. This bill contains strong measures for the control of drivers who often violate the traffic rules. The procedures that the bill will allow will cause the average good driver who commits an offence to be recognized and given a traffic violation report, which would result in points on his driving record. For the average good driver, that is enough. The poor driver, the one with violations, would, when recognized, be treated differently. He would be given a ticket that would result in a fine and points when convicted. You could be given a notice to appear in court, and not pay the fine out of court. If convicted, you could be sentenced to a fine, to jail, or be prohibited from driving.

It is the intention of this bill to give much more authority to the police to bring poor drivers into court. The courts are given more scope in sentencing, particularly with regard to prohibiting a person from driving. It is designed to affect the high-point driver, who is involved generally in more serious accidents, and whose habits affect the standards of driving by his example. We are all concerned with the young driver, and I am thinking of the 16- and 17-year-olds. While many of this age are good drivers under parental control and an asset to their families, there is a need to control young drivers. This bill will give more allowance to patrol the driving of this group by the use of short-term probationary licences, and by imposing restrictions on the use of their licences.

The motor vehicle department procedures will be such that the probationary licence will be closely monitored, and at the first variance from good driving habits, action will be taken against the driver.

Other provisions of the bill that will affect the poor driver are: mandatory jail and fine if convicted of driving while prohibited; impoundment of the vehicle for 24 hours if found driving while prohibited, whether with a friend's car or one's own; mandatory two-month prohibition if convicted of a traffic offence where a person has a record of 15 or more

[ Page 7975 ]

points; mandatory six-month prohibition if convicted of a criminal code offence, such as impaired driving. Mandatory three-year prohibition if convicted of failing to stop for a police officer who is required to pursue the driver. The bill will allow police to prohibit driving for 24 hours where alcohol has been consumed. This would also apply where drugs affect driving ability. The bill will establish a new offence of excessive speeding — 30 kilometres an hour over the posted speeds, or driving without due care and attention. Conviction will result in a minimum fine of $100.

In each case, the court will be advised of the person's driving record when considering sentence. Through these measures and others in the bill, it is my expectation that we will give the police and the courts the authority to control the drivers of the province. We expect a high level of enforcement. This control can result in an improvement in the standard of driving among the general public, but particularly the poor, high-point drivers. The result will be a reduction in death, injuries and other costs to our society.

Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.

MR. LORIMER: I regret that this bill was called at this time, after the indication given to our critic on transportation, the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), that it would not be brought up today. He is unavoidably away.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. That particular debate is not in order at this time.

MR. LORIMER: I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting, on behalf of....

MR. SPEAKER: That's an acceptable motion.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, is it for himself or on behalf of the member? You can do it whichever way you want to, but indicate clearly.

MR. LORIMER: On behalf of the member for Mackenzie, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

OFFENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The amendments which are before the House in this bill are principally consequential to the amendments to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, Bill 4, which has recently been introduced by my colleague. The Motor Vehicle Amendment Act provides that a peace officer who apprehends the driver of a motor vehicle for infractions of that legislation may issue any one of several different forms of process for a traffic-rule violation. Bill, 3, the Offence Amendment Act, is being specifically amended to deal with two of those forms of process.

The first form of process is the voluntary penalty ticket which will permit the violator, in the circumstances described in the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, to pay a predetermined fine out of court, in lieu of a court appearance. Of course, that leaves to the person who has been apprehended the right to deny that he or she is guilty of any offence. But if, rather than defend, the individual wishes to pay the fixed fine, this will be permitted.

Under this Offence Amendment Act, this form of ticket may, however, be used for any offence under any provincial statute for which a voluntary penalty is appropriate, as well as for traffic-rule violations of the Motor Vehicle Act. I might offer to the House some examples of offences for which voluntary penalty tickets might be appropriate under other statutes: consumption of alcohol in a public place, fishing without a licence, and driving a motor vehicle with a faulty muffler. Matters of that kind might be appropriately prescribed under the Offence Act as those for which voluntary penalty tickets can be issued.

The second form of process created under this bill is the appearance notice, which will, when served upon an alleged offender, oblige that offender to appear in court in order to plead to the offence charged and, if found guilty by the court, to be sentenced. The appearance notice is designed to be used in the more serious traffic violations under the Motor Vehicle Act and for a number of other provincial statute offences where there is either a power of arrest given in the statute or where, by reason of the nature of the offence, it is deemed inappropriate for the offender to be allowed to pay the penalty out of court.

There are some offences for which the Crown concludes that the offender should be obliged to appear in court to answer to the charge. Examples of offences where the use of the appearance notice might be appropriate are: driving a motor vehicle while one's licence is suspended, driving without automobile insurance, and the killing of a prohibited wildlife species under the Wildlife Act. This is the nature of the offences for which we believe the offender should be obliged to make his answer in court.

There is another provision of this bill I would like to mention, and that is an amendment which will permit the court to imprison a person who fails to pay a fine that has been imposed under the Motor Vehicle Act within the time which the court may allow for the payment of such a fine. It is well appreciated that it has been the practice in recent years not to imprison for the default in the payment of fines, but our concern with respect to motor vehicle offences, as my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has indicated, is of such a degree that we believe that if the financial penalty is imposed and the person fails to pay, that person should be obliged to face the prospect of imprisonment.

There is another amendment that will, I know, be the subject of some discussion. We are making it clear that where a minimum fine has been established under the Motor Vehicle Act, the courts cannot impose a fine lower than the minimum. Examples of offences where minimum fines are established are: driving without insurance, $250, and driving while a motor vehicle driver's licence is suspended, $300.

It may be argued that the imposition of minimum fines is inappropriate and that we should leave the right to make a decision as to what the minimum fine might be to the court, bearing in mind all the circumstances. I can understand that argument, but it is the government's position with regard to Motor Vehicle Act offences that if the court wishes to exercise a discretion, it will do so above a fixed minimum. For too

[ Page 7976 ]

long we have allowed the drivers of vehicles in this province to treat the motor vehicle rules with some disdain and blithely ignore the very lax penalty system which has been in place.

My colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways referred to the point system. We have high-point drivers in this province as a result of a number of offences, and they virtually ignore the rules of the road and, when apprehended, ignore the penalties which are imposed. I would prefer not to have to deal so sternly with this kind of offence, and I look forward to the day when a government may see fit to modify the stringent provisions. But until the drivers of this province understand the implications of their conduct upon themselves and upon others who are lawfully entitled to use our streets and highways, these minimums will apply. And we wish the courts to understand the seriousness with which the government views these offences.

Mr. Speaker, so saying, I move second reading of Bill 4.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in view of the adjournment of further debate on Bill 4 — and this logically follows after it — I move adjournment.

MR. SPEAKER: Just so that we are clear, it is Bill 3.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, but in view of the adjournment that has taken place with respect to the debate on Bill 4, I move adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,
MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

(continued)

On the amendment to vote 28: minister's office, $212,539.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 28

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

On vote 28: minister's office, $212,539.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a very simple question in committee. Here he is on Broadway, sitting in the musical burlesque "Sugar Babies." Did it ever cross his mind that the theatre company wasn't giving those tickets gratis? Who did the minister think was paying for them?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the question, I've said in this House that the system under which those tickets were approved was faulty, and I must admit.... I'll tell the members again, as I told the press a few moments ago, that when I was asked whether or not I wished to attend a theatre, I said: "Yes, that would be nice." I was asked which show to I would like to go to. The show in question was named and I said: "Yes, I'd like to go to that show, because an old friend of yours, I'm sure, and one of your old favourites, Mickey Rooney, star of the Andy Hardy shows, was in that show, and Ann Miller, a favourite singer and dancer from the great MGM musicals of the fifties." I chose that show as the one I would like to go to.

Perhaps I was naive, Mr. Chairman, but I assumed that someone else was paying for those tickets.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'll answer the question, because I have no fear that I have done anything wrong. Obviously that assumption was incorrect. At the first opportunity to see any voucher for theatre tickets, I acted immediately with instructions that the government would not pay for those theatre tickets. I might have had that opportunity sooner; if the members of the public accounts committee had brought those vouchers forward several weeks ago, we could have acted much sooner.

Also, in answer to comments tossed across the floor by certain members of this House that someone is blocking members of the public accounts committee from having vouchers, I want to say categorically that this is not true. I would like the chairman of the public accounts committee to stand up in this House and say whether any member of the public accounts committee is not able to get vouchers when they are asked for in the proper year. If there is anyone, I'd like the chairman of the public accounts committee to make that statement in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind hon. members that we are currently on vote 28, the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. What takes place in any other committee is not of concern to this committee at this time.

The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, under....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair did err in recognizing the minister, not recognizing the fact that the member had not finished his line of questioning. I would ask the Minister of Universities — to help the Chair in this case

[ Page 7977 ]

— if he would yield to the second member for Vancouver East so that he can continue his questioning.

HON. MR. McGEER: I would be delighted, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MACDONALD: That is so gracious. I am going to listen to the speech of the minister of defence. I know it is the same one he has been giving since he joined Social Credit, but I enjoy it every time it's given. I'll stay, I promise. If not, I'll listen to it in my office.

The minister said, about sitting in the theatre: "Maybe I was naive." He has also told the committee, "I assumed someone was paying for the tickets," which is a pretty logical assumption, I guess, if you're going to a show. At the time of that visit, who did you assume would be paying for the tickets?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would like to help the committee as much as I can, but I am in a bit of difficulty. We are apparently discussing vote 28, which has to do with the estimates of the minister for the year 1982-83. There is a place ordered by this Legislature to ask the kind of questions that the member wishes to ask; it happens to be in the public accounts committee. Those members, for some reason, have chosen not to use the public accounts committee for that purpose. If they continue to say that someone is blocking the appearance of vouchers atPublic Accounts , as they are.... The people on the other side of the House who belong to the public accounts committee are the only people who are blocking vouchers from coming forward to the public accounts committee. I ask again, for the good of the House, if the chairman of the public accounts committee would stand in this House and say that anyone has been blocked from having the proper vouchers come before the public accounts committee. I know that that chairman is too responsible to make that kind of statement, because it isn't true.

Mr. Chairman, I would like you to help me and rule whether or not — especially since the matter is available for canvassing in question period and in the public accounts committee — we shouldn't get on with the business of talking about the estimates contained in vote 28.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I have a question relating to the statement that the minister just made and its veracity. He said that the members in the opposition who are on the public accounts committee are the only people blocking vouchers.

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

MR. HOWARD: That is an accusation against the members here who are on that committee and should not go unchallenged, Mr. Chairman. You permitted the member to make that accusation, and it is an absolutely false accusation. Let me show you why it is absolutely false.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, again I would call to all hon. members' attention that matters involving another committee of the House are not appropriately discussed at this time under vote 28. I appreciate the comments of the member for Skeena on his point of order, but the point of order itself is out of order because, again, it refers to another committee's deliberations. I would caution all members that if we are to conduct the business of this committee we must return to vote 28, the administrative responsibility of the member under that vote. Complaints or otherwise of members about another committee's functions or activities are not a matter of debate at this time, either from the minister or from the members.

The second member for Vancouver East.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The Premier was on his feet.

MR. MACDONALD: The Premier will have his chance.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the minister was not listening to your ruling, because he was the one who deflected this off into a discussion of the public.... I asked a simple question. You assumed that somebody was paying for the tickets. Who did you assume that somebody to be? It's a simple question.

The minister has confessed to naivete, but I don't know whether anybody can go to a Broadway show, where the tickets cost money, and assume that somebody's paying for it and not know who that somebody is. What's the answer to that simple question? Who did you assume was paying for the tickets when you sat there? Even if you're engaged by the show and entertained by it, at an intermission you might scratch your head and say: "Hey, that's a nice show. Who's paying for it? Who's paying for my ticket?" Would you answer that: who did you assume was paying for the show?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I made that explanation in the House during question period. It really has nothing to do with my estimates for this current fiscal year.

MR. HOWARD: You're asking for more money.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, we've dealt with that. There was an amendment to that motion. It was defeated.

MR. HOWARD: We're asking to reduce it, you numbskull.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, we canvassed certain matters this morning. The member for Skeena....

MR. HOWARD: I'll show how gracious I am, which is more gracious than that minister was in the committee, where he makes the most foul accusations knowing he can get away with them. Certainly I'll withdraw the word "numbskull."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: I didn't know he had one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, it's awfully interesting that those kinds of comments come across the floor just hours after the Leader of the Opposition stood in this House and made such an impassioned plea for members not to say things like that across the House. It shows up the

[ Page 7978 ]

sham, the hypocrisy, the showbiz of the members on the opposite side.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On a point of order, the member for Rossland-Trail.

MR. D'ARCY: We have heard the minister several times in the last few minutes say that his travel is not relevant under vote 28. I'd like the Chair to rule: if his travel is not relevant under vote 28 — even though an amount of $42,700 is included — then the entire debate on the amendment to reduce his travel allowance that we've had for the last two or three days was out of order. I would like the Chairman to rule on whether or not ministerial travel — that minister's travel — is relevant for discussion under vote 28.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, continuing with the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please, hon. minister.

Hon. members, in response to the question of the hon. member for Rossland-Trail on the point of order, the travel of the minister is canvassable under this particular vote. Nonetheless, the Chair has no knowledge of what takes place outside the House, in other committees. The members, again, are guided by the responsibility, which they must share, of their knowledge of what is taking place outside this particular committee.

MR. D'ARCY: On the same point of order, my question was whether or not it was relevant for discussion within this committee. I, too, have no knowledge of what goes on in other committees.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the travel of. the minister is canvassable under vote 28.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I assume you mean the travel which will be paid for under the sums which are available for discussion in this committee. I would be out of order in answering the question, then, but I will answer the question.

From time to time I ask people out for dinner. We go out for dinner and I pay the bill. Sometimes I would take them to a movie. We go to the movie and I pay the bill. Sometimes, Mr. Chairman, we may even go to a live theatre performance — at my invitation — and I pay the bill. I assume, perhaps naively, that when someone asks me out to the theatre, they might pick up the bill.

MR. MACDONALD: Is the minister's answer that, in this particular case, the Canadian Embassy was going to pay the bill? Is that what you're telling me? You're nodding your head. Is that what you assumed? Somebody else would be paying the bill. Who?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, we are talking about an event which took place some time ago. I don't have full recollection of everything that has happened on every trip I've ever taken, nor do I have full recollection of the conversations which took place at that time. I do recollect that a member of a group of people said to me: "Would you like to go to the theatre this evening?" I said: "Yes, it would be very nice." I was asked: "Would you like to go to this show?" I said: "Yes." We went, and I was under the assumption that the tickets would be purchased and paid for by someone else. I assumed I was a guest of the person who asked me. I'm sorry, but I just cannot remember which person in that group of people asked that question. I think that's a pretty common assumption to make.

MR. MACDONALD: Did it ever flit across the minister's mind that the taxpayers of British Columbia might be paying for the theatre tickets?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, you know I gave a very full statement in the House during question period because those questions were asked at that time. I honestly feel that those questions are out of order in this committee, but obviously the Chairman doesn't agree with me.

It never crossed my mind that the taxpayers of British Columbia would pay for those tickets. I would not have authorized the taxpayers to pay for those tickets had they ever come across my desk. Now that the ministry was billed I will not allow the taxpayers of British Columbia to pay for those tickets, because I don't think it's right. I will not allow it.

MR. MACDONALD: I ask you again who you assumed was paying for it. You can't go to a show and not know who your host is. The minister knew perfectly well that this bill was coming back to be visited upon the taxpayers. You won't tell the committee who you thought your host was. Who suggested going to the show? Was it you? Who suggested "Sugar Babies"? Did you have anything to do with picking the show? I say the minister is worse than naive when he spends taxpayers' money and doesn't know that the taxpayers are going to be soaked for it. That's what happened, and if these vouchers hadn't turned up, this whole thing would have been buried. How much of this goes on in the government of British Columbia? They spend the taxpayers' money, and then they say: "Well, I didn't know that it was going to be charged to the taxpayer." That's worse than naivete.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I suppose there will always be some controversy over international travel, particularly if it pertains to attracting capital or business or if it pertains to political contact between the province of British Columbia and other countries, but it's an important part of government today. The way in which those visits are developed, utilizing the offices of the federal External Affairs, is a very complicated procedure. How they handle their affairs is not something that would be easily brought to the attention of the minister.

I was a little puzzled, because these trips are always very time-wearing, both in time change, briefing and busy schedules. I'm surprised at the opposition who scoffed when the minister said that he might have been naive in not knowing who would pay for the tickets. The Leader of the Opposition was here then, and I know he did international travel, as well as some of the other members who were ministers in the former government. I can only assume by the way they scoffed that if any such items appeared on their expenses when they were cabinet ministers, they certainly wouldn't say they were naive. They were calculated as part of their plan to charge the taxpayers for those affairs.

I only know that I know my Minister of Energy, Mr. Chairman, and I accept very much what he says in this

[ Page 7979 ]

House. I have been on trips myself representing the people. It is not the easiest part of government, as much as it may sound glamorous because most people associate travel with their holiday. Travelling is one of the hardest things you do as government. The very busy schedule, the preparation, the travel and the time changes are very difficult, along with the other arrangements that are offered to a minister by embassies, consuls or other government agencies. It would not be up to him to make those sorts of determinations. He would take the schedule and consider who was asking the question. I think the consul has changed in New York now. I think it is Ken Taylor, who is well known in diplomatic circles, having served as ambassador to Iran. They have ambassador rank in New York — equal to ambassador on the protocol level. You would expect very different treatment where the federal government representative has that type of designation and classification. Although he is a consul, it is with the equivalency and protocol of an ambassador. New York is considered that important. For the government of Canada, it is the financial capital of the world — it is very important. Which it is.

So to an employment-building and economic-creation ministry such as Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I do know that our Minister of Energy made a very good impression in New York. I do know that he travelled to New York and explained to the financial community and those interested in ways in which our country could develop that British Columbia had an energy policy. One of the questions that was asked was: "Is British Columbia, a growing province...."

We are already well known by some, but not by enough. Sometimes their general impression of the country is the federal government and the financial difficulty it has. So we must continually remind them there is this province in Canada, and show them why we have a triple-A credit rating and why we should maintain it. That is something you continually work on. It is worth a lot of money to our people — in savings and in financing the expansion of this great province. I know that they were very impressed that here was a province with a fairly clear-cut statement on energy. They said: "Why doesn't your national government have one?"

You have to explain the difference between their states and their federal government and our provinces and our federal government. They're two different political systems that have developed differently, ours being a federation and theirs, of course, having a strong central government with very limited power in the states. They don't understand very easily that the resources are owned by the provinces. It is something we must keep reminding them, because they have confused and mixed messages.

They heard the former Premier of British Columbia say that he would give away the oil and gas in this province to the federal government if they would nationalize it. In most parts of the world — in financial communities, in development circles and among those who have the expertise — those are words that strike fear in their hearts that there is no opportunity for the private sector. It is necessary that responsible ministers go there and give the message. In this province we have a government that believes in private enterprise. We had a government that didn't, and we have a party that is still opposed to private enterprise and wants to be government again. We have to qualify it and let them know that there are people such as that in this province who would attain political power. It is important.

I find it a little puzzling, to say the least, that a former minister of the Crown and a former leader in that other government would laugh and very seriously question the minister when he said he might have been naive. That means, of course, that rugby games and trips, or any sort of entertainment that they undertook, were not by accident or naivete, but a deliberate attempt on their part to charge the taxpayers.

These trips are very difficult, and the activities in which a minister may be involved in order to promote good will and understanding may extend beyond the normal seminar or meeting.

MR. MACDONALD: Mickey Rooney isn't a banker.

HON. MR. BENNETT: While Mr. Rooney is short in height other people are short in other things, Mr. Member for Vancouver East. However, one thing Mickey Rooney has in common with the second member for Vancouver East is that they both seem to be very durable. Their careers seem to keep being revived. Mickey Rooney's was revived by Broadway. The second member for Vancouver East's career was revived and protected from Bob Williams by his leader. It helps to have powerful friends in show business — to last, when you have meagre talent and Mickey Rooney as a....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm saying that it's very important that British Columbia continue to make their presence felt if we're going to continue to build this province. It was important when the economy, to all intents and purposes, was booming. It's even more important now that the world economy is in a recession. The North American economy is very much a part of that recession, and the Canadian economy is in the most difficulty it has been in since the 1930s. It was a time then when British Columbia right now would be much worse off than we would have been if it had not been for extensive marketing, attraction of business, job creation business and expansion of our economy by visits such as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has made and must continue to make if we're going to continue to do the job that people expect from the government.

I suppose there will always be those whose minds cannot see that we have a greater purpose than to roll around and talk about saving or wasting hundreds of dollars, as the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) is suggesting. He talks about restraint, and his mind can grasp that he wants to save hundreds of dollars here and hundreds of dollars there, and that may be the extent of his vision. At the same time, he's part of an opposition in this House that has opposed a restraint program that will save the people of this province hundreds of millions of dollars in the years to come, which will grow into billions if we can contain the cost of government to the taxpayers. It is a clear example of two sets of visions, two sets of attitudes and two types of members in this Legislature who want to be government — one who deals in the smaller amounts and who cannot raise his sights and goals to deal in the overall economy and to try and save the taxpayers money to the extent of hundreds of millions of dollars, and so as aggressively opposed inside and outside this Legislature a restraint program that is designed to do that

[ Page 7980 ]

that was developed because of the downturn in the Canadian economy and the North American economy. It's not the cause of the downturn, it's the result of it. Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is one of the keys to ending the difficulties of the recession by aggressively attracting development to our province in these key areas of energy development that will fuel our industries and create jobs for our people. He supports, at the same time that he wants development, a restraint program that will save the people hundreds of millions of dollars in their taxes, yet we see that critic over there from Vancouver East, whose vision can only reach the level of a hundred dollars here and a hundred dollars there. He says he's out to save the people money at the same time he opposes the most aggressive plan of restraint that's available in this country — one that's being supported and asked for in other parts of Canada as necessary.

I think it's a message that the people should see very clearly. Yes, I guess charges of extravagance, phrases such as "Sugar Babies" or "Broadway Bob" or something are glamorous. They make good telling after hours, but at the same time I would hope that the member can raise his sights and perhaps then change the negative attitude that they've had and that he has had towards opposing the restraint program. If you're for restraint in nickels and dimes and dollars and hundred-dollar bills, as I am, then don't look so foolish as to oppose a major restraint program that will save the taxpayers billions of dollars — hundreds of millions of dollars — over the years to come.

We have a task in this province — it's a difficult task because right now, people are hurting. And when they think of waste, the people will understand someone going to lunch, buying a plane ticket, or staying in a hotel room. The one thing they can't understand is a group of people they elected to go down to Victoria to solve their problems but who spend their time on nonsense or playing golf or are absent from the House, who oppose and are not prepared to deal with the major issues of the day. They're starting to wonder. They're saying, no wonder the country's in bad shape, because here we have the dominant opposition party in British Columbia, the New Democrats, and look where they concentrate their efforts in British Columbia. No positive alternative; no programs; no support at a time when people should be coming together.

Then they look to Ottawa and they see the same party, the New Democrats there, who gathered together with the Trudeau Liberals to try to force on Canada in a unilateral way a constitution that wasn't correct, wasn't constitutional. The process would have given a veto to Ontario and Quebec. They supported that unilateral action here in British Columbia, right in this Legislature. Well, they were stopped. But they look and they see this same group. This is the same group that supported the federal government — the Trudeau Liberals. When the Clark government was going to put up the oil and gas tax — yes, the price was going to go up 19 cents — they combined with Trudeau to throw them out of office, so that together, one on one side and one on the other, they could put up the price of oil many times more than that 19 cents.

Today, if people are mad at the federal government for no policies, remember: they wouldn't be there without the cooperation between Trudeau and Broadbent and Barrett and Macdonald and all the rest who defeated the Conservatives in the House and put the Liberals back in office.

They see here in British Columbia the same sort of effort: no policies, no planning, negative criticism. Yes, government should be accountable. And yes, we'll take our lumps where we've made mistakes. A government will make some mistakes. But I would hope sometime in this Legislature we'll get down to the big issues, Mr. Chairman, that the people are expecting us to resolve, because there are too many people out there hurting and expecting someone to act positively. While this may be good fodder for the National Enquirer and some of those magazines, this type of action is not much comfort to people who are looking for positive results.

I know this: the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is one of the most positive members of this Assembly and our government. He has worked hard to create jobs for people. We're discussing his salary, so I want personally to tell you how important a role he plays in this province. He's hard-working. He works hard at his portfolio in a ministry that is very complicated and complex. He's fighting off the difficulties that we are having as a province where we own the resources, yet we have been throttled and thwarted by the national energy program, the nationalization of the industry that was advocated or supported by the NDP in setting up PetroCan so they could put up the price at the pumps to pay for any new gas station they decided to buy. Of course, it was what you call back-door socialism. The NDP and the Trudeau Liberal Party have been together on this. But it's created great problems. It's hard for us to defend our oil and gas rights and fight for development and jobs in the drilling industry, up in Fort St. John and in the northeast, when we go back east and they say: "Look, you may be the government, but the NDP were government once and they say they're going to be government again." At a national energy conference on television in front of all the people of Canada, the present leader of the New Democratic Party offered to give British Columbia's birthright, the oil and gas rights, to Prime Minister Trudeau. He offered to give them away if he would nationalize them.

Mr. Chairman, this minister has fought that liaison and loose coalition of NDP here and Prime Minister Trudeau on the federal level through their federal leader. I can remember when we fought it. That member for Vancouver East used to call us Ottawa-bashers.

I can remember when we had an important energy conference. Why, they were so thick that they had a special little meeting — something that never happened when governments met government. Mr. Lalonde went down the hall from a government meeting to meet with the NDP caucus. He said: "It's just that we're old friends." Real friends. Now I'd like to hear you say that again, Mr. Member from Vancouver East. That's what they said then, Mr. Minister of Energy. It certainly made his job more difficult. This Minister of Energy will have to travel a lot to carry the message of what British Columbians really want, because that message has been bluffed by that New Democratic Party, both inside and outside our country. This minister has done a lot of good. There are a lot of jobs in British Columbia now, and there will be a lot more in the future, because of the efforts of that minister.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we weren't exactly on the vote the whole of the time the Premier was speaking, but I can't resist answering one or two points.

[ Page 7981 ]

We're not talking about small sums of money. We're talking about extravagance on a very large scale; we're talking about extravagance in public relations and publicity paid for by the taxpayer for the partisan benefit of the government, running to maybe $25 million, and that's not small change. We're talking outrageously high travel expenses on the part of this government, particularly in a time of restraint. There is one for $59,000 in a single year. How can you spend it? What do you do, funnel it out the back of a jet? I can't understand it. If the Premier were a leader worthy of the highest office in this province, he would set an example himself in a time of restraint; his colleagues would set an example. How can you ask somebody who is a clerk typist in the government service to exercise restraint when the government ministers are spending extravagant amounts out of the public trough on hotel rooms, wine and all of these other things? You are setting a very poor example of restraint, and the Premier is supposed to be the leader in the province of British Columbia. What kind of a leader is that? We're not talking about small things; we're talking about setting an example, and this government is setting a very poor example. If we want a sound economy in this province, if we want an exercise of restraint, and certainly we do in many sectors of our economy, then the government must be worthy of setting a proper example. Otherwise, the people of British Columbia are simply going to say: "Throw the rascals out."

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would like to expand on a question asked of me earlier today, in a previous session, by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and the member for Port Alberni (Mr. Skelly). In regard to new ideas and projects for energy in British Columbia; I think it's important that the public understand there is activity in British Columbia, that we are actively searching for new ways to provide the self-sufficiency that we need in energy supply over the years. Also it is important that we build on our strengths. Those strengths include a marvellous endowment of natural resources in this province, ranging from water to coal, oil, gas, renewable wood resources, all of which can be tapped in many better ways for the future.

A number of projects completed in the last fiscal year will help us, we hope, to reach some of those objectives. I mentioned this morning the wood-waste wet-cell burner in the lime kiln at Port Alberni — some $200,000 on behalf of the provincial government. It was a joint effort by the Canadian government, the provincial government and the company involved. The Victoria municipality's waste co-generation study was done last year Vancouver's solar hot water system for co-op apartments was designed last year; the Vancouver Energy Information Centre and energy-efficient housing renovation demonstration, which Mayor Harcourt of Vancouver, the good friend of the member for Vancouver East, and myself officially opened, and which Mayor Harcourt has praised publicly; a program for small hydro at Knight Inlet University of Victoria's solar heating for their pool and sports centre; I mentioned earlier today — incidentally, that was a $140,000 program by the government — the Meager Creek geothermal development; the Port Alberni health-care home solar hot water program; the Surrey municipal energy management and control system.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

There have been a number of energy information displays around the province. Some members of the House may have visited one of the schools in their own constituencies and seen the mobile school energy education project. It's widely used and accepted. In fact, one of the schools in my constituency, Langley Secondary School, held an energy week not long ago, which I had the opportunity to attend, and they used the mobile school energy-education project to very good advantage,

Then there's the Energy Fair which was held two months ago — or something like that — at Robson Square, which the member for Vancouver East's friend, Mayor White, helped me officially open and praised.

An energy-management seminar for regional municipalities. Some of you may have seen the booklet we put out called, "Free and Easy: Low- and No-Cost Household Energy Saving Tips," which was a best-seller that we passed out to homeowners around the province.

We've done a number of government energy audits to help government operations improve their efficiency in energy use. Last year we went in to three colleges, two BCBC buildings, a hospital and 500 schools, audited their energy use and made suggestions on ways in which they could be more efficient in using energy and so save not only money but also the need for developing precious energy sources.

We have a number of projects which we are doing in this fiscal year with the money that will be made available to me. I mentioned a bit today about our solar domestic hot-water program. That is a program in which we have installed demonstration projects in 100 homes around the province. They are in Victoria, Cranbrook, Nanaimo, Vancouver, Penticton and Fort Nelson. They are being monitored as to the ways in which savings have been achieved as a result of those hot-water systems. They will be extremely valuable to the government in developing new programs for hot-water heating by solar power.

We have done a number of demonstration projects of low-energy housing in Victoria, Vancouver and Prince George. That has been going on for a couple of years. I might just say that B.C. Hydro is involved, to some degree, in some of these low-energy houses. I had the opportunity to sort of officially open one of those houses in Langley not too long ago, in which the person — through his own inventiveness, along with help from B.C. Hydro and other people, including our Ministry of Energy — was able to build a house in which.... The first winter he was in that home, although he has a natural gas furnace, he never used the natural gas once, because he had built enough efficiencies into that home that he provided the heat and a very comfortable home all winter long without having to tap a precious natural resource.

We are doing a windmill program up in Fort St. John. A number of small hydro projects, including one at Nimmo Bay and one at Glacier Park.... I think that that one has either recently opened or it is about to open in an area — the Rogers Pass — that has much difficulty in getting any electricity, let alone the kind of electricity that most of us in this room take for granted.

We have a greenhouse conservation project at Hammond Bay. This year we expect to complete a housing-renovation manual so that people can learn how to renovate their homes in order for them to be mote energy-efficient. We have one

[ Page 7982 ]

information centre project hoping to be opened in five communities in British Columbia: Victoria, Nanaimo, Port Coquitlam, Cranbrook and Dawson Creek. There will be another small, 35-kilowatt hydro demonstration at Hasty Creek. We have done a study on the possibility of district heating using coal at Tumbler Ridge. We are in the design phase of a small hydro system for the Christian Valley community. We are in the design phase for a solar program at the Penticton Art Gallery. Of course, we will be continuing the program that I mentioned we did with the mobile school energy-education project. We will also be doing a number of mobile industrial audit programs.

MR. KING: What's this nonsense? All you do is spend money all over the world. You're throwing money away like it was going out of style. Go back to "Sugar Babies." That is all you know.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Are you against all these things, Mr. Member?

MR. KING: I am against you squandering public money.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We will be doing a number of industrial audit programs which will complement the government programs that I mentioned earlier. We will also be continuing to do energy-information displays in various parts of British Columbia. We will be developing a solar design manual for the use of the general public, to help them in their needs, and also a building manual for commercial operations, so that commercial establishments can have some guide about ways in which they also can make renovations that will allow them to be more energy-efficient. We are doing an energy map and a kit for teachers in our schools which we hope will be ready this year. We hope as well to be giving some guidelines to the government purchasing commission on ways in which they can alter their purchasing requirements to make sure that they purchase only energy efficient materials. We'll be doing further studies on wood waste utilization, because as I mentioned earlier today, wood waste energy now provides over 20 percent of all of the energy in this province.

The Queen Charlotte Islands wind-farm project will be going ahead, as will a number of other manuals including a manual for people who might be interested in individual applications of small hydro, and a wind-energy manual which will be available for people who might be interested in individual applications of that kind of energy.

I thought it was important that I bring that information to you, since two members of the House asked those questions about where we might be going with some of the alternative programs.

MR. HOWARD: I had intended to make some comments about the foolish whimpering of the Premier, but he has hit and run, as he usually does. He spoke and left the chamber, so I won't bother with dealing with the inanities that he put forth. If he were here, I would have.

The minister — by accident, so he says — discovered that he went to a Broadway burlesque show and didn't know who paid the bill. Had he known that it was going to be him, or the taxpayers of B.C., he wouldn't have gone. Then he said he was going to pay back to the people of B.C. whatever it cost for that show. Then he went on at great length and in great detail to blame all of the excessive squandering of public money on somebody else — anybody else. He didn't care who. He didn't know who. Maybe he didn't want to know. But he blamed it all on somebody else. It was not his fault.

Let's take that statement of the minister at face value — at fair value — and say that it is correct that he went to New York for a one-night stand; went on business; did not know how much it was going to cost; did not know who ordered the limousine; did not know who arranged to buy the tickets to go to "Sugar Babies." Put those two figures together. Take the cost of the limousine which the minister didn't use, but which rocketed around New York on June 11 for ten and three-quarter hours, presumably with somebody in it other than the chauffeur. Put that together with the cost of the "Sugar Babies" tickets which the taxpayers of B.C. have paid, and you have an amount of $920.26 blown, squandered, disappeared in one night. No idea about it, says the minister.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

He was the one right in the forefront of a meeting held in another place in this building that tried to block access to find the very vouchers that disclosed this.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That is a lie.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ask the hon. minister to withdraw that comment, please. The Chair heard it.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, in the interests of parliamentary procedure and parliamentary practice, I will withdraw that statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will now remind the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) as he continues his debate that we are on vote 28. I will ask all members of this committee not to refer to the deliberations and actions of another committee. I so rule.

MR. HOWARD: How did you know, Mr. Chairman, that we were talking about another committee meeting?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, are you challenging the Chair? I am simply stating that we are discussing vote 28. I would ask the member to be relevant to that.

MR. HOWARD: I will be as precisely relevant as was the Premier.

Accepting the minister's statement as he gave it — that he didn't know all this was going on — presumably, the way I see it, the fact that he was a minister for six years would indicate that he didn't know what was going on all through those six years. In all his travels throughout the world, doing whatever it was he was doing, he must have engaged in squandering thousands and thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money. Will he pay that back? Will he conduct an inquiry to find out much he squandered, how much he owes the people of B.C.? Will he do that? Because it obviously was not just this one isolated one-night stand in New York that's involved. If, as he says, he didn't know who arranged all this, who did it — it just happened — then it obviously has happened for the past six years with that minister alone.

When we add on top of that, Mr. Chairman, the fact that we've got a lot of other world travelers over there.... The

[ Page 7983 ]

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) spends half his time in Japan and the other half in Australia. The Premier is in and out of New York, and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was in New York. At the time the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources was in New York on that one-night stand, his buddy the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), his buddy the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), and his buddy the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) were living it up in Paris, not knowing what was going on or who made the arrangements.

Taking the minister at face value as to what he said, if it is correct, how much of the taxpayers' money has this entire cabinet squandered on personal living over the last six years? It's enough to keep the hospitals open, enough to engage in a program of providing jobs for the unemployed in this province that the Premier seemed to be so concerned about a while ago. It was the first time he has exhibited any interest in that subject matter, but he showed it. Thousands upon thousands of dollars that could have been available for programs for the people of this province have been squandered on limousines, shows, luscious living, fine wines, and trips to Arizona or wherever. We're trying to establish an atmosphere in which the government can show some restraint and set an example.

The Premier, a while ago, Mr. Chairman, tossed to one side the proposal that we made to reduce the money for the minister's office.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We had a vote on that.

MR. HOWARD: We had a vote on it, yes. I noticed how you voted, too, Mr. Minister. You voted to spend the extra money. You didn't vote for restraint. You voted for squandering extra money; that's the way you voted.

The Premier tossed it to one side; that doesn't matter. The Premier said: "I don't give a damn about the pennies, the nickels and the dimes. I'm worried about the hundreds of millions." I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that any school kid that learns anything about money in school or anything about money at his parent's knee when he's a child learns the simple fact of life that if you pay attention to the pennies the dollars will look after themselves. The Premier may not care about the pennies. The Premier may not care about the $7,900 in the minister's vote that's padding. The Premier didn't care last year and the minister didn't care last year when in this very chamber, Mr. Chairman.... You'll remember because you conducted many of those votes in this very chamber. The opposition, the New Democratic Party, concerned about restraint more than a year ago, knew what was happening to the economy in this province, and tried to warn the government to cut back on some of its squandering.

We moved motions that, if accepted, would have saved the people of this province $82 million. To the Premier, who's not here, who's become a hit-and-run driver — $82 million — that's what $7,000 here, $900 there, and a few hundred thousand dollars here and a few million dollars there adds up to. That's what it added up to last year — $82 million that the Premier didn't care about. He said: "That doesn't matter." That's chicken feed, as far as he's concerned. Well, I don't doubt that it is, in his mind. He's prepared to spend $1.5 billion subsidizing the Japanese steel industry in the next few years, so what's $82 million to the Premier? It means an awful lot to the unemployed.

In this year's budget, in the estimates of all of the ministries, there is close to $100 million in padding — in excessive amounts of money put in there for such things as office furnishing, lavish living, wining and dining, travel expenses and all the rest. These guys opposite have got the unmitigated temerity and gall to stand up and say that this is a year of restraint. "This is a year of restraint," says the Premier. "I want to restrain myself," says the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. He doesn't know how. Stand outside the hospitals and talk to doctors and nurses and say: "I want to restrain myself. I'm sorry that I went to see 'Sugar Babies.' I'll give you back the money." Will you give back the rest of the money?

I notice the minister was gleefully endorsing the idea that he should pay back his ticket to "Sugar Babies." He didn't say anything about the Cadillac. The Cadillac cost five hundred and some dollars, and he never used it. The Cadillac went to La Guardia airport, the itinerary says. The Cadillac was authorized by the Telex that was sent by the government.

MR. BARRETT: He says it wasn't so.

MR. HOWARD: Well, he didn't see it. No wonder he didn't; he was suffering from jet lag. He got off the airplane at La Guardia — it's a small airport — and he didn't see any limousine. He got in a cab and went downtown. That's okay. But the limousine was out there, authorized by his government. The limousine took with it a couple of people from downtown New York. I don't know where the limousine went, but it went on a hit-and-miss program around New York for 10 3/4 hours. Now that's a lot of sightseeing. The minister authorized payment for that. Why doesn't he pay that back?

Mr. Chairman, the minister just doesn't owe the people of British Columbia the cost of one insignificant ticket to "Sugar Babies," for which the scalper price was $50 or something of that sort; he owes the people of this province thousands and thousands of dollars for padding his accounts — oh, excuse me, for not knowing that his travelling accounts were being padded, and being careless about it. Once having been faced with the fact — he says he didn't know all this was going on — then I would assume that he would be quite prepared to pay back to the general public the rest of the money that he's inadvertently milked out of them.

If we just take the cost of the limousine in New York, which the minister said he didn't have anything to do with, doesn't know anything about and didn't authorize — the same as he didn't know anything about or authorize the "Sugar Babies" thing — just for that one trip alone, in my opinion, he owes the people of British Columbia $920.26. That's what was paid out on his behalf, unknown to him, for something he didn't use.

MR. KING: Big Spender Bob.

MR. HOWARD: He's Big Spender Bob as long as it's somebody else's money. They wouldn't call him Broadway Bob in New York; they'd call him Second Avenue Bob. That's where all the bums are. Broadway Bob is too elevated a nickname.

Mr. Chairman, the combination of those two amounts of money comes to $920.26. I submit that if the minister is not prepared to pay that back out of his own pocket, then the funds available to him should be reduced by that amount.

[ Page 7984 ]

Accordingly, I move that vote 28 be reduced by the amount of $920.26 — limousines and "Sugar Babies." I hope the minister will support it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to indulge in the same kind of rhetoric that the member before me has used and the kinds of words he's used, whether they're parliamentary or not, but I just want to make a couple of things quite clear. I made a rather lengthy statement today in question period regarding this matter, which was in the 1980-81 public accounts. That's probably where it should have been made, and that's why I made it there. I don't intend to expand on that during committee stage, because there are a lot of other things about the ministry that I'd like to talk about and I'm sure members would like to ask about.

In a very short response to the member for Skeena, I do want to remind you to please read Hansard regarding that statement. That member will find that I did not blame anybody else for anything I have ever done. I take responsibility for the actions of the ministry. I would like to say as well that actions have been taken to rectify any faulty procedures which may have been in place in my ministry and they will be rectified. The member asked if there were other times that this happened — whether payments were made that I was not aware of. I can assume that if there were other areas in which someone else was given the authority through those procedures to authorize payments.... I don't know whether there might be another occasion, but I can only suggest that it is doubtful because we have a procedure in this Legislature which allows us to scrutinize vouchers of expenses by ministers. One reason that we have this matter before us now is that we have the opportunity as members of this Legislative Assembly to demand vouchers — not ask for them but demand them — and they must be submitted to the member who asks for them. I assume that has been done in the past by other members. I assume that they were very carefully scrutinized and looked at at some other time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I could ask the minister....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking to the need for the reduction of my salary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and relate the remarks to the administrative actions of the ministry.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There was an awfully wide latitude allowed in here by the member who spoke previously. He talked about the need for the reduction of the salary of a minister of the Crown, namely myself. One of the reasons he chose to move that motion was that he said there was squandering of public money in the past. I am saying that not only has there not been squandering of public money in the past, but there hasn't been squandering of public money at any time, certainly not by myself. I have answered that question fully.

I must assume — because we are all honourable members and are diligent in our duties — that the members of the public accounts committees of the past have looked very carefully at the vouchers of the past. Should there have been another situation such as this, I am sure they would have come across it and brought it forward in any way they chose to bring it forward I know they don't choose to use the public accounts committee in the manner in which it is supposed to be used, but they would have found some way to bring it forward.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If I could just comment.... Earlier in the committee, with this Chairman attending, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) made reference to another committee. The Chair commented on that and the hon. member for Skeena did discontinue his speech with respect to the affairs of another committee. The Chairman must advise the committee that if we can be relevant and stick to the administrative actions of the vote before us — or in this case the amendment — the committee would be well served. Discussion of the workings and deliberations of another committee really cannot be allowed in this particular Committee of Supply. I will advise the minister that the member for Skeena did discontinue his speech on that subject when advised to by the Chair.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could get a bit more of your guidance on that matter. The member for Skeena also made mention of that committee on several other occasions, but I don't think that is the point I wish to ask you to advise me on.

The committee is being asked to approve a motion which asks for a reduction of salary. In speaking to that motion the member for Skeena — the mover of the motion — made quite lengthy reference to expenses made by myself in the past.

MR. BARRETT: That is why the motion is here.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That is correct. In discussing the motion surely you don't mean to tell me or any other member of the committee that we're not able to talk about the procedures that are available to the members of the Legislative Assembly....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Leader of the Opposition please come to order. Will the minister please finish his statement.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I am just asking if it isn't relevant that we can discuss all matters that deal with the way in which we monitor the money that is spent in this government on behalf of the Legislature during the time of a motion asking us to consider a reduction of salary because of some expenditure of money in the past. That is all I am saying, Mr. Chairman. Surely we must be able to refer to those kinds of things that are in place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. minister has brought information to the Committee of Supply with respect to his administrative actions. It is quite in order for the committee to debate the administrative actions of the minister and of the ministry and, I guess, to make passing reference to another committee, but discussion of the deliberations of that committee would not be allowed in this Committee of Supply. I'm

[ Page 7985 ]

sure all members recognize the parameters of the debate that's allowed in here.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I have finished my comments, Mr. Chairman. I intend to vote against this motion.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I just have a very brief comment. I'm very pleased that the minister reiterated here in the committee what he said earlier today during question period. I'm not going to allude to that, because he said it here again and that's the focal point of what I'm getting at.

He said he accepts full responsibility for what took place within his ministry. Historic standard practice by all that's beautiful and good about our parliamentary system is that a minister, having been found to have administered a department where something inappropriate or wrong took place — whether with the minister's knowledge or not — something which especially involved the fundamental question of spending of taxpayers' money.... When anything of that nature takes place, and when the minister doesn't have to but voluntarily accepts full responsibility, as the minister said he did for that inappropriate action, no matter who was to blame or who was at fault, the decent thing to do would be for the minister to tender his resignation.

History shows that that occurs in other jurisdictions where the same parliamentary system prevails, and it should prevail here. That would be the honourable, decent and respectful thing to do, and I'm sure the minister is honourable, respectful and decent enough to do that. I'm only relating it here because we don't have an opportunity in the House to put that question to him. Once having said that, I'm sure the minister will forthwith or at the earliest convenient opportunity tender his resignation to His Honour.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, just before you recognize the member for Point Grey, I'd like to respond. I would say in response to that member that I have not at any time said that any member of my ministry did anything wrong. I would like to make it very clear that I don't think that any member of my ministry did anything wrong. What I have said — and I would refer you again to Hansard and the statement that I made earlier today — was that there was a system in place. I do not agree with that system once I learned the full extent of how that system operated. It will be changed; it has been changed. There is a strange concept involved by the member for Skeena who would almost insist that someone would resign from an administrative position or a ministerial position because he had found that the system was faulty; and taking action to correct it is not grounds for resignation. I certainly have no intention of resigning; I do intend to continue to do my job to the best of my ability. I'll do it for a long time, Mr. Chairman.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, in the government's financial control....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I think....

MR. HOWARD: It is a point of order. The minister said he didn't think anybody in his ministry did anything wrong. I'm submitting that they did. I'm submitting that the minister has given inaccurate information to the committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, one moment, please. That is not a point of order. The member is entering into debate, which he has every opportunity to do in committee. Unless the member can state that a rule or a standing order has been offended....

MR. HOWARD: Some signing officer in the minister's ministry approved those bills for expenditure and was required to check with the deputy or the minister about it. If that didn't happen, that's a breach. The minister should accept that responsibility.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you have entered into debate. That is not a point of order. You will be allowed to continue in debate in this committee.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we seem to have two separate issues to deal with this afternoon. I hope the member for Skeena will stay, because I've got some fairly significant remarks to make to him.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Please proceed.

HON. MR. McGEER: We've got a non-confidence motion before us.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister continues.

Interjection.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the hon. member for Skeena to discontinue his remarks — please be seated, hon. minister — and all other members to cease interrupting a member who has taken his place in debate.

The hon. Minister of Universities, Science and Communications continues.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we have here a question of vouchers, for which a non-confidence motion has been placed before the House, in terms of the minister's salary. We have another much larger and more significant question which needs to be dealt with this afternoon; some hon. members who have spent many years in this House might have cause to consider it as well. It is the question of decent conduct on the part of hon. members of this House, whether on the opposition side or government side. Most members who have served for any reasonable length of time in a legislative assembly or a parliament will come to sit on both sides of the House, as have many of us, including the Leader of the Opposition and some senior members of the New Democratic Party. The House erodes when members on

[ Page 7986 ]

either side of the House, be they in government or in opposition, abandon the obligations of decency and civility, and the traditional procedures of the House.

I would have thought that the member for Skeena, who has not spent many years in this House but has had experience in other parliaments, would have been too embarrassed and ashamed to put forward that motion, just as he is too embarrassed to be in the House at the present time to hear some reflections on what is proper in this Legislative Assembly.

Every single member of the House who submits an expense account, whether in opposition, in government, or as a minister of the Crown, is going to be held responsible. That is known at the time any voucher is submitted. Vouchers are open in a free and available way to members of this House. It's a right and a privilege; it is not something to be abused, as the member for Skeena has done, and as the Leader of the Opposition knows full well. If we are to have a decent, civilized and honourable House, I would say that the Leader of the Opposition, first of all, has got some cleaning up to do in his own caucus.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the amendment on vote 28, please — the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

HON. MR. McGEER: When false accusations are made, as they have been by the member for Skeena....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm sorry, the minister will have to withdraw that remark; it impugns the honour of another member. Will the minister please withdraw.

HON. MR. McGEER: What was that remark?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It was the imputation of false accusations assigned to another member. I must ask the minister to withdraw any imputation of dishonourable motive. Will the minister please withdraw.

HON. MR. McGEER: They are accusations, Mr. Chairman, that in my opinion are false, they may not be false in his opinion, but they are not in accordance with the facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. I will have to ask the hon. minister to withdraw any imputation of dishonourable motive against another member. I'm sure the minister is well aware of that. The House can be of two or three contradictory opinions, but we cannot impute.... Will the minister please withdraw.

HON. MR. McGEER: Very well, Mr. Chairman, but let me say again that the member for Skeena should have been embarrassed and ashamed to bring forth the accusations which he has made with respect to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, who this afternoon in the House gave explanation attached to the vouchers that were strong-armed from a protesting civil servant in contradiction to the orders given by the comptroller-general. We cannot have members in this House strong-arming civil servants. That is not a civilized way for a Legislative Assembly member to behave. If a civil servant acting under his instructions explains to a member of this House what he must do to be a civilized member, then that member is honour-bound to behave and respect the government of British Columbia; maybe not the members of this House, but the traditions and proprieties....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will ask the member for Skeena to come to order. The member for Rossland-Trail has risen on a point of order.

MR. D'ARCY: The member for Point Grey is not imputing but is clearly stating that the member for Skeena physically assaulted a civil servant in this province. I want him to withdraw that statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the hon. minister has stated that, it would be unparliamentary. Will the minister please withdraw any imputation of false motive or dishonourable conduct, if the minister has imputed that.

HON. MR. McGEER: You know I didn't impute such a thing, Mr. Chairman. Of course not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister withdraws.

HON. MR. McGEER: But the kind of behaviour that took place, regardless of how one wishes to describe it, is not acceptable for a member of the Legislative Assembly. Because that kind of behavior, if pursued by every member of the House, would lead to chaos and an inability of democracy to function. I can hear from the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition that he condones such tactics. What embarrasses me is that we would have a whole opposition over there that has so forgotten its responsibilities and traditions as an opposition....

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with an amendment, not allegations of behaviour of separate members. If we are on that category, when was the last time you punched a photographer?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. You've made your point of order. The point of order is well taken. I will ask all members of the committee, particularly the member for Skeena and the Leader of the Opposition, to please come to order and not interrupt either the Chair or the member who has taken his place. I will remind the hon. Minister of Universities, Science and Communications of standing order 61, which states that we must be relevant to the specific clause or item under discussion when we are in Committee of Supply. The specific item before us now is an amendment, a reduction of salary in vote 28. I would ask that the hon. minister please contain his remarks to the scope that would be allowed in such a debate.

HON. MR. McGEER: The thrust of my remarks, of course, in saying that we will reject the amendment, is that it is without factual basis. The matter would not have arisen in such a way as to embarrass the member for Skeena had he been prepared to follow the reasonable and honourable traditions of the House. I would have commended to the Leader of the Opposition that he explain to the caucus what those long traditions are, but I gather that such an explanation is unlikely, because it appears to me that the Leader of the Opposition condoned and perhaps even encouraged that.

[ Page 7987 ]

Of course all ministers' vouchers are available.

AN HON. MEMBER: Even yours.

HON. MR. McGEER: Even mine, and I hope you will go through them carefully. I see the member for Victoria nodding. He actually obtained one of them, if I can digress for a moment. Before it even reached my office it was in the hands of the press. However, that is one way of getting the vouchers that come into your office drawn to your attention: via the fences in the opposition, who release them to the press.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the amendment, please.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, I don't know what term you would use for the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), the member for Victoria or the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). One thing is fairly clear: the vouchers are all there. They're all available to the members. The members who submit the vouchers must remain accountable for all of the expenditures. But sometimes — and the member for Victoria would know this — a little bit of embarrassment can be saved if they bring it forward in the traditional and civilized way and understand the explanations before the accusations are laid. That probably isn't something the member for Skeena can understand. But it is the tradition of the House, and I would once more appeal to the Leader of the Opposition to recall those traditions — although I'm not sure he ever sat on the public accounts committee — and to commend them to all the members of the House. As the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) said earlier today, perhaps that's something we will undertake to do on our side of the House.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. BARRETT: On the amendment, I want to say how much I enjoyed the sanctimonious lecture from the non-sanctimonious member who's spending his last few hours with us today. We notice that his replacement is sitting in the gallery. I hope that the bad behaviour of that minister is not learned by the replacement, who is far more able to replace the minister in terms of courtesy and generosity.

In speaking to this motion, this is a traditional amendment that I remember being debated most skilfully, most brilliantly — and most thoroughly researched — by the member from Point Grey when he used the vouchers against Mr. Gaglardi over a trip to California. Who was it, Mr. Chairman, that snuck the vouchers into the House to depose that minister but the member from Point Grey? I sat in shock and horror when that minister used those vouchers in that way against that minister. Was I shocked! Was I disappointed! But he was a Liberal then.

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order — to correct — Mr. Chairman, in all the years I sat on the public accounts committee, I have never stolen a voucher, I have never photocopied a voucher, I have never received a voucher stolen by somebody else, improperly obtained a voucher, or brought a voucher into the House. I did inspect them. I did debate them very severely. But I never stole them, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, if that accusation had been made, the Chair would have instructed the member to withdraw the accusation. However, the Chair heard no such direct accusation.

MR. BARRETT: I never suggested where he got the voucher from. I assumed that all vouchers were public property. How do you steal public property? Only when something is trying to be kept secret does the opposition do its duty by going in and making sure those vouchers see the light of day. That's why we're here today.

I find it interesting that it was that minister, when he was a Liberal, who vilified that hon. Minister of Highways, the member for Kamloops, Mr. Gaglardi, with vicious personal attacks. But now the minister turns his back not only on Mr. Gaglardi, but on the Liberal Party and his own memories. I find it hypocritical. But I'm not calling him a hypocrite, because that's against the rules. I find it hypocritical for that minister to get up in this House and lecture the opposition for behaviour that he was an expert at when he was in opposition.

I was young, an ingenue, in those days. I was starry-eyed. I believe that university professors only stuck to the facts and processes of the facts. When he was down there with his four Liberals, he used to be up there screaming and arm-waving about Gaglardi's trip to California. Did you forget that day, Mr. Member — through you, Mr. Chairman? Do you forget that day you came running in after the phone call you made to California on the vouchers? I was here in shock at your behaviour. But I excused it because you were a Liberal then. I thought that's the way Liberals operated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, somewhere along the way, I think we've strayed a little bit from vote 28, and it's the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources whom we're currently canvassing.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. We strayed when that member got up to speak. He put me out of order. Mr. Chairman, will you please call him to order and tell him to stop making statements that are getting me out of order.

Now that I'm back in order, Mr. Chairman.... It's just a little moment of history and humour to remember that that minister, when he was a Liberal backbencher, did a knife job on Gaglardi that was unparalleled. It was a little bit much to hear that sanctimonious pap from him, telling us how to behave in opposition when he set the lowest standard of behaviour against that hon. Minister of Highways.

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

MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry. I won't talk about it anymore. I warn all photographers and reporters. Look out! He's got a mean right. He thinks it's funny. He comes in with a boxing robe after he punches somebody out and lectures us. Too much formaldehyde-sniffing.

Mr. Chairman, there is a very simple way to deal with this amendment. The minister came in today and said he didn't know who authorized this. The motion is to deduct the amount of money that it cost for the New York trip. There is a difference of opinion that we're dealing with here. I have a proposal to make that can clear this matter up, or at least go a long way to clearing it up. This is my proposal. The minister has said earlier in his statement.... Where did he go?

[ Page 7988 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: He's probably gone to the movies.

MR. BARRETT: Well, he hasn't gone to a show. We'll just wait a minute until he comes back.

Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Chairman — I've got a suggestion to make around this amendment. You claim that when you sat in this Broadway show you assumed somebody else was paying. Did you ever ask whether or not it was the federal government that was paying? If it was the federal government that was paying, are they not supported by taxpayers? So is it not true, if you try to blame the federal government, you are still using taxpayers' money? It never occurred to you when you were sitting in the show to ask who was paying? Did you think it was being paid for by some charity group? Did Mickey Rooney invite you? That naive statement you made saying you thought a federal department was paying — did it not enter your conscience and sense of responsibility that the taxpayers would have to pay for it if the federal government was paying for it?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I didn't say that.

MR. BARRETT: Of course you didn't say that. You're trying to slide out of any responsibility. Is the minister telling everybody in this province that he went to this show, he sat there watching the show, and he never asked who he thought was going to pay? You mean you go anywhere and don't ask who's paying? Suppose it was a lobbyist who paid. Suppose it was a major oil company who took you out and compromised you. Wouldn't you think, as a responsible minister, that the first question you should ask is: who's paying for the tickets? Isn't there a sort of naivete in the minister assuming that people are falling all over themselves to take him out. You're a likeable person. I'm sure a lot of people would like to take you out — somewhere. Mr. Chairman, don't you think it's incumbent in the minister's lexicon of questions to ask who's paying for these tickets?

The minister came in this House today and tried to leave the impression that all of this was arranged by Ottawa. It was arranged by Ottawa — at the request of the provincial government. My friend the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has read the telegram that was part of the file. Did the minister not read this telegram before he read his statement in the House? This telegram was the authorization from the provincial government to go ahead and spend money on luncheons, dinners, receptions, rooms and limousines. Mr. Chairman, who was it in British Columbia who authorized the expenditure of money for limousines? It wasn't the federal government that phoned out here and said: "Do you fellows authorize us hiring a limousine for the minister?" It was a telegram signed by the provincial government, and it says in here: Warburton, Victoria — a deputy minister in the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development. Here it is right here; here's the telegram.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: He's not a deputy.

MR. BARRETT: He's not a deputy. What is he? You seem to know what he is.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Of course I know what he is, but you don't.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, you tell me what he is. Did you talk to Mr. Warburton? Did you ask Mr. Warburton to make these arrangements through this telegram? You seem to know who he is.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I read the telegram. That's how I know.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, he sent the telegram. Did you read this telegram today?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes. Did you?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I did. Was this your first knowledge of the telegram — today? Mr. Chairman, he read the telegram. The telegram authorizes the limousine. Who requested Mr. Warburton to send this telegram? How did Mr. Warburton decide to send this telegram? Isn't that a key question?

MR. LEA: I'll bet he was telephoned.

MR. BARRETT: I'll bet he may have been telephoned. From where did Mr. Warburton receive his instructions to send this telegram? Who informed Mr. Warburton that the minister and the deputy minister were going to New York? Mr. Chairman, aren't those valid questions?

If the minister is attempting to leave the impression with this House that it was the Canadian consulate who made the arrangements for the limousine and bought the tickets for "Sugar Babies," the Canadian consulate must have gotten an instruction from somewhere. They did. The instruction came from Mr. Warburton. Who requested Mr. Warburton to make these arrangements for the federal government to go ahead and spend the money? That is a problem the minister did not deal with in his statement.

I will tell you how we can handle this. Mr. Warburton can be called to the bar of this chamber in a time-honoured tradition when there is this kind of dispute. Have Mr. Warburton stand right there at the bar of the chamber, through special motion of this House, and we will ask Mr. Warburton, at the bar, who ordered him to send this authorization for the minister to spend the money.

HON. MR. McGEER: Do it in Public Accounts.

MR. BARRETT: We can't discuss that here. I'm not a member of Public Accounts. I want to stick to the rules. You are trying to get me to break the rules after you've been telling everybody to obey them. Shame on you! And you are a university professor, with tenure. That is using guile. I am not a member of that committee.

I heard the minister make his statement in this House. He said that Ottawa made all the arrangements. We know that. We also know that after he made that statement and left the impression that it was Ottawa's idea for the limousine and the show and that the minister didn't ask who was paying, we discovered that the minister conveniently forgot to mention that there was on file a telegram from Mr. Warburton instructing them to allow funds to be spent in New York specifically for limousines, among other items. The federal government didn't decide on his own to hire a limousine. They hired a limousine on a specific request from Mr. Warburton. Let's get to the bottom of it. Let's call Mr. Warburton to the bar so the

[ Page 7989 ]

non-members of the public accounts committee can ask Mr. Warburton directly in this House who ordered him to send this telegram.

I support this motion, because the minister is attempting to hide behind civil servants and the Trudeau government — there is not much to hide behind there these days. He is attempting to put the responsibility on everybody else but himself

MR. MACDONALD: He can't hide behind Mickey Rooney.

MR. BARRETT: He could almost hide behind Mickey Rooney.

Mr. Minister, you are one of the most clever, brilliant, skilled, articulate and heavyweight debaters and political operatives of Social Credit. How come it took you 24 hours to think up the answer and the answer was that it was all Ottawa's fault? "I had nothing to do with it. If I'd known about it before, I would have cleaned it up." If you thought up the answer in 24 hours, then stand up and tell us that you have no objection to Mr. Warburton's appearing in front of the bar of this House answering questions.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Sit down and I'll answer.

MR. BARRETT: Write them down. Stay calm. I have a few more questions.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You don't want the answer?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I do, but last time I got deked out of having the floor.

While you are in the mood to answer, will you answer who instructed Mr. Warburton to send this telegram? Did you check that out? Don't ask McGeer for help. You'll get into more darned trouble than anything else with that guy advising you.

MR. LEA: Who authorized the $5,000? A civil servant? Baloney.

MR. BARRETT: Yeah. Does this civil servant have the right to authorize $5,000 on a guess that the minister wants to go to New York?

One question at a time, because I know it is complicated for the minister. Who ordered Mr. Warburton to send this telegram?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There were a number of questions raised. One was about whether members should be going out for dinner with other people; whether or not anybody ever goes to dinner or anywhere else and someone else pays for the dinner. I know that some of the members opposite have been out for dinner with the Council of Forest Industries. The Council of Forest Industries bought their dinner. Did they want favours from buying those dinners for you? The Employers Council bought dinners for you; did they want favours from you? I think the mining industry wanted some favours from you; they needed it desperately.

Mr. Chairman, one of the questions was: when did I know about the telegram, and how come it took 24 hours to answer the question? The question was given in question period yesterday. I answered it in question period today. I don't think that any member of this House has given any faster response to a question taken as notice in question period than I gave to you today in this House, Mr. Chairman.

MR. HANSON: It was wrong.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the answer wasn't wrong. It wasn't what you wanted to hear, I agree, but it was a correct answer, and it was a fair statement of the facts.

As to the matter of when I knew about that telegram, the first time I saw that telegram was after it was raised in question period yesterday. I've said that in my statement, and it's the truth. Mr. Chairman, the telegram is a standard telegram which has been sent, I'm sure, on a number of other occasions under the same conditions. It does mention limousines, and I explained that in the statement I gave to the House. It does not mention theatre tickets anywhere in that Telex.

As far as I know — and we'll attempt to jog people's memories a little bit more — the Telex came about as a result of a discussion between my deputy and another member of the public service who was at that time working in the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development. My deputy had never seen the Telex before, and neither had I. It was standard operating procedure at the time, as I mentioned earlier today, that the consul-general's office or the embassy in some other area where a minister or members of the public service may have been travelling.... Some Canadian dollars would be authorized to pay accounts achieved on behalf of a visit. That's what this Telex did.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for his answer. As I understand it, the minister has informed this House that the telegram came about as a result of a conversation between his deputy and somebody in the civil service — it may have been Mr. Warburton — who produced this telegram, which is standard practice. Is that correct? So we agree on that.

Did you talk to your deputy about arranging for going to New York? Did your deputy tell you: "We're going to New York, boss, and I'm going to check with Victoria"? Or did you tell your deputy: "Make arrangements for us to go to New York"?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I think all of those answers are contained in the statement that I made. If it requires some elaboration, I'd be happy to elaborate on it. Obviously I would have talked to my deputy before the two of us went to New York. That goes without saying. My deputy and I did not talk about the arrangements which we would have in New York, except that my deputy asked me specifically — if I recall correctly; you know, it's a while ago — for my suggestions about the people we should be seeing in New York, the meetings we should be having, the media who should be at a meeting we had — as I mentioned in my other statement — with a number of people from the New York Times and Time magazine and others, and we talked about that. It's my deputy's recollection — and I'm sure it happened this way — that we talked with a member of the public service in the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development about how the arrangements should be made in New York, and it was suggested that once we knew with whom we wished to meet we should ask people in New York to make

[ Page 7990 ]

those arrangements for us, so that we could have the best possible way of carrying on our government business in the city of New York, and in Boston, where we also went for meetings with the people in the energy industry.

I've asked my deputy to attempt to recall, as carefully as possible, what else happened. My deputy thinks either the person from the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development or himself — not personally, but through another member of my ministry — asked Mr. Warburton to set up the standard arrangement with the consul-general in New York. That was done, and I can only assume that the telegram came as a result.

I say again that there was never any conversation between my deputy and me, before we went to New York, about limousines, travel, theatre or dinners. There was none that I can recall, and I think I'm recalling it pretty clearly. Perhaps some evidence of this is that when my deputy and I arrived in New York we did not expect a limousine to be there to carry us to a hotel, and there wasn't one. We were told later that arrangements were made for a limousine to meet us at the airport, but unbeknownst to us it did not show up. Perhaps it was late. As a matter of fact, I think it was. It came at 6, we came at 5. My deputy and I did not look for a limousine because we had no knowledge that there would be a limousine. We drove in a Yellow cab to the hotel in New York. I think that would make it reasonably obvious that my deputy and I had no knowledge that someone had arranged for a limousine to be in attendance at the airport to pick us up.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: In the gallery are approximately 18 members of the Fifth Tsartlip Cordova Bay Scout troop, with their troop leader, Dr. Carr-Harris, and mothers and friends. A few minutes ago, the Premier and I were honoured to be made members of the Fifth Tsartlip troop in a ceremony in the Premier's office. The boys are now going to tour the parliament buildings. With the committee's permission, I would like to express appreciation to them for the honour they've bestowed upon the Premier and me. Would the committee make them welcome.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make another point, one that my deputy reminded me of last night. It came up today during the debate; I can't remember which member brought before the House the question about one of the invoices that came as a result of the trip to New York. The invoice included a tip in the charges for the limousines. That wasn't a tip somebody gave the limousines, it was on the bill. It was added to the bill, I assume. I can only assume, not having checked with the company in New York, that they automatically add 15 percent to the bill, as many companies now do, whether or not you get good service. I have never denied, since this matter came up, that limousines were used in New York. There were many meetings, very busy times, and I think we got good value for them. But on the matter of the tip, not only was it not authorized by me, it was not authorized by anybody, because it's a billing by the company.

When we went back to the airport to leave, we did think we got pretty good service from the company that provided those limousines, so my deputy gave the limousine driver a $10 tip out of his own pocket. He has never claimed for that, because we had no knowledge that this kind of practice went on in billing. The government did not pay for that.

MR. BARRETT: I'm glad the minister has let us know that the limousine driver got an extra $10. We're getting a picture of country bumpkins. Why shouldn't he get an extra $10 out of you? Go to a big show on Broadway, and you don't know who's paying for the tickets? But you sure like the service, so what's a $10 bill? Come on, don't give us that gratuitous stuff.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about your trip to Olympia?

MR. BARRETT: It was great. It's all there in public accounts. I never went to "Sugar Babies" in Olympia.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: It's all there. It was all canvassed in this House, just as this is being canvassed, Mr. Minister. All of my records are available. As a matter of fact, I instructed my secretary to leave on my desk, when I left office, a copy of my daily voucher, for the person who's coming in to see everything that was spent — right there on my desk.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Well, you're a fine fellow and I'm a fine fellow. We're both honourable men. You're not going to get me to dispute that. We're both fine fellows. It's these other guys who are interrupting. Through you, Mr. Chairman, we fine fellows are beginning to get somewhere. The minister now remembers....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Your turn is coming. Don't be impatient.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, a threat.

MR. BARRETT: That's no threat. We're all fine gentlemen. We're just enjoying the exchange of clarifying what's going on here. There's no threat. The only reason you'd consider it a threat is if you were worried about something.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I didn't say it was a threat.

MR. BARRETT: No, you didn't, but your friend did.

Mr. Chairman, the minister now tells us that, yes, there was a limousine at the airport, but they missed it by an hour. That's good. You missed it by an hour. Who made the arrangements for the limousine to arrive at the airport at the time you got there? That should have been the Canadian consulate, right?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't know.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, you don't know. Well, you told us today that the Canadian consulate made all the arrangements. Now you're saying that you don't know. They made the arrangements, as instructed by Warburton's telegram, to go ahead and hire the limousine. So they got the time wrong.

[ Page 7991 ]

Okay, that's fine; they got the time wrong. But the authorization for the limousine did not come from the Canadian government. Let's get that clear.

Now we go through what happened, step by step. The minister has now told the House that yes, he did talk to his deputy about people he'd like to see. Of course; absolutely right. So the deputy, doing his duty, phoned Victoria and said: "Look, the minister is going to go to New York." Well, where did you make the decision to go to New York — from Toronto or from here before you left here? When was the decision made to go to New York — before you left Victoria?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: My offices upstairs.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, good. The decision to go to New York was made in your offices upstairs. That's good. Then the deputy contacted Warburton and then Warburton sent a telegram to the Canadian consulate, following your instructions to your deputy to make these arrangements. That's correct. That's the way it should be. And you're telling us that at no time until yesterday did you see the contents of that telegram. That's okay. I understand that. You give an order and you expect it to be followed through in standard procedure.

Does the minister have any idea where the idea of going out on the night of June 11 came from? Was that planned before you left Victoria, or was that planned when you arrived in New York? Could you tell us when you decided that you wanted to go out to a show that night? That's what I'd like to know.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, if the member is this interested in this question, it would have been helpful if he had been in the House when I answered that question before.

MR. BARRETT: I was here.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Then why are you asking the question again?

MR. BARRETT: Because that is not clear in your statement.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's pretty darned clear. I couldn't make it any clearer. When I answered this question from the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), who I assume you talk to from time to time, I said that.... Incidentally, you did not hear correctly when I gave you the order of events in Victoria. My deputy was advised by another member of the public service in Industry and Small Business Development on the way in which this matter would be handled, and it was then suggested to Mr. Warburton — not by my deputy, but by either another official in Industry and Small Business Development or another member of my staff — that the standard arrangement be established for our trip with the consul-general's office in New York.

As to who made those arrangements, the reason that I said I didn't know who it was is that I'm not exactly sure, because there were other people in New York, working with the consul-general's office — and I said that in my statement — who were involved in helping to set up the meetings and deciding which member of the consul-general staff would be best suited to go to a meeting with us, based on their area of expertise and the way in which they could give us most help. The evening entertainment was decided in New York; it was not decided here. I had no idea what the arrangements would be either for our leisure time, which we have a right to, or for the working time that took place in New York.

I told the second member for Vancouver East earlier today that there was a group of people. One member of that group.... I'm not going to put the blame on anybody, Mr. Chairman. I don't care how many times that member asks; I will not do that. It wouldn't be fair. Anyway, I don't remember which member of that group said: "Would you like to go to the theatre tonight?" I said: "That would be nice." That person said: "Would you like to see this particular play?" I said: "That would be nice." That is what happened.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the suggestion was made to the minister to go to the theatre? You said: "That would be nice." That person said: "Would you like to see this particular play?" You said: "That would be nice." And that person — whose name I'm not asking for — went ahead and bought the tickets from Herman Agar. The tickets were billed to the Canadian consulate. Then the bill was sent here and it was paid out of public funds. Did the minister at any time ask the question: "Do I have to pay for this, or who is paying?"

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, I did not. Again, I've said in this House on more than one occasion at this point that.... I'm surprised, in a way, that the first member for Vancouver East would not have had similar experiences — perhaps not exactly parallel, but similar. I'll use myself as an example — and I've said this in the House before, but I guess I have to keep saying it. Quite often I invite people out to dinner, and I pay the bill. They never ask me who is going to pay the bill. I've invited people to live theatre shows and I've paid the bill. The people never come to me and say: "Hey, do I have to pay for this, or are you going to do it for me?" They don't do that.

MR. BARRETT: Did you do it? Did you ask?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Chairman. I've taken people to movies, and I have paid the bill.

MR. BARRETT: Did you ask who was paying the bill?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would not expect the person I invited out to ask me whether I was going to pay the bill for them. I'll bet you've never done it either. I did not ask anyone who was going to pay the bill. I've got nothing to hide; I haven't been attempting to hide that fact. It has been answered about four times now.

MR. BARRETT: The minister knew it wasn't he who was paying the bill. And after two years we've discovered that the taxpayers are paying the bill and the minister announces gratuitously: "Well, I was naive, and now I'd like to pay the money back." My colleague pointed out that naivety is no excuse for this kind of action in the British parliamentary system. I may add the opinion of my colleague the member for Vancouver Centre that, considering the minister's suaveness, brilliance and capabilities, the story is not believable. I find it difficult, but you're an hon. member.

[ Page 7992 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not trying.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, boy, I have to try a heck of a lot when I hear that minister make statements.

As far as I'm concerned, the minister showed incredibly poor judgment bordering on negligence in this whole affair. I find it most interesting that the minister at first attempted to put the blame on Ottawa, on civil servant....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, I didn't.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, you did, Mr. Chairman. As we slowly drag answers from him, he now remembers that the limousine was late. You now remember it! The minister had a night on the town in New York. The information comes out and he says he's sorry and he wants to pay the money back and shame on Ottawa for spending taxpayers' money buying the tickets. He didn't inquire who was paying for the tickets. He didn't inquire how much they cost. He just said: "Sure, I'd like to go to a show." You must have been just as shocked as we were that somebody had to pay the bill. You assumed that they knew you down on Broadway and they were giving out free tickets. Well, we know you here, but nobody in New York knew you. You had to pay your tickets and you had to pay the scalper's price. The taxpayers of British Columbia had to pay those tickets. It would never have come to light had it not been for the hard work and the public scrutiny of elected members of this House in the opposition who have been vilified by that minister for taking copies of the vouchers.

You've stood there and tried to block the members. Oh, you can look at the voucher. I want to know if the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) was ever given the same opportunity that you and the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) have been given to 'fess up and pay back money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are on one minister's vote. That is all.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. How is it that there's a double standard? When there are standard procedures, there's a double standard for cabinet ministers. Some get off the hook and some don't. This minister keeps on protesting — and I think he protests too much — that it was all in the standard procedures of bureaucracy. "I didn't know what was going on; somebody wanted to take me to a show; I am sorry it all happened." Do you think you can get off the hook by paying the bill? That sucker down there took the heat for your government so the Premier could act tough, but you two birds are being protected by the Premier of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Sometimes in the heat of debate....

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I withdraw the word "sucker," Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There are other terms, hon. member, that we cannot use.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. That poor former minister from North Vancouver–Seymour took the heat, while these two are being protected by the Premier in this House today. We have seen a performance by that minister after a 24-hour delay, a glib covering up of responsibility and a glib delegating it to everyone else. He also remembered the telegram about the limousines after this member brought it to his attention.

That minister has been deliberately protected by the Premier. We are seeing a performance today that I am sure will be continued throughout this whole debate. The only member who is gleeful right now is the member for Vancouver South. He did not choose to take the same course, and he is in a bit more trouble. The Premier would have saved him the same way he attempted to save you today.

That minister is not fooling anybody with his answers today of: "Oh, I talked to the deputy; oh, that is a good idea; oh, that sounds like a good show; oh, ya, let's go; oh, ya, somebody has to pay." Who are you trying to kid? You're too smart for that. You're not like an ordinary cabinet minister. You've got brains. You are a bit different from most of them over there. Now that we recognize that that minister has brains, who is he trying to kid that he didn't want to know who was paying the bills for him? He is not like some of those other fellows back there who are genuinely innocent. The story doesn't wash. You were entertained by taxpayers. You've been caught and you want to pay the money back and forget the whole deal.

I want to tell you that the taxpayers, the unemployed, the small business people and those people who have to pay huge increases in fees and taxes because of this government won't forget. I hope you enjoyed your night at "Sugar Babies," because I hope to goodness it is the last time that the taxpayers of British Columbia host and toast you on a New York trip with remorse two years later saying: "I was wrong." You're not kidding anybody! I'm voting for this amendment.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I will vote against this amendment. I find it somewhat disheartening to listen to the type of debate that has gone on in this House. The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who made the comments in this House and provided the information from the vouchers, had every opportunity to make those vouchers available in front of the appropriate committee and ask the questions of the minister there, and he neglected to do that. Yesterday the minister took the questions as notice because he didn't have any vouchers to refer to. As a result, he went away and got the information. The member for Skeena or the Leader of the Opposition could have been so kind and honourable enough to provide the documents to the minister who is going to be asked the questions. The minister took the questions as notice, and in 24 hours came back into this House and provided the information so urgently requested by the opposition. In doing so, he acknowledged the fact about the show attended. He acknowledged that was in error. He acknowledged that the money should not have been paid; and had he known, it would not have happened.

This morning we were privileged — I use that word with some caution — to hear the Leader of the Opposition, in his dulcet tones, tell us how we should be honourable members; we shouldn't accuse and abuse fellow members in this House; we should cooperate and speak to the issues of the day, etc. Yet you see this afternoon the chameleon, the man who changes his colours and stripes day to day, when the opportunity arises to abuse and drag this House down into the gutter from time to time. It's shocking, depressing and deplorable.

[ Page 7993 ]

The Premier of this province stood up this afternoon and said: "Ladies and gentlemen, members of this Assembly, we should recognize the issues that are before this House. We should recognize the issues of the day." I'm not going to further debate this — I'm lost for words — picayune issue that is before this House at this particular time. The vote you have in your hand and the amendment to that vote.... The issues under the minister's responsibilities deal primarily with issues of energy, mines and petroleum resources. They deal with the administration of his office, with the major issues in this province at this time. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, to use his words, that the taxpayers out there in the province who look to us for leadership and look to this House for guidance at this particular point in time will not forget the abuse of this House that the opposition has carried out for the last two days.

Mr. Chairman, I will vote against this amendment.

MR. KING: I have great difficulty understanding the position taken by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). It was always my impression that members were elected to this Legislature — all members, whether they be in government or opposition — to carry out a responsibility to scrutinize public policy and public spending, to ensure that the taxpayers get fair value for the tax dollars expended, and indeed that there be no improper or unauthorized expenditure of taxpayers' dollars.

According to the Minister of Agriculture, my colleagues and I have committed the unforgivable sin of identifying expenditures by a cabinet minister and his staff, which were unauthorized, which were profligate and extravagant, which decidedly did not show any vestige of the restraint that this government is asking the rest of the citizens of this province to show. Lo and behold, we are now called irresponsible for making those same taxpayers, who provide these dollars, aware of that abuse of expenditure. I say that anyone who takes that position must have a very distorted view of what parliament is all about. Traditionally this is the institution where ministerial responsibility used to be answered to. As part of the parliamentary process, the opposition is duty bound to hold cabinet ministers to account, because they are the only members who have spending authority.

We've been abused and we've been accused of strong-arm tactics in obtaining vouchers. There were no strong-arm tactics. We did indeed have some difficulty getting copies of the vouchers. I think the public understands. I think any fair-minded person would understand that if the opposition is to make an allegation of impropriety in terms of spending then they must have a document in their hand as evidence of that misdemeanour. It is very difficult to assess the ministerial responsibility of a cabinet minister presiding over any department unless one is able to examine and to take copies of those vouchers to determine whether or not they were properly expended. Of course, part and parcel of our responsibility is to make the taxpayers aware. That is what parliament is all about.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I have questions for the minister. He has offered an excuse, or an explanation.... Perhaps I should put it that way. I suppose it was an excuse. He has partially apologized. He said he accepts responsibility, but he asks us to believe that he is so incredibly naive that he spent $325 for a Broadway show called "Sugar Babies." The minister asks us to believe that, "This is like any private social function. I don't ask who is going to pay the bill." The minister is not a private person, he is a minister of the Crown. He was in New York representing the people of the province of British Columbia. As such, he has a duty to be careful and scrupulous in how public funds are expended. This is not some casual social function where you take a friend to a show or to the pub and say: "Who is going to get the bill?" Don't ask us to believe that. That is absolute nonsense. It is an evasion of the minister's responsibility. It cost $325 U.S. for "Sugar Babies" — there is exchange rate on that. People in the province of British Columbia are suffering severe economic problems at this time. Senior citizens are finding it difficult to afford nutritious diets. People in rental accommodation are finding it difficult to meet their rental payments.

Hundreds and thousands of people across this province are experiencing great difficulty in terms of meeting their mortgage payments, and we see here a one-night splash in New York City by a minister who blows, in total, $1,200 of public funds, and then says: "Well, don't ask me who paid the bills." Mr. Chairman, in terms of the budget it's not a lot of money, but in terms of the agony and the economic suffering that is going on in this province for hundreds of thousands of people, it's a very substantial sum of money. Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, it's symptomatic, and it's salutary. It has an effect when a minister and a government take a certain line of conduct after admonishing all of their taxpayers — perhaps, as this government views them, their serfs — to exercise restraint, to cut back and to tighten the belt. We see the lavishness, the extravagance, the abuse of public trust not just by one minister but by two, Mr. Chairman. We find attempts to interfere with the right of opposition members to get at, to scrutinize and to copy the vouchers so that the public will be made a party to the knowledge. Mr. Chairman, this is a sorry record. This minister says: "I didn't know. I don't know who authorized it. I don't know who paid the bills."

Mr. Chairman, there is a telegram here, and any person who understands the English language and interprets it literally would be given to believe that the minister did know. I'm going to read it again into the record, Mr. Chairman:

B.C. MINISTER ENERGY, MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES VISIT NEW YORK 9TH OF JUNE. B. WARBURTON, DIRECTOR, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT. HAS PROVIDED FUNDS AND SPENDING AUTHORITY TO COVER COST OF HOSTED LUNCHEON, DINNERS, RECEPTIONS, MEETING ROOMS, LIMOUSINES, ETC, FOR THE SUBJECT VISIT. PARTY INCLUDES HON. R.H. McCLELLAND, MINISTER AND R. ILLING, DEPUTY MINISTER. R. ILLING WILL APPROVE PAYMENT UP TO BUT NOT EXCEEDING THE $5,000 CANADIAN AUTHORIZED FOR THIS VISIT.

It goes on to advise how the vouchers shall be transmitted.

The minister asks us to believe that he didn't know who was paying for the incidentals, luxuries and excesses of the trip; but $5,000 was transmitted with the spending approval given to his deputy minister — $5,000 was transmitted to New York specifically for this trip. When there were to be withdrawals from that fund, the deputy minister had the authority to validate those withdrawals. As anyone associated with politics in a British democratic system knows, the minister is responsible. He cannot shift his responsibility off to the deputy minister or to any other junior staff member in his Ministry. Mr. Illing was clearly given the approval here to disburse $5,000 in New York. He had a Cadillac that he

[ Page 7994 ]

apparently missed the first time. It went out to the airport while he was riding a cab into New York. I can understand that. I guess we had to pay double. We paid for the Cadillac and we paid for the taxi too.

The information contained in this telegram transmitted to New York is clearly at variance with the information the minister now gives. I don't understand that. The minister has said nothing here today that would reconcile his description of events with the very specific provisions contained in the telegram setting up his trip.

I think it is excessive, extravagant and brutal on the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia to ask them to provide a Cadillac limousine for the minister and his deputy for 10 3/4 hours in New York. I think it is excessive and brutal for the minister to compel the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia to pay for his entertainment while attending the burlesque "Sugar Babies." If he wanted to see the show, no one objects to that. But why on earth didn't he pay for it out of his own pocket? That would have avoided any confusion. The suggestion that he naively thought the tab was going to be picked up somewhere else — anywhere else — is not believable. It's not acceptable. If, indeed, the minister was that naive, then he is incompetent and should not be trusted to preside over the portfolio he now holds.

The minister can't have it both ways.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll remind the hon. member that temperance and moderation are features of parliamentary debate. Please proceed.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I'm not aware of any parliamentary language I used which was improper. If I did so, I wish the Chairman would draw it to my attention. I did not know it was improper to accuse a minister of incompetence. I believe that is within the purview of reasonable argument, and I certainly make that charge against the minister. If he could not be responsible and accountable for the $5,000 fund that was set up for his two days in New York, then how on earth are we going to expect him to safely and competently administer all of the budget allocated to him as Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources?

The minister's story just doesn't jell. It's not acceptable. He seems to have some selective memories of what occurred. He seems to go into lapses and then get a glimmer of memory again, and he's able to provide us with a bit of information. Not one thing he has said yet provides a reasonable explanation of the documents that are on the table. Until the minister is able to convince the opposition that there is some plausible reason — other than an attempt to have the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia provide for his lavish personal needs — he is going to have to be much more forthcoming than he has been so far.

Mr. Chairman, I am certainly going to support the motion, which seeks to reduce this minister's salary in an amount which would compensate the taxpayers for their money, which he either expended irresponsibly and improperly or was so improvident as to waste through his own incompetence.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 28

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

On vote 28: minister's office, $212,539.

MR. HOWARD: Just one question has come to mind in the course of a bit of discussion. The minister apparently with respect to travel matters told the committee that when he got to La Guardia Airport on June 11, there was no limousine there for him, indicating that he must have been expecting one. Otherwise why would he have looked? I've not been to La Guardia, but I understand it's a very large airport and, upon checking, there are limousines there all the time. So how could the minister know there was no limousine there for him if he didn't inquire about it or know beforehand? I understand he later said he discovered that in any event the limousine was an hour late and arrived at the airport after he got there.

When we look at the records, we find something very interesting. The Cadillac left downtown Manhattan en route to La Guardia to pick up the minister. On the way, it stopped at 61st and Madison Avenue, the location of a fabulously expensive restaurant called "La Folie." I can only assume that Mr. Coolidge....

MR. LAUK: Calvin?

MR. HOWARD: No, I believe his name is Nick. He is a friend of the Premier and the Minister of Finance who expedites their activities whenever they go to New York on junkets or visits. Mr. Coolidge was in the Cadillac to meet the minister at La Guardia airport, and they must have stopped at 61st and Madison for a sumptuous lunch or mid-afternoon break, thereby coming late to La Guardia by an hour. The minister discovered this later. Inasmuch as the minister already knew the limousine was going to be there, or discovered afterwards that it was for his disposal and was an hour late, he should at that point have admonished the chauffeur, or whoever was driving the limousine, by saying: "Look, you guys were an hour late and we ain't going to pay

[ Page 7995 ]

for that. You weren't where you were supposed to be when you were supposed to be. You've inconvenienced me. I have to take a taxi and I've got to charge that up to the people of B.C. I also have to pay for this limousine that you fellows have been using, floating around in Manhattan on your way out to La Guardia, so I'm not going to pay you for it." But apparently the minister didn't do anything of the sort, even though full authority for approval of the expenditure was in the hands of his deputy, Mr. Illing.

That question needs to be answered with more than just the casual comment we've had so far that the minister didn't know what was happening, that he didn't know who made these arrangements, or who was responsible, or who was authorizing the payment of the bills, or anything else. We are not dealing with a laughing matter, even though the minister's colleagues were chortling and giggling about it a while ago. We are dealing with the very fundamental question of the taxpayers of this province and whether the taxpayers of this province are getting full service for the dollar that's being extracted from their pockets. That is the fundamental question. For the minister to have gone to New York with his deputy minister, and to have been the person to authorize the payment out of the $5,000 allocation, and to have found that the limousine was not there at the airport when it was supposed to have been and to have discovered that afterwards and not to have done anything about it makes the minister very vulnerable in terms of his responsibilities to the general public; it makes him very vulnerable in terms of accountability, and raises a question that needs to be looked at in some detail.

I mentioned La Folie Restaurant. It is an extremely expensive restaurant to visit, so I am advised. I am not one of those who has been inside the door. I probably don't have sufficient money to tip the guy who opens the door for you to go into the restaurant. Somebody appears to have gone there, wasted the time of the limousine and chalked it up to the minister. The minister's office somehow approved it for expenditure. That needs to be answered in some detail.

Another thing that needs to be answered — I suppose this has been raised earlier, but not satisfactorily dealt with — is who in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources approved the accounts for payment. That is part of the process, so I understand. Somebody receiving bills of this nature in the ministry — or, indeed, in all ministries — is authorized as a signing officer to say "goods and services rendered and received," or whatever the phrase is that okays the payment of the bill. Under the procedures established, I am advised, it is necessary for that signing officer to check with the people who incurred the expense — that is, the minister and the deputy minister — to get from either the minister or the deputy minister a confirmation that those goods or those services, whatever they were, were in fact provided. If that practice was not followed, if this signing officer in the ministry who was supposed to check with the minister or deputy for confirmation did not in fact do that, then there's something seriously wrong in the minister's administration of his own department. This would not have been an isolated instance; this would have been a continuing situation. In the absence of any such examination by the minister, to have someone in the public service have the authority to confirm that goods and services were rendered, when that person does not know whether in fact they were rendered, is a very sloppy way of doing things.

This gets us back to the point that I submit. One way or the other, the minister — even though he said earlier that he did not say anything in his ministry was wrong; he did not accuse anybody in his ministry of doing the wrong thing or of acting wrongly.... It appears on the surface that somebody acted wrongly by omitting to do something or by taking something to the minister and or the deputy, and the minister and or the deputy blindly confirmed that the goods and services were rendered, without caring what was involved. If that's the case, then "Sugar Babies" comes home to rest in the minister's lap — one way or the other. Perhaps tomorrow, if we're on these estimates again, we can deal with that and some other things that I want to add to it.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.