British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, March 31, 1976 — Afternoon Sitting (31st Parliament, 1st Session)

31p 01s 760331p

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

401 ]

Privilege

Possible leak of budget details. Mr. Macdonald — 402

Mr. Speaker — 402

Mr. Lauk — 402

Mr. Speaker — 402

Mr. Macdonald — 402

Mr. Speaker — 404

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 404

Mr. Speaker — 404

Mr. Macdonald — 404

Mr. Speaker — 404

Mr. King — 404

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Provincial and ICBC cash balance. Mr. Stupich — 405

Statement

Appointment of board of inquiry re dispute between Human Rights Commission

and B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons. Hon. Mr. Williams —

Mr. King — 410

Hon. Mr. Williams — 410

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued)

Mr. Bawlf — 411

Mr. Levi — 413

Mr. Chabot — 420

British Columbia Deficit Repayment Act, 1975-1976 (Bill 3).

Second reading.

Mr. Cocke — 424

Mr. Gibson — 430

Mr. Kerster — 434

Mr. Nicolson — 435

Appendix — 440

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before I ask for the minister who

is with us today to say prayers, I would like to draw to your attention

the fact that a previous member of this House, Charles Grant MacNeil,

passed away in his 83rd year, in Vancouver.

He was a former MP for Vancouver North and served in the House of

Commons from 1935 to 1940. He was the CCF member for Vancouver-Burrard

from 1941 until 1945 in the British Columbia Legislature.

I'm sure that you would all want to join with me in a moment of

silence in commemoration of a past and former member of this House, and

say a silent word of prayer on behalf of his family.

Prayers.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I want

to thank you for drawing to the attention of the House the passing of

one of our fallen comrades, Grant MacNeil. I would just like to make

the observation that the caucus of the official opposition particularly

recognizes the contribution which Grant MacNeil made to the public

affairs of this province and this nation. We certainly regret his

passing, because he contributed greatly, not only to the public affairs

of the nation but also to the wisdom and the guidance of our party as

an element of the public life. I certainly want to extend the

condolences of the New Democratic Party caucus to Mr. MacNeil's family.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the

government and the Social Credit Party, I, too, would like to pay

tribute to the memory of Grant MacNeil, a political person who fought

for his province and what he believed, and a man who has set an example

for all who follow, not only in his party but in others. To his family

I extend our condolences on behalf of the government and the Social

Credit Party.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): On behalf of the

people of North Vancouver, which constituency Mr. MacNeil represented

in the House of Commons, I would like to associate myself with the

remarks of the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, in the Speaker's

gallery this afternoon I have three guests, my daughter Jacqueline and

her friend Heather Auchinvole, and a constituent of mine, Jim Bates. I

would like the House to welcome them, please.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, we have with us today

in the gallery, from Vanderhoof in the great constituency of Omineca,

Mr. and Mrs. Eric Turner and son Bob. I ask this House to join me in

welcoming them.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, in the House today are two of my daughters, Cindy and Shawn, and I would very much like the House to welcome them.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a good

friend and alderman of the city of North Vancouver, Mr. Frank Marcino.

I ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, I would

like this House to welcome four people who are situated in the gallery

today, Mrs. Angelo Prasow and her three children.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today

are 48 citizens from Breakaway Bay in my riding, and I would ask the

House to join me in welcoming them here this afternoon.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, today is a

special day. Although I have been a member of this House for several

years, this will be the first time that members of my family will be

here in the gallery, and the entire family is here. I would like the

House to bid them welcome.

MR. J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, we have in

the gallery today a guest from the City of Penticton, Mrs. Kinsey. I

would ask the House to recognize her.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

welcome in the House today, and to the precincts of this House, the

people from the Pacific Life Community and those people who are

concerned about the establishment of a Trident missile base near

Bangor, Washington, which contains some of the most dangerous and

abhorrent weapons ever known in the history of man.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,

before the Attorney-General rises I would like to welcome 40 students

from Vancouver Community College, along with their teacher, Mrs.

Hilley. Welcome to this House.

HON, G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): By popular acclaim, Mr.

Speaker, I think it would be most appropriate if all of the members of

the House would welcome those few remaining members in the gallery who

have not yet been welcomed.

[ Page 402 ]

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy presents the report of the Royal Commission of

Inquiry into Redefinition of Electoral Districts, dated November 7,

1975, submitted in accordance with the Public Inquiries Act.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy presents the report of the Royal Commission of

Inquiry into certain aspects of Vancouver Community College, dated

July, 1975, submitted in accordance with the Public Inquiries Act.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy presents the report of the Royal Commission of

Inquiry into the use of pesticides and herbicides, final report, dated

May 30, 1975, submitted in accordance with the Public Inquiries Act.

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents the fourth annual report of the Criminal

Inquiries Compensation Act of British Columbia, and also the Liquor

Administration Branch 54th annual report.

Presenting petitions.

CLERK: Report pursuant to standing order 73(6): report,

office of the Clerk, March 31, 1976, in the matter of the petition

presented to the House on March 30, 1976, by the hon. first member for

Vancouver East.

The said petition is irregular in the following respects, namely:

(1) the petition contains statements made by members in the House. See May , 14th edition, p. 795;

(2) A member, being himself a petitioner, should not present the petition. See May , 18th edition, p. 799.

All of which is respectfully submitted, I.M. Horne, Clerk of the House.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): I am rising on a

question of privilege. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to make on a

question of privilege, and I am prepared to show — which I think has

been stated from the Chair so many times that it is not necessary to

restate it — that the question of privileges of the House is always in

order.

I make my motion, and the motion reads as follows and is seconded by

the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes): that this House

hereby instructs the committee of selection, appointed on March 17

last, to name a committee of privileges to examine the statements

quoted in the petition filed by the hon. member for Vancouver East and

the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre; and that a said

committee....

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. MACDONALD: I am not proceeding on the petition; I am making a motion of privilege.

Mr. Speaker, the privileges of the House and a question of privilege

is always in order and we're not going to have any kind of closure on

this kind of an incident or any kind of cover-up about budgetary leaks,

and it's not going to be permitted by this side of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

Hon. member for Vancouver East, before you continue, I'd suggest to

you that you read your motion to the House without editorializing on it

and hand it to the attendants who can give it to me. I'll take the

motion that you are presenting, which is a motion on a matter of

privilege, under advisement. But I'd suggest that we confine the

remarks to the motion itself right at the moment, please.

One moment, please. The hon. member for Vancouver East yielded the floor for a moment while I consulted with the clerk.

AN HON. MEMBER: If it's a point of order, go ahead.

MR. SPEAKER: If it's a point of order, I'll take it, yes.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, you have

indicated to the House that you will take the first member for

Vancouver East's motion under advisement. I should remind you, Mr.

Speaker, that this is a matter of privilege that has precedence over

every other matter in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. member, I'll take the motion under

advisement to consider whether it's a matter of privilege or not, but I

can't do that if I've never seen the motion.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Speaker, there were several objections to

the petition. This is a most serious matter of privilege. If we delay

any further, we may be held accountable for delaying our prosecution of

this matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your instruction

that I be permitted to present the motion, but after I've done that,

since you are going to take under consideration the motion, I would

like to refer to one or two authorities to assist you when you come to

that decision.

The hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) says that I cannot assist the Chair by giving

[ Page 403 ]

precedence from other jurisdictions with respect to

matters of this kind, and I suggest that hon. member maintain some

reticence.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed with the motion.

MR.MACDONALD:

"That this House hereby instructs the committee of

selection, appointed on March 17 last, to name a committee of

privileges to examine the statements quoted in the petition filed by

the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. first member for

Vancouver Centre, and that the said committee of privileges so named

shall with all speed inquire into the said allegations and statements,

and whether unauthorized persons had prior knowledge of confidential

budgetary information, and report its conclusions thereon to this

assembly with power to summon witnesses, call for papers, documents and

things."

Will you present that to the Chair — to the Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, the precedents I suggest should be looked at include the following:

from Beauchesne , fourth edition, at page 95, "It has often been laid down

that the Speaker's function in ruling on a claim of breach of privilege

does not extend to deciding the question of substance, whether a breach of privilege

has in fact been committed" — with respect, that is not your decision,

Mr. Speaker — "a question which can only be decided by the House itself."

Secondly, I would ask Mr. Speaker to look at the proceedings of the

Canadian House of Commons in the case of John M. Reid, who was a

parliamentary secretary to the president of the privy council, and who

was alleged to have prematurely leaked information in forthcoming

fiscal legislation relating to a tax on boats, and to have relayed that

information to constituents. The Canadian House of Commons immediately

on the second day.... It was raised on July 24, and on July 25 they set

up a select committee on privileges to hear the witnesses, and this

House can do no less than the Canadian House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, the other reference I would give you is to the Hon.

Hugh Dalton, Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great Britain, who in the

year 1947, after a distinguished career, made inadvertent leaks of

budgetary information with no intention or expectation that they would

be published. They were in fact published a few hours before the budget

was released.

A select committee on privileges immediately looked into the matter

and the hon. Hugh Dalton terminated by resignation a most distinguished

career. All members are familiar with that. But the British

House of Commons without delay set up a select standing committee to

look into the matter, and this House can do no less than the British

House of Commons.

Finally, Mr. Speaker — I won't give all of the authorities because I'm sure they'll be drawn to your attention.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. MACDONALD: Beauchesne in the fourth edition again, page 103:

"The Commons' right and privilege so far extends, that

not only what is done in the very House, sitting the parliament, but

whatever is done relating to them, during the parliament and sitting

the parliament, is nowhere else to be punished but by themselves or a

succeeding parliament, although done out of the House.... In a just

sense, any offence committed by a member relating to the parliament,

though done out of the House, is termed an offence in parliament."

Mr. Speaker, the result of the allegations in the petition, whether

it is technically in order or not, is something that exists and is

referred to in the motion. It leaves a cloud upon this House, upon

every Member, upon the Minister of Finance, upon the Premier which

should be dispelled one way or the other and can only be done by the

summoning of witnesses....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. MACDONALD: I hope therefore that the motion that is before....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Mr. Member. I ask you to withdraw those

phrases which referred to a "cloud over the Premier and the ministers

of the Crown."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, when there are allegations out in

the community from several sources including an hon. member of the

House that there was premature disclosure of budgetary information,

that casts a cloud upon this House and particularly upon the executive

council.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. MACDONALD: I'm not saying whether it is justified or not

but I do say that it should be investigated in the parliamentary

tradition by a select standing committee forthwith.

[ Page 404 ]

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Wild man!

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please, before I recognize the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) ; I will recognize you upon the

completion of my statement.

The Clerks have indicated to this House after reading the petition

that you presented that it was inadmissible and found at fault in

certain areas. That does not preclude you, hon. member, from

re-presenting the petition in an acceptable form. It does not preclude

you either from taking any of the other parliamentary processes that

are available to you, including a motion, if the motion is in order, on

privilege.

But I would like to refer, if I might, for just one moment to

practices and procedures of parliament — actually, from the parliament

of India. But it is based upon the practices of the United Kingdom. It

says: "Though the leakage of the budget proposal may not constitute" —

may not constitute — "a breach of privilege of the House, parliament

has ample power to inquire into the conduct of a minister in suitable

proceedings in relation to the leakage and the circumstances in which

the leakage occurred."

Hon. members, it is not a matter for the Speaker to make an

immediate decision on because it is a matter of grave importance. On

the petition, we had ample opportunity to peruse the petition and see

if it was admissible. I have not had that much time on the motion

itself. I will certainly take it under advisement, but before I do,

could I hear from the hon. Minister of Education who wished to rise?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Sir, I was just

going to draw your attention to the same authority frequently quoted in

the House from the Lok Sabha saying that "leakage of budget proposals

before they are presented to the Lok Sabha, do not constitute a breach

of privileges of the House." I would submit that this is the only

precedent which directly bears on the allegations that the first member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) has brought to this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McGEER: It's very clear, Mr. Speaker, that there is

a remedy available to that member which he has consistently avoided

taking, namely to put a substantive motion on the order paper. I might

also add, Mr. Speaker, that the allegations that the member for

Vancouver East has brought forward are rumour only and they have been

specifically denied, in fact, by hon. members of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment. It's not, at this point, hon. member, a matter of debate....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. I am prepared to listen to the hon.

member who proposed the motion and his back-up information quoting

points of order from other jurisdictions or points and decisions from

other jurisdictions. I am prepared to listen to that same type of

advice from the government side of the House. But I am not prepared to

allow a full-scale debate of the issue before we have even concluded

whether the motion is admissible or not.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, if you will refer to the Hansard

(House of Commons Debates) of July 24, 1975, p. 7888, where Mr. Speaker

in the House of Commons on the John M. Reid allegation being brought to

his attention said: "I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I do

not think he need argue the sanctity of budget secrecy." On the

following day that Hon. Speaker allowed the motion — and there were two

or three motions — as a matter of privilege, to be accepted by the

House, and the matter was forthwith referred to the standing committee.

I don't know about that Indian precedent, but I know what the

precedents are in Ottawa, and I know what they are in the British House

of Commons, Mr. Speaker. And when the hon. members draw this kind of a

matter to the Speaker's attention, as a matter of privilege of all the

members of the House, then it is not for the Speaker to decide the

matter, but it is for the House to say whether it should not forthwith

be submitted to a select committee.

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. members, if I could just interject for

one moment, it is not a matter for the House to decide until I have had

an opportunity to determine whether the motion is an admissible motion

to the House itself. At that time there could, perhaps, be a decision

of the House which would be at difference with the decision of the

Speaker, because the House does, in fact, determine its own business.

But until that decision is made...and I have suggested to you, hon.

member, that I will certainly peruse this as quickly as possible and

reserve any decision on it until I have had time to look at the

references which you have given me, and the motion itself.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would ask, in

light of the very serious and grave nature of this matter, if the

Speaker would consider

[ Page 405 ]

adjourning for a short period of time, a short recess, to allow full consideration and report back to the House.

Interjection.

MR. KING: What do you want to do, cover up? This is very important.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Another Socred cover-up. We just want to clear the air.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, one moment, please. Hon. members,

the practice is that if this matter is in order, then it is given

priority for debate at the time that decision is made. I do not think

that we need at this moment to adjourn the House or take a recess,

because the ordinary course of business can proceed with someone

relieving me in the chair and we can go into the business of the House,

as we do ordinarily, without in any way detracting from any recourse

that you as a member may have as to whether the motion is in order or

whether it is not in order.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt again. This is

a point of information. Is it the House's understanding, then, that you

will take this matter under advisement solely with respect to the

question of the acceptability of the motion?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I'll take under

consideration the matter and all other matters that have been brought

before me concerning this matter. I have the benefit now of references

given to me by the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and from

the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer). These will be looked at,

as well as others, and I will report back to the House as quickly as it

is possible to do so.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, on a separate point of order, I

would just ask Your Honour if you might now be ready to report on the

question of parliamentary language, which was raised some time ago, or

have you any idea when you may be able...?

MR. SPEAKER: A report will be given before the House rises this afternoon, hon. member.

Oral questions.

PROVINCIAL AND ICBC CASH BALANCE

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

hon. Premier, as presiding member of the executive council: by

order-in-council 1061, an order was given that $181,510,000 be paid to

theInsurance Corp. of British Columbia from the consolidated revenue fund — an order-in-council that was approved today.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the presiding member would not sign such an order

without having knowledge of the questions I ask. And I ask: what was the cash

balance of the general accounts of the Province of British Columbia after paying

this amount, and what was the cash balance of ICBC after receiving this amount?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance was standing in his place and was prepared to make a statement on this very question.

MR. STUPICH: Oh, I didn't know that. It's a good question.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's a fair question.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, on rising

I have in mind answers to other questions, but also dealing with this

particular one, which was originally raised by the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson).

There seems to be a certain degree of curiosity as to what the cash

position is. I sort of detect this. (Laughter.) I might just explain

that it takes a certain degree of calculation with estimating the

number of outstanding cheques at the end of the fiscal period. This was

the reason for any delay that was involved in this.

The statement of cash position, which I have here today, is as

follows — and this is as of yesterday, March 30, 1976, after deducting

trust funds and special-purpose funds, $25.4 million; cheques

outstanding, at an approximate value, $254.8 million — leaving a

shortfall of $220.4 million.

I might explain that this does not include major expenditures

contemplated in April, 1976, which will be reflected in the final

fiscal year-end cash position. Also, this does not include March 31

payroll cheques which are estimated at $14 million, so this would have

to be, once again, added to the shortfall figure.

I believe you asked a subsequent question the other day with

reference to revenues and having to do with whether there were any

significant extra revenues anticipated before the end of March. The

answer is no.

MR. GIBSON: Does it include ICBC cheques...?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, but it does not include, as I explained,

Mr. Member, substantial expenditures which will be incurred in April,

and which will be reflected in the final year-end position.

Interjections.

[ Page 406 ]

MR. STUPICH: Supplementary question. I think I heard in an

exchange, Mr. Speaker, that this figure does include the transfer to

ICBC, although you gave us figures as of March 30, and this

order-in-council is not signed until March 31 — not approved until

March 31. But it does include this figure?

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's right.

MR. STUPICH: My original question was asked of the Premier.

My question now is: was he aware, when he approved this transfer of

$181.5 million to ICBC, that it would put the province into a deficit

position? The second question that he didn't answer, nor did the hon.

Minister of Finance answer: what was the cash position of ICBC after

receiving this $181.5 million?

HON. MR. BENNETT: For the first part, the transfer of the

cheque, and the commitment to pay the cheque before the end of the

year, has been well documented both in government policy and in the

Clarkson, Gordon review. We knew full well....

MR. STUPICH: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Premier is on his feet.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll just finish answering his question.

The government had announced that this money would be spent to make up

the tremendous losses that have been incurred by ICBC.

MR. STUPICH: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now I'll have to take the second part of

your question, as to the facts of ICBC, as notice, as I'm not a

director of ICBC, nor do I have....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. STUPICH: Perhaps the hon. Premier did not hear my

question. My question was: was he aware, at the time he signed this

order, that it would put the accounts of the province into a serious

overdraft position? That was my question, Mr. Speaker: was he aware of

it when he signed this order yesterday?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The government knew full well that the

overdraft position would be compounded by this additional sum. We

already had outstanding cheques more than the cash balance, and we were

counting on this House to pass the necessary borrowing authority, as

has been our policy, to save the government from some embarrassment.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm on a supplementary as well: it's

a question of some puzzlement. Given this very serious cash position,

namely $40 million of a cash deficit without the ICBC cheque, why was

that cheque issued to a corporation which is already swimming in cash?

I'd just like to understand that better.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member already has the announced

government policy to pay up all the debts in this year, and it was the

subject of a non-confidence vote and a debate in this House. He voted

against it.

MR. LAUK: Supplementary question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker: when was the cheque issued to ICBC?

HON. MR. BENNETT: You might ask the Minister of Finance; I don't issue the cheques.

MR. LAUK: To the Minister of Finance: the same question, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to answer

the questions, or redirect them when you don't ask them of the right

minister. Are you not aware that the Minister of Finance would write

the cheques? The Treasury Board does not sign the cheques. The former

Minister of Highways should know that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LAUK: I redirect that question to the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that there are substantial expenditures of outstanding cheques in the amount of....

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Instructions to issue the cheque have been

issued. I couldn't state exactly the date it would be actually

transferred. I can get that information for you, gladly, and supply it.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Is the hon. Minister of Finance saying that the cheque has not been issued?

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's been issued, but it's

[ Page 407 ]

outstanding. It's an outstanding cheque, which is in the report.

MR. LAUK: Are you saying the cheque has been issued?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes.

MR. LAUK: At 2:45 p.m. today?

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's been issued.

MR. LAUK: Will the Minister of Finance say that in this House?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The cheque has been issued.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance: I would

seek some understanding from him, and I'm not asking for the solution

of a legal proposition, which we can't do in this House, but my

understanding is that according to the law the government may not be in

deficit as of the end of the fiscal year, which happens at midnight

tonight, and doesn't it look like that's what's going to happen?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, it isn't, through you, Mr. Speaker. This

is a matter of some conjecture whether it would be contravening

legislation, but certainly it does reinforce the fact that we do need

this legislation that is before us at this time. I think that all

members should treat this matter with some degree of responsibility

rather than attempting to delay the procedure of this bill as has been

happening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, then, Mr. Speaker, could I

ask if it is correct — and I just heard very brief reports outside the

House — that either the Premier or the minister has suggested to

British Columbians that they should not cash government cheques in the

meantime?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member, I

said the government would be in an embarrassing position if the people

all cashed the cheques before we get the authority to borrow. That's

right, the government will be in an embarrassing position.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now it is a matter of some seriousness.

British Columbia hasn't been faced with this situation in some years,

Mr. Speaker, and I find it unfortunate that the architects of this

deficit sitting over there will hold up the passage of this bill.

I think all British Columbians are aware of the information

contained in the Clarkson, Gordon review, and they know full well who

to blame for the deficit, Mr. Speaker, and they know full well who is

holding up passage of this bill. Let that slow group be accountable to

the people of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We'll have the debate on the bill, I presume, when it is called.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Do you wish to reply to another question that was asked by another member?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Surely to goodness you are going to allow the minister to answer questions that have been asked.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Evidently the members really ask questions they don't want answers to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. WOLFE: Do you want to hear some answers to those questions you asked yesterday, or don't you?

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed, hon. minister.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Well, I would appreciate just a minute or two

to reply to those questions but, before I do so, I would like to make

just a brief statement...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. WOLFE: ...with regard to special warrants in order

to emphasize how they're handled by Treasury Board, the Minister of

Finance and the cabinet of this province.

MR. LAUK: Have you finally decided?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I want to quote from the Audit Act, which the

member who just spoke should be very clearly understanding, I think,

and I don't believe he does. It says: "If any occasion arises in which

an expenditure not foreseen or provided for by the Legislature is

urgently and immediately required

[ Page 408 ]

for the public good, then, upon the report of the

Minister of Finance that there is no legislative authority and of the

minister in charge of the service in question that the necessity is

urgent......

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I think the members....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. KING: You've got a point of order here.

HON. MR. BENNETT: There's no point of order.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. WOLFE: They don't want the answer, Mr. Speaker. They don't want the answers.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll be very brief....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I want to give you the comparison of special

warrants issued this year and last year for the 30-day period prior to

the Legislature sitting.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

HON. MR. WOLFE: They don't want the answers, Mr. Speaker. No, they don't want the answers,

HON. MR. BENNETT: They don't want the answers.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please!

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed any further in

debate I would like to make one point. It would seem that it gets to

that point occasionally in the question period.

The practice of the House, when questions have been taken on notice,

has always been to allow the member or the cabinet minister who took

the question as notice to reply to that question. Now it would seem

that in order to interrupt members on both sides of the House in

question period, we have hon. members rising on points of order, either

while a question is being asked, or while a cabinet minister or some

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, as I resume my maiden

address — and I might say, with some trepidation — before this House

you will recall that I was speaking of the arrogant treatment of the

City of Victoria under the heavy hand of the NDP and that government's

shameful neglect of municipal financial needs, and, as a result, the

crippling growth of property taxes for our citizens — especially our

senior citizens.

This was on top of the unfortunate loss of large numbers of our

senior citizens who did not receive any adjustments in their benefits

to protect them against inflation during the last 18 months of NDP

government — 18 months which saw the worst inflation this province has

had, thanks in large part to the undisciplined fiscal and economic

management of that same government.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now they're experts,

MR. BAWLF: I have spoken earlier of the shocking state of

hospital facilities in Victoria after three years of NDP government

with virtually no increase in the number of hospital beds available in

my constituency, also ably documented by the hon. leader of the

Conservative Party.

Mr. Speaker, fortunately for the people of my constituency and for

all of the people of this province, that hopelessly inept NDP

government was turned out of office.

This government has immediately begun to take positive steps to

relieve these problems, including adjustments to Mincome to compensate

for inflation and steps towards removal of property taxes from the

homes of most senior citizens. These are very commendable, enlightened

steps, Mr. Speaker, which demonstrate this government's concern for

people and which are very much appreciated by my constituents.

Furthermore, this government has stated clearly its commitment to

the concept of a full partnership with the municipalities for a fair

sharing of the growth in its revenues. This will come as a great relief

to our beleaguered municipal taxpayers and marks the beginning of a new

era for local governments in British Columbia.

This promise extends to more than revenue-sharing, Mr. Speaker.

Underlying it is a concern for restoring respect for the autonomy of

local governments and for healthy cooperation with them on the part of

the provincial government.

I am looking forward, Mr. Speaker, to an early step in that

direction in my own constituency which will see the reinstatement for

the Capital Improvement District Commission as the sole agency

responsible for liaison between the province and the City of Victoria

in planning and implementing the beautification of the province's lands

in the Inner Harbour.

This step will go a long way towards restoring the confidence of my

constituents, and a healthy dialogue with them through their council,

after the unfortunate behavior of the previous government.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, the former government left this province in a

serious deficit position. As a consequence, this government cannot move

as quickly to alleviate the mess that is the legacy of the NDP as we

would like. My constituents understand this, Mr. Speaker. I believe

they're prepared to be patient because this government is an open,

up-front government and therefore has credibility unlike the previous

one.

Consider some statements from Hansard , Mr. Speaker, when the

last government introduced their last budget. Our Premier, then Leader

of the Opposition said: "This budget ranks as the most irresponsible

and dangerous budget which has ever been laid before the people of

British Columbia. This may be the first deficit budget in many, many

years in this province." Compare that statement with others made at the

same time, Mr. Speaker. The

[ Page 412 ]

former Highways minister (Mr. Lea): "For the first time in my memory

a budget has come into the House that says here is the expected amount

of revenue we're going to take in, and we're going to spend it, and

they coincide." They coincide, Mr. Speaker. That member seemed very

enthusiastic about balanced budgeting at that time. I wonder when he

became so enamored of deficit financing, Mr. Speaker.

The former Minister of Labour (Mr. King): "I think it is a very

excellent budget, the kind of sound fiscal management that this

government was elected to bring to the province. That is the kind of

sound management we have achieved." Well, Mr. Speaker, we know the

awful truth about that budget now and we know who is credible. Revenue

overestimated by $300 million, non-budgeted expenditures more than $250

million, a deficit for the fiscal year now ending of $541 million.

Staggering, but still it doesn't include the total depletion of the

B.C. medical plan, $46 million in one year gone. There's $52 million in

tax bills owing to the federal government via the B.C. Petroleum Corp.

B.C. Rail has no money left. B.C. Hydro has no money left and contrast

that, Mr. Speaker, with what that government inherited, a sound healthy

treasury from its predecessors, the former Social Credit government.

Just three and a half years ago this province had perpetual funds of

$85 million, special capital funds of $126 million, cash or term

deposits of $200 million, B.C. Hydro term deposits of $97.6 million,

B.C. Railway in temporary deposits $66 million — $575 million.

On top of this, Mr. Speaker, the NDP increased spending of the

people's money by 112 per cent in just three years, a compound annual

growth rate of over 30 per cent, and they have the audacity...the $100

million man over there, Mr. Speaker, stood up a week or so ago and had

the audacity to express his concern for the senior citizens of this

province at the hands of inflation. So still, Mr. Speaker, they managed

to run us into a colossal mess, a deficit for the fiscal year now

ending equal to more than $200 for every man, woman and child in this

province. A shameful situation.

Now we hear from the official opposition that deficit financing,

mortgaging the future of our citizens, is okay with them. Borrow now so

that the people of the province will have to pay later, when the reason

for having to pay has become conveniently hazy. That's their approach,

Mr. Speaker. It's very convenient to the former government, isn't it?

Well, sadly for the people, this province must go into debt to pay

operating expenditures for the first time in my lifetime. Since the

opposition so ardently favour this approach, I feel sure that they will

support the government's reluctant action in this bill, and perhaps

while they're at it, they will explain to the people of this province

why the former Premier went around this province just a few months ago

saying that the province was in good financial condition.

We heard a great deal from the opposition the last day or two that

the Minister of Finance and the Premier ought to have the financial

status of the province at their fingertips. Well, if that's so, then

surely the former Premier must have known that the expected revenue was

down by hundreds of millions of dollars. He must have known that his

government were overspending their budget by hundreds of millions of

dollars. He must have known that the medical plan was broke and there

were no tax dollars to support it. He must have known that ICBC was

broke and there would soon be no money to pay its employees, let alone

$165 million in unpaid claims. He must have known. Apply your own

measure. He must have known about these disasters and others that were

the results of his government's financial mismanagement.

We've heard a lot from the opposition, Mr. Speaker, about so-called

politically motivated statements. What was the former Premier trying to

accomplish with statements that everything was rosy in the province's

finances? Political survival, Mr. Speaker. Political survival, at the

expense of everything else.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): On a point of order: I

adjourned the debate the other day, yesterday afternoon, hoping I'd

have the opportunity to continue my speech at the first opportunity.

I'd like, Mr. Speaker, to have this opportunity to finish the few

minutes that I have left of my debate in this budget.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am under the impression that the

next speaker in order was the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr.

Levi), followed by....

MR. CHABOT: Do you maintain a list for speakers? I don't have a list, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I am under the impression that the list of

speakers is: the member for Vancouver-Burrard, followed by the member

for Columbia River. But if that is not correct....

MR. CHABOT: Oh, that's fine with me, providing I'm allowed to.... Sure, okay, I'll follow the....

MR. SPEAKER: That is my understanding, hon. member.

MR. CHABOT: I'm easy to get along with.

[ Page 413 ]

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I haven't had

an opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment. In view of the

very hard work you did last night, it's rather unfortunate that you are

going to have to take a pay cut, but that's the way it is. It's no

reflection on what you are doing — that's the way it is.

You know, the previous speaker...I'm rather interested in some of

the unfacts that he comes out with; he actually believes most of the

propaganda that was put out by his party during the election. He made

some reference to senior citizens not getting any assistance for 18

months. I remember that during the election that group over there

campaigned on the fact that they were going to introduce a

cost-of-living clause to the Mincome programme.

I don't know why it is that nobody realized — certainly the Minister

of Health (Mr. McClelland) was aware of it; certainly the member for

Atlin (Mr. Calder) was aware of it — that that had been the case since

October, 1973, that we had been passing on the quarterly increases that

were coming down.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the cost-of-living clause.

MR. LEVI: That's nothing to do with the cost of living, Mr. Member, because what we have now is....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Oh, that's federal. But what we have now is a new

kind of Mincome programme. In fact, it's so new that the name doesn't

even appear in the book any more. We don't call it Mincome any more; we

have rewritten history and we have written out the Mincome programme.

Not only have we written it out....

The first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) is very concerned about

the senior citizens in this city. Very concerned! I wonder how

concerned he really is when he should know that, as of tomorrow, the

people between the ages of 60 and 64 will be getting less than the

people over the age of 65. He doesn't talk about that; he's not that

very concerned.

Well of course, those millionaires over there say: "Oh, what's $4 or

$5?" But that's a reality, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker:

tomorrow there will be a difference in terms of the kind of money that

people get.

You've done away with Mincome: we're going right back down the time

tunnel to the days of old W.A.C. Bennett, and we're going to have a

real good means test. A means test...but, you know, one can't relate it

in any realistic way to you people — everything has got to be the

bottom line. But, you know, you'll hear from your people in your

ridings. You, Mr. Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl), you'll hear from all

those retired people: "Where is my Mincome addition?" The handicapped

people, they'll be asking you: "Where is my Mincome addition?"

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Oh, you sure did. But you'll be hearing from them.

I was interested in the comments of the former mayor of Victoria, in

respect to one of his former aldermen, who is now in this House, and he

says: "I guess Bawlf was the brightest of a rather lacklustre bunch."

Well, he was sure right on that.

MR. BAWLF: You should hear what he had to say about you. (Laughter.)

MR. LEVI: I know what he had to say about me. When this

government finally settled with the city of Vancouver — the hospital

problem, the so-called Park Lane cases — when we made available to them

last July $500,000. I remember what he said then. He said: "At least

you can deal with this government," and he got the money.

You talked yesterday about the kinds of expenses. I remember what he

had to say in 1973 when the government took over the administration of

social services and saved the city of Victoria $126,000. I remember

what he said. He didn't say what you said — but, of course, you weren't

there then.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Do you know what the people who got it said about the $100 million? They got it: that was the important thing.

The Pharmacare and the Mincome and the homemaker service and the day

care and all of the child-care services, the home care, Mr. Minister of

Health, the home-nursing care which comes under your department....

What are you doing with it?

You know, I was in Cache Creek the other day and they tell me it's disappeared.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: I want to talk for a minute before we get into the

debate about the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). You know,

there's an extremely brave gentlemen. He comes into the House. He's

unable to answer questions, but he wants to make long statements,

because that's what happened to our question period now. The question

period is now a debate period. And then he comes in with bills and he

sits there all by himself without his deputy minister. Now I'm sure

that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) wouldn't do that. He

wouldn't come in and introduce a bill without his deputy minister. You

[ Page 414 ]

wouldn't, would you, Mr. Attorney-General? See, he sits shaking his

head. He would never do that, but that little Minister of Finance comes

in by himself. Well, of course, he's okay as long as the Premier's with

him, because he's there to mix them up. But to come in here without his

Deputy Minister of Finance — that's a really tragic thing to happen to

a minister.

He said in his speech it's a recovery budget. It sure is a recovery budget, the people out here haven't recovered from it yet.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: What we have from them, in terms of the bottom line

philosophy, is that we're going to make everything run on time. We're

going to make a profit out of everything, and if we can't make a

profit, then the people won't get the service.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Yes, it sure is good stuff, Mr. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips). I'll be coming to you in a minute.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: The farmers are really fascinated with what you're

going to do with income assurance. You are the genius who is going to

do the same thing last year that was done this year with the same

amount of money. You know, that's real north country thinking, that is.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): You could never understand. It's too thick for you.

MR. LEVI: Too thick? You're darned right it's too thick. It's really very thick.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Well, that's what concerns me about your budget,

because in your budget you talk about introducing a Mincome programme

for the people 55 to 59. You know, Mr. Member, I'm just wondering how

many of that 140,000 people in this province in that age category are

going to get this programme. Let's say that 10,000 are going to get it;

10,000 out of 140,000, and you're going to pay them this....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: This is what we're told. You're going to pay them

$265 a month. That's what it's going to be, so you're going to need

about $30 million for just 10,000, and yet you don't show anything in

your budget about that.

Here, you also don't show in your budget how much money you expect

to make from the Petroleum Corp. You know, it may very well be that

you'll be going down to Ottawa and asking them to reduce the export

price. You know, that's the way the former administration operated.

AN HON. MEMBER: Appear to be credible.

MR. LEVI: Appear to be credible. Okay, we have a budget and,

you know, the interesting thing, we were looking at the impact of the

budget on the average working people. Now, of course, you're experts on

the average working people. What is it going to do to them in terms of

the money they're going to be able to spend? You know, there was an

interesting analysis in the Victoria paper where it's going to cost the

average person $550 more a year to get by. That's your gift to them.

You're going to balance the books, and you're going to put it to

them. You're the government that does things to people — not for

people, but to them. We didn't really expect that you'd be any

different than you were before and, of course, you're falling right

back into the mould.

Last night's debate gave us an indication, for sure, that if we're

not careful we're going to go back to legislation through exhaustion.

You know, it's a little different now. You have a different kind of

group over here.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If you had stayed in we would have been broke, broke, broke.

MR. LEVI: Broke, broke, broke. We have an example of the kind

of broke that takes place, and the kind of responsibility. We have the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) telling us that he needs over $200

million to meet the bills before March 31, and on the same day he

transfers $181 million to ICBC, and they have something like $300

million. I suppose what's going to happen tomorrow is the government is

going to go, if they get their bill through, and borrow the money back

from ICBC to the government, and that seems to be the plan, the game

plan. They tell us that what it is is a matter of policy. It's a matter

of policy that they established previously, that we're going to balance

the books, that we're going to show that there was a big deficit, and

in order to make the deficit you run up $135 million of special

warrants. You transferred $181 million to the ICBC, and then you

justify it. Based on what? The Premier talks about the Clarkson, Gordon

report.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: New York socialist.

MR. LEVI: Well, we know about the Clarkson,

[ Page 415 ]

Gordon report. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) covered it very

adequately yesterday, and talked about the gimmickry that existed.

You know, the Clarkson, Gordon report really is a bit of an insult

to the staff that you have in the Department of Finance. They came out

right at the beginning and made a statement about what they thought the

situation was but, no, you wanted to set it all up. You know,

everything was stage-managed. Dan Campbell figured he was putting on

the biggest extravaganza. He was going to have a cocktail party and

they were going to lay out the sandwiches and they were going to tell

the people how things were. And they published the Clarkson, Gordon

report. Well, I would imagine that the Premier's father....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The Clarkson, Gordon report is true.

MR. LEVI: True! Nobody has denied the facts in the Clarkson,

Gordon report. You know, they're there. The only thing is we don't

agree with the conclusions. That's the only thing. You know, of course

it's true. You know the difference between....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Oh, come on, Don, just relax. Relax. Relax. You

know you've got to go and look after the economic development

department. I am sure, based on what I received this morning, that you

are ready to make this province really go, really go. And yet in the

budget I don't see anything. No indication whatsoever of what is going

to happen, to quote you,"to getting this province moving." The only

thing that's moving in this province economically is your mouth.

Nothing else is moving but you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not economically.

MR. LEVI: Not economically. Well, if he was to try and live with economy he would button his lip, but he has a little trouble.

AN HON. MEMBER: An economy of words.

MR. LEVI: Yes, that's it, Mr. Member, an economy of words. That's the important thing.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's a good job, because I've done more in three months than your previous minister did in three and a half years.

MR. LEVI: Oh. oh, oh! Oh, yes, you've been meeting with the

farmers on a regular basis. We know that the farmers are so happy with

you that they are prepared to trade you in for the Member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster). That's the rumour that's out there in the

farming community; at least they'd rather have that individual than you.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): They want Cyril back.

MR. LEVI: Yes, that's the fellow who should be there. You're right, Mr. Speaker. Let's bring Cyril back. Let's bring Cyril back.

What's Jimmy doing down there? I can't get used to seeing that

member, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) sitting

so far down the line. That's terrible. Mr. Premier, it's very unfair of

you to put him that far down the line. It's really very unfair of you.

After all, he is one of the best debaters in the House — one of the

best debaters. And do you know what's going to happen to him? He's

going to start a movement to secede to Alberta. He has already

indicated that. He's unhappy about having too much social service in

his area. Too much social service, eh, Jimmy? It really worries you.

Where's the other former cabinet minister? Way down the line there again. Way down the line.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got no leader, and you know it.

MR. LEVI: Oh, we've got a leader. We've got two leaders

there. We've got a leader out there and one who can lead us in here '

and he sure led us last night. We saw last night the great retreat of

that group over there — the great retreat. Those people down there.

Surely, Mr. Premier, you could have been a little bit more

considerate. After all, they're long-standing members of your party.

They are long-standing members. There you are, sitting there surrounded

by all your Liberal friends. It's incredible. I don't think that's fair

at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: It really gets to you, doesn't it?

MR. LEVI: It does. It really touches me. You know, you've got

a party of a political tourists. They go from the Socreds and they go

over to the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. We had one go

away from us. But we don't talk about that.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: I just want to talk about the kind of fiscal

co-ordination that appears to be going on over there because this is

something that really concerns me. I am not able to understand it and

maybe we can get some indication from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Wolfe) or from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland). He

announced the other day

[ Page 416 ]

that they are going to increase the acute-care rates to $4 and the extended care to $7 a day.

What occurs to me is, who did he consult with? Did he consult with

anybody? Did he talk to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm) or did he just talk to Dave Brown who wrote the speech?

The Minister nods his head and said that he talked to the Department of

Human Resources. Well, if you had talked to the Department of Human

Resources, how is it that nobody knew that people in extended care were

no longer getting Mincome? How is that possible? You sat in the House

last year. You sat over here when I made the statement in the House,

and yet nobody knew — nobody knew....

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): It's the provincial share.

MR. LEVI: Provincial share, my foot! Nobody knew in your government....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Nobody was getting income supplement before....

MR. LEVI: Income supplement? What's income supplement? You mean Guaranteed Income Supplement? We're talking about Mincome. Mincome.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. members! Address the Chair.

MR. LEVI: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Thirty-one hundred people in

extended care. Twelve hundred affected by the reduction. Those are the

facts. You are the minister of unfact. You wouldn't know that. But what

you have to do is ask your civil servants, They'll tell you.

No cooperation, Nobody seems to know what's going on. You have one

minister saying one thing and another minister saying the other. You

have a Premier saying that you don't need the money in ICBC. You have

the Minister of Finance coming up and saying that they not only need it

but they need it now.

AN HON. MEMBER: The whole bunch!

MR. LEVI: They come in here and bring in their bills -- last minute Charlies, every one of them, bringing in their bills.

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't.

MR. LEVI: We didn't bring them in? Six weeks after we were elected 108,000 seniors got some assistance. Let's see you match that one.

Tell me, Mr. Speaker, aren't you concerned about this budget? I'm

just wondering whether they're going to be able to balance it. Are you

going to be able to balance it, Mr. Premier? You're not sure....

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: I can't get anything out of you.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've always wrong.

MR. LEVI: Not always. Mostly right, very rarely wrong.

But let me ask you. You've got your fantastic programme that

you've announced, these 55 to 59. Perhaps when we get into the

estimates, Mr. Speaker, we'll be able to get some more facts about this

programme, because search as I might through the general budget I can't

find that you've even made any allowances for that. After all, there

are 140,000 people that are in that age group. We don't know how many

are going to qualify but if there's anything similar to what existed in

1972, then we probably can look for something like 8 or 9 per cent of

the people qualifying after they go through one of these rigorous

Social Credit–type means tests and then they'll pay it.

The other thing in the budget which concerns me is some kind of a

statement that's made by the Minister of Finance. You know, it's only a

question of accuracy and understanding. Unfortunately he's left the

House again. He keeps going back and forth. You know, you've got to

keep a tighter reign on that fellow because he's really having trouble

in here.

There's a statement in the paper that says: "These extended-care

benefits will provide $17 million more in payments taken at very little

cost to the province because the bulk of the funds will be provided

through federal sharing. The previous government, in our opinion, was

remiss in not taking advantage of the federal money that was available

in previous years to provide the increased benefits."

Mr. Speaker, they're talking about a programme that doesn't exist.

It doesn't exist and yet you're talking about a loss of $17 million.

You're talking about a loss of money. Yes, if we will go the way you

think, Mr. Premier, what you will do is you will have less people on

Mincome, you'll have cut into the Pharmacare programme, you'll cut into

the Home-maker programme, because you're one of the guys on the bottom

line.

You know, Mr. Speaker, this fellow's going to get a sore throat. Chirp, chirp, chirp all afternoon!

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: But he talks in the budget speech about a programme

that does not exist, and he talks about money that could be saved. But

again, the programme does not exist. If they're talking, on the other

hand, about how they can get more money

[ Page 417 ]

from Ottawa, then what we are looking at is simply less people being

eligible for programmes — less senior citizens, less handicapped, less

people eligible for day care, less people eligible for home-maker care.

That's what worries me, Mr. Speaker, about this budget. If they're

going to balance the budget at the expense of all of these people, then

what they say about doing things for people...then that's wrong.

Because I think what they're going to do, they're going to do things to

people.

That's what worries me continually because when we were the

government we had to pick up some 20 years of neglect, and it looks

like in their rewriting of history that nobody's going to remember

anything because they're going to take it away from people.

One of the themes that was abroad in the election was the whole

issue of freedom. We had two members from the opposition party, the

mover and seconder to the budget speech, who talked about freedom, and

"somebody out there". Nobody was quite sure who it was, but "somebody

out there". The fear...and yes, the fear is out there amongst the

senior citizens, and it's out there amongst those people who receive

social assistance and receive the programmes through this department,

and through the Department of Health. It's out there and you members

should know it.

And yes, the member shakes his head; he enjoys having people being

fearful. You do, Mr. Member, eh? That's what you want in this province

— to go back to the days of '72 when everybody was afraid to open their

mouths.

That's where we're back to. You know, we have a kind of creeping

suppression and it's going to go on. I remember it when I became the

minister, the kind of things that people used to say: "It's amazing

that we can talk to you". Now I'm picking up the same thing that they

said again in '72: "We can't talk to anybody; we're afraid."

That fear is there and there he is; that's the architect of the

fear. Over there, that's the architect, just like his father, lots of

fear. You know, last night he gave us a lecture on something he called

the Whip system. Yes, he wasn't here when his daddy was here and when

we had the Whip system. I remember the Whip system then, Mr. Member,

when his daddy used to say to the Whip: "You tell them if the minister

gets his salary they can go home."

You want that kind of Whip system? You tried it last night and you

didn't make it, and you're not going to make it, and the reason you're

not going to make it is because the public is out there and they're

watching you, and they are going to keep watching you because they are

afraid of what you want to do to this place.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): You won't let it work.

MR. LEVI: Won't let it work! Won't let it.... He tells us

about a member who has an agreement.... The member stands up and says:

"Well, I didn't have an agreement."

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he didn't.

MR. LEVI: He didn't say that?

AN HON. MEMBER: You should apologize to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. members.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. second member for Burrard has the floor.

MR. LEVI: During the business of the present government we've

had an earlier statement by the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

who says that they're going to save certain housing units and they're

going to put them on the market because they can't get people. I'm glad

that the minister is listening because I know that he has now reversed

himself and that they are going to make the housing available and that

he is not upset; he is not overly concerned that somehow he'll set up

ghettos.

Well, that's a good move, Mr. Member. In my riding there are four

such small housing projects under completion. What I'm concerned about

is: will those people be able to remain in them and that somehow you're

not going to put them up for sale?

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Yes, you said it in the beginning. Yes, you would turf them

out. You said it in the beginning and then you backed off. All right, I appreciate

it. You're a new boy; you're very enthusiastic. You said something;

it slipped out. All right, that's true. You've learned; most of them

have learned. They now keep their mouths shut.

The thing with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) we've yet to get him to open his mouth.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): How condescending! Thank you.

MR. LEVI: I hope Hansard picked that up.

MR. LEA: Was that his maiden speech?

MR. LEVI: But the important thing is that we have a Minister

of Housing who has learned something — and that's good. You know, the

one thing that I don't understand — and I hope that

[ Page 418 ]

during his estimates we'll be able to get some understanding and

some explanation from him in more detail — is his great need to be so

terribly munificent with those municipalities. Why, even Frank Ney who

used to sit over there was quite surprised that suddenly it all arrived

on his desk, that usually they'd been getting quarterly payments....

AN HON. MEMBER: Over there.

MR. LEVI: No, he used to sit on that side, Mr. Member. I know he sat down there but he used to sit on that side.

MR. CHABOT: He was the overflow.

MR. LEVI: Yes, that's right — that's it. You're edging

towards that overflow. (Laughter.) Do you know where that goes when it

goes from there? Down the tube, Mr. Member; that's what happens at the

end of the overflow. So you guys have got to cling desperately to the

sides because you'll slip down. If you lean on that fellow there that

you're with, you'll all go down together. (Laughter.)

The mayors of the municipalities, Mr. Minister of Housing, through

you, Mr. Speaker, have indicated some surprise that suddenly all of

this money has arrived. Of course, it would be terribly suspicious and

unfair of us to suggest that what you really want to do is to empty the

treasury and then justify the deficit. But we'll have an opportunity to

get at you in your estimates and then you can tell us — yes, you can

tell us exactly why it is that you wanted to do what you wanted to do.

That's why we have estimates.

AN HON. MEMBER: They were in shock.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

MR. LEVI: Yes, they sure were in shock. All of a sudden they got a pile of money that they weren't expecting.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: No, that's not the statements that are in the paper.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Oh, have you read the statement of the mayor of Kelowna?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The former government was in default for two years.

MR. LEVI: Oh, and where were you as the MLA?

Where were you as the MLA of Kelowna if the former government...?

You never raised it once on the floor of this House; not once did you

raise it on the floor of this House. You didn't do your job as the MLA

— no, you did not. Not once did you raise it on the floor of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, take him out for tea. Take him out for tea — his throat's getting sore.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Mr. Member. You will assist us

greatly in managing an orderly House if you will address the Chair and

if other hon. members would please remember that it is the hon. second

member for Vancouver-Burrard who has the floor. Please continue, sir.

MR. LEVI: The member for Chilliwack for Speaker — a beautiful

gentleman, a really beautiful gentleman! Just keep the Premier in

order. He's constantly in a state of disorder; keep him in order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I need all the help I can get.

MR. LEVI: Constantly in a state of disorder. He tells us that

the mayor of Kelowna is upset because they were behind. Mr. Speaker, I

really get the feeling that you're listening. He isn't, but you are.

For two years they were behind and he was the MLA and not once did he

raise it on the floor of this House. The boy is a politician. If he

wanted to get at the government of the day, that's what he should

have.... Did you ever raise it?

HON. MR. BENNETT: If you're wrong, will you resign?

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Did you raise it on the floor of the House? Oh, come now.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, three times.

MR. LEVI: Three times.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Did you raise it on the floor of the House?

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, would you call the little rich boy to order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order?

[ Page 419 ]

MR. KING: He's becoming petulant.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's no point of order. Thank you. Hon. member, continue.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Okay. We'll leave the Premier for now, Mr. Speaker.

I think what we should do is get back to the business of the House

because what he wants to do...he wants to appear in Hansard so often.

He wants to be able to get as many volumes of Hansard as his daddy's

got. Well, that's quite easy because all the time his dad was here we

had just one little old thin volume, that's all.

Can you imagine what 20 years of volumes of Hansard would have

looked like on the former Premier's (Hon. W.A.C. Bennett'

s) shelves?

Impressive. But he's just got one slim little volume, and that's really

terrible.

You know, I remember some of the good things and the other things

that he said in this House, but they're gone, disappeared, so all you

have there, you must remember, is in terms of Hansard . I'm glad, I'm really glad, that we still have Hansard . It's important.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a surprise.

MR. LEVI: Yes, it is a bit of a surprise, but I'm glad that we still have Hansard ,

because all the golden words these new members are going to come out

with are all going to be noted down. It's useful for us — very useful

for us.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the balancing of the budget,

really concerned, because of the kinds of expectations that have been

laid out in the throne speech and the kinds of figures that appear, and

in fact whether it is going to be possible for them to deliver some of

the things which they say. But we don't know.

We tried yesterday and today to get some information from the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), and we were unable to. You know,

he has under him an extremely talented, experienced deputy minister of

Finance who has yet to sit beside him when he is trying to steer a

bill. But it is going to be important that we have the up-to-date

figures, and we were told by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) that

those figures are available on a monthly basis and that they should be

made available.

We'll see when we get the first quarterly report. We'll wait for the first quarterly report.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The first in the history of B.C.

MR. LEVI: When is the first one? When are we getting the first one?

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: When are we getting it? Which quarter?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The quarterly report.

MR. LEVI: The quarterly report. Okay, Well, we can expect the quarterly report July 1; that's what the Premier has just indicated.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You'll get a quarterly report.

MR. LEVI: July 1. Yes, we're going to get one on July 1. The

Premier scratches his chin, and that's an indication that we will be

getting a quarterly report, Mr. Speaker. If he shaves his chin, that

kind of commitment has probably gone down the tube.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: A quarterly report, that's what you'll have. Then

we'll be able to see how they've indicated in there just what the state

of the finances are. Of course, what is going to be worthwhile is for

us to be able to look, certainly when we get into the estimates —

because we didn't get an answer to that question this afternoon — on

the actual cash position of ICBC. They didn't tell us that.

As I said earlier, I am concerned, Mr. Premier, that having

transferred the money to ICBC you are now going to apply to them to

loan it back to you.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): In the next fiscal year.

MR. LEVI: In the next fiscal year, which starts tomorrow. I

wonder if that's what you've got in mind. You know, that's pretty sound

fiscal....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Yes, we'll see what's going to take place. If

that's what's going to happen, that the public is going to have to

underwrite this game that they're playing, this game where you're

taking money that's needed today and putting it into an operation that

doesn't need it, then we're going to see what kind of fiscal management

is going to take place.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: You have never given us the facts, Mr. Premier. We told you this afternoon....

HON. MR. BENNETT: ICBC facts?

[ Page 420 ]

MR. LEVI: The facts. What's the cash position? You don't know the cash position because you're not the minister.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It cost $181 million and you wouldn't tell the public....

MR. LEVI: What's the cash position? You see? He doesn't want to answer the question.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It cost $181 million.

MR. LEVI: He just doesn't want to answer the question. He

just wants to keep going like this all the time. He's a chirper, you

know. His mouth's full of wood and he'll choke on it eventually if he's

not careful. But he hasn't answered the question. He doesn't let his

Minister of Finance answer questions. You know, they have a kind of

Mutt and Jeff relationship. He keeps nudging him here, pushing him

there, pulling him away, talking about peace and love. It's very

difficult to be Minister of Finance under that Premier.

MR. KING: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Wolfe.

MR. LEVI: Yes, that's it. The vaudeville team of Evan and Billy, you know. That's a good vaudeville team.

MR. KING: Three-dollar Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEVI: It's devalued now. It's not a $3 bill, it's only $2.75.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Vicious!

AN HON. MEMBER: You had your way and it didn't work.

MR. LEVI: Where did that come from?

MR. KING: Hawaii.

MR. LEVI: Oh, Hawaii. Aloha! (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure but I think I've

got to sit down. How much time have I got? Are you keeping time?

Because I've got to adjourn the debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is still time left. The green light has not arrived, sir.

MR. LEVI: Where is the green light?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Right over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got seven minutes.

MR. LEVI: Seven minutes? Are you sure it's seven? Okay.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just want to go back over the basic

concern that I have in terms of the interests that I've had in the past

which relate to the social policies which are indicated in this budget.

I am concerned that it has already happened to people, that they are

not going to get the level of service that was available to them under

the previous government.

What I am also concerned about is that there are large numbers of

groups who from time to time over the years have petitioned the

government on behalf of the various people who require service in this

province, and who came, when the NDP was the government, asking for the

initiation of programmes.

Since the new government has been in and some of the programmes are

being dismantled, I am concerned that these groups have not been

speaking out, have not been speaking out on behalf of the people who

were getting the service. I mention names among some of those groups I

dealt with and which were articulate, vociferous and demanding, and

rightly so, when I was the minister in charge of the department. I'm

thinking of people like the United Way who speak so well on behalf of

people; the Retarded association which speaks very well on behalf of

their people; the Cerebral Palsy people with the Canadian Paraplegic

association. All of these people now have to be the watchdogs in this

province to make sure that the programmes now in place not be taken

away.

But so far, Mr. Speaker — and I've watched the gradual dismantling

of some programmes — we have not heard from these people. I think this

is to be regretted, and that these people must speak out. They must

inform and advise and urge the government that all of the programmes

that are in place are programmes that are needed by people who are

senior citizens, by people who are handicapped, by people who need

training. All of these programmes are necessary because what is also

happening in the loss of programmes is that there is the creation of

unemployment.

Certainly, I would hope, we'll have an opportunity in the estimates

under the various departments to elicit the exact facts of what

programmes have been eliminated, what loss of service there is. Then we

must ask for the assistance of all of those community groups out there

to raise their voice in protest. Because they can be doing it now, and

we have yet to hear from them, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr.

[ Page 421 ]

Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: (mike not on)...if we are going to establish a precedent, I would suggest that leave of the House be asked for.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: He missed his place last night; he wasn't here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: According to the practices of the House, Mr.

Member for New Westminster, if a member adjourns debate, he is the

speaker next called on when the debate in that particular category is

called. If the member is not present in his chair at the time, the

practice is that he is not prevented from speaking when he does return.

As a result, it is not necessary to ask for leave.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of

finishing the remarks that I started yesterday. I was, however, rather

disappointed to listen to the former Minister of Human Resources in

what I consider to be an incredible speech, a speech where he was

asking everybody how many more minutes he had left to speak, hoping for

interjections so he could continue for the time allotted him, the 40

minutes. You know, it was almost like listening to the Harold Wilson

swan song, listening to the member for Vancouver-Burrard.

You know, when the minister talked about Mincome, he talked about

supplementary assistance as if it didn't exist prior to the socialist

government coming to office in this province. This province has always

taken care of its senior citizens to a better degree than any other

province in the country — long before the socialists ever came on the

horizon, long before they ever came on the horizon.

The only thing that was ever invented by that outfit over there when

they were government was the word — they coined a phrase "Mincome,"

and they attempted to lead the people of this province to believe that

they started a programme to assist senior citizens, a programme that

was well in place, a programme that was helping senior citizens in

British Columbia to a greater degree than was ever done in any other

province in this country.

I'm sure if I had the opportunity this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, to

ask the people in the galleries what their opinion is of that member

who just spoke, in the management of his department when he was

minister, when he overspent $100 million of taxpayers' money before he

realized he'd overspent his budget, I wonder what the people in the

galleries this afternoon would say. They would say: "Shame on you!

That's sloppy mismanagement and you have no right to be in government."

No wonder. Mr. Speaker, the socialist government was defeated on

December 11 in this province, because that phony minister over there

was the prime architect of the downfall of that government, with its

$100 million of waste and extravagance. His was only one of the

departments that showed the kind of waste and extravagance that was the

criterion, was the kind of bastion of that government over there when

they were in office. No wonder they were kicked out! No wonder they

will never come back.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about my constituency.

MR. COCKE: Where is that?

MR. CHABOT: Well, the member for New Westminster is not aware

of where my constituency is — Columbia River. Nevertheless, that's

typical of the old socialist thinking; they can't think past Hope.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): You're beyond hope! (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about economic

development. I'm sure the former minister, who did so little for three

and a half years when he was minister, is very interested in hearing

what I may have to say.

In British Columbia, as far as economic development is concerned, we

are at a serious disadvantage in attracting it to this province,

regardless of which government is in office — be it the socialist

government, or be it a free-enterprise government — because we have in

British Columbia the highest wage structure in this country, which is a

disadvantage to attracting secondary industry. We have a bad reputation

as far as labour unrest is concerned, which makes it difficult to

attract secondary industry in this province. We have a lack of a proper

population base to attract secondary industry. Then we are faced with

the freight-rate situation as well.

But I want to suggest to the government — and I have examples within

my constituency — ideas where we should have industry established

there. We have the gypsum quarries in the southern part of my

constituency, in the Windermere district, that ship all this gypsum

rock to Vancouver, to other provinces and other states in the United

States. There is no reason in the world, as far as I'm concerned, why

we shouldn't have a wallboard plant right in the Windermere district,

using up this gypsum rock and creating jobs for people in the

Windermere district.

We have a buoyant potential market for wallboard in that great-growth province of Alberta, yet we're

[ Page 422 ]

shipping....

MR. LEA: They have low freight rates.

MR. CHABOT: We're right on the border of Alberta; it's 180

miles to the city of Calgary, one of the fastest growing cities in this

country, and I can't see any justification of why we should send this

raw material out of the Windermere valley. I know that the municipality

of Invermere has attempted to negotiate with Western Gypsum Products to

establish a plant in the area, but they weren't successful.

I would like to get encouragement from the Department of Economic

Development, not only encouragement but assistance as well to make it

possible to establish secondary industry, such as this, in areas such

as mine that need diversification — areas that are primarily tied to a

single industry, a single-resource industry, the forest industry.

I think what we need in the Department of Economic Development is a

more aggressive and enlightened approach as far as attracting secondary

industry to the province.

I think there should be some form of assistance, some form of

incentive for these industries to come and establish in the more remote

areas and the least populated areas in the province that have the raw

materials. I think the government could attach the, incentive to the

industry rather than attaching it to a region, instead of a depressed

area, such as the federal government established in the Okanagan a few

years ago.

They superimposed upon an area — a basically rich area — a

designation for assistance. I think that the assistance should be tied

to the industry, and this would in turn give the government flexibility

to direct these industries into areas which need diversification, areas

that are tied to a single industry, areas that are desperate for

diversification.

I am sure that with the proper assistance and initiative from the

Department of Economic Development we can attract industry. Golden is a

fine example. Last year, in the year of problems in the forest

industry, the community was severely depressed because it relies almost

entirely upon the forest industry. That's why there's such a pressing

need, not only in Golden and Invermere but also in other smaller

communities in British Columbia, for diversification.

At the moment in the Golden area — hopefully, we will be looking for

government assistance — a group of individuals are going to invest in

the neighborhood of $1million for the establishment of a ski facility.

We hope that when the time comes and we approach the government, be it

the Department of Economic Development or the Department of Highways,

we'll look forward to some form of assistance as far as the provision —

financial assistance I'm talking about — of highway access into the proposed ski area,

and that at a later date, that assistance will be given in the

maintenance of this access.

Golden is the logical place for the establishment of a ski resort

because Golden is located within that ski triangle that goes to Lake

Louise, Banff, Kimberley — North Star at Kimberley — Fairmont Hot

Springs, Revelstoke, the Bugaboos, Panorama at Invermere. Golden is a

logical place for an industry such as this. Golden is in desperate need

of some kind of assistance in the winter months.

Also, when the government is contemplating the possibility of

establishing new minimum security prisons, for instance, in the

province I would hope that they would look at communities such as

Golden for the establishment of these facilities so that additional

jobs can be created in that area and diversification can take place,

which is desperately needed.

MR. LAUK: You want more people with convictions.

MR. CHABOT: No, I want not necessarily more people with convictions, more people with jobs — that's what I'm recommending here.

Mr. Speaker, my time is not too long. I want to speak about the

budget. You know, during the session of 1975 we were rather kept in the

dark about certain estimates in the various departments called salary

contingencies. I recall very clearly one night attempting to get some

information as to what this kind of allocation really was directed to,

and needless to say we weren't able to extract too much information

from the minister concerned.

But there were some massive sums allocated for salary contingencies.

I had the opportunity to review the allocation of the Attorney-General

just as an example. For salary contingencies we had over $13 million in

the Attorney-General's estimates. So I looked at the nine-month

spending to December 31, 1975, and I find that they spent only $5.7

million.

We suggested to him at the time when we were in opposition that

there was no need for this kind of massive allocations for salary

contingencies. The record is very clear that there was no need for

these kinds of allocations. Yet they were millions underspent in the

salary allocations. What is so surprising is that they are millions

overspent in the budget. So it hasn't been overspent in salaries; it's

been overspent on ill-conceived programmes of various ministers of the

Crown.

Bob Williams is a fine example of a waster of taxpayers' money.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, the former

[ Page 423 ]

Minister of Health, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) says

that Bob Williams has made more money than I ever will. Well, I'll tell

you, Mr. Speaker, that I have never taken an apartment building and

turned it into a condominium and kicked people out. That's one thing

that Bob Williams did. He took this apartment building that people were

renting in the city of Vancouver, renovated it, made it into

condominiums and told the occupants: "You have 30 days. Good-bye or get

out." There is the member for New Westminster supporting a former

minister that had that kind of a concept, that had that kind of

consideration for people. He should hide his head in shame about that

former minister.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. CHABOT: Oh, I'm not.... Time doesn't permit me, Mr.

Member, to talk about the island. I will, maybe at a future occasion,

be able to talk about the island. No, Mr. Speaker, this budget is not a

budget that provides for a fictitious forecast in increased spending of

48 per cent. That's all the increase of 48 per cent was last year — a

fictitious fabricated figure on the part of that government over there.

We see in this budget in a year of restraint a very realistic

increase in the allocated expenditures — 4.5 per cent. We also see that

with the 1975-76 expenditure $218 million higher than anticipated and a

revenue shortfall of $323 million, for a total of $541 million deficit,

Mr. Speaker. No wonder we had an election on December 11. They weren't

prepared to tell the people of this province the kind of mess that they

had generated.

Talking about the budget that had revenue shortfall of $323 million

and over expenditure of $218 million, Mr. Speaker, I have a very

amusing statement made, no doubt in all seriousness, on the part of the

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) when he was talking about the

budget on March 5, 1975, when he said: "For the first time in my memory

a budget has come into the House that says here is the expected amount

of revenue we're going to take in and we're going to spend and they

coincide." And they coincide. What a statement! What a statement!

A budget that now has seen the light of day has a deficit of $541

million, a deficit of $541 million. No wonder, after a statement like

that, it is quite obvious to me that the treasury bench wasn't keeping

the former Minister of Highways (Mr. Lea) very well informed. They

should have told him that they had established a fictitious 48 per cent

increase in their anticipated expenditure and revenues. They should

have told him. Maybe he wouldn't, had he known that the budget

shortfall and the expenditures had been far in excess of what had been

budgeted and passed in this Legislature.... And, Mr. Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), we would have to, I hope, have some respect for what we vote for in this House.

But I am sure that the former Minister of Highways concluded that

there was sufficient money for his joyride, because I am sure we all

recall that when the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) first became

Minister of Highways, he was quite elated. He wanted to impress the

people from the north and he chartered a helicopter to fly over the

highways so that he could see the highways, Mr. Speaker. He wasn't

really examining the highways. He was trying to impress the people of

the north that he was now a cabinet minister and that he now had a

responsibility over the highways.

But I think the shocking part of this trip, of which I understand

the former minister was sleeping most of the way, was the cost. The

taxpayers of this province spent $50,000 for the joyrides of the

former Minister of Highways throughout the north.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Shame! Shame!

AN HON. MEMBER: How many fish did he catch?

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): How about the former minister?

MR. CHABOT: Well, he certainly didn't engage any $50,000

helicopter trips, Mr., Member for North Vancouver–Capilano. No, Mr.

Speaker, it is quite obvious that the member for Prince Rupert wasn't

being kept informed of the kind of shenanigans which were taking place

on the Treasury Board, the kind of fictitious kiting of the figures

given to them by the Department of Finance.

No, Mr. Speaker, when one looks at the sorry mess and the sorry

record of that government, one has to come to a conclusion that the

budget we are debating now faces reality because this is a budget that

starts to move to look after the needs of people. We are starting on a

genuine programme that was promised by the socialist circling...but

nothing was ever done about it: to remove taxes from the homes of those

people 65 years of age and over. This budget is once again going to

help make British Columbia the Mecca it was destined to be. This budget

is going to help make British Columbia a better place to live, work or

invest in.

AN HON, MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHABOT: Once again we are going to have a budget that

means pay as you go. No longer will we have deficits in this province,

I hope, to the extent that we have experienced in the last year, and we

are

[ Page 424 ]

not going to accept that statements of the opposition that a deficit

is good management by pointing to other provinces in this country that

are on substantial deficit budgets.

I don't think the proper role of government is to encumber future

generations with the costs of servicing fantastic debts incurred by

deficit financing. I am one who strongly supports the pay-as-you-go

concept, one which has richly rewarded the people in British Columbia

over the last 20 some odd years. No, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that this

budget will restore confidence in the economy of this province which

was so terribly shaken over the last three and a half years. This

budget makes it possible for British Columbia to develop in an orderly

fashion to the benefit of all British Columbians. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Waterland moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I move that we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

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

BRITISH COLUMBIA DEFICIT

REPAYMENT ACT, 1975-1976

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, it came to my attention yesterday,

through the Blues, that the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke), even though I protested to the Speaker in the chair, was not

given an opportunity to adjourn debate till the next sitting of the

House. According to page 290 of the latest edition of May , the order

for second reading becomes a dropped order, meaning the motion for

second reading should be reinstituted or put again and the debate begun

from the beginning.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, that I would not raise this point at all

had I not been told "to take my seat" while trying to point out the

error in procedure. No one could see me standing. Maybe that was the

problem. (Laughter.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I refer the member to standing order 32 which reads:

"If at the time of the adjournment of the House a

motion on the orders of the day be under consideration, that question

shall stand first on the orders of the day for the sitting at which

orders of a similar class are properly taken up, next after the orders

to which a special precedence has been assigned by standing order or

orders of the House."

The advice to the Chair is that the speech of the member for New

Westminster was interrupted by the indication of the clock and,

therefore, he does not lose his place in the debate, but he has

precedence when this debate is called. So I recognize the member for

New Westminster.

MR. LAUK: Ordinarily I would agree with you, if the House did follow standing order 32, but they did not.

"If at the time of the adjournment of the House the motion

on the orders of the day be under consideration, that question shall stand first

on the orders of the day for the next sitting at which orders of a similar class

are properly taken up."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's right.

MR. LAUK: Oh, I see. But what I was saying was it should have been taken up immediately. (Laughter.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It says: "Orders of the day for the next sitting at which orders of a similar class are properly taken up."

We recognize the member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, thank you for

recognizing me. It strikes me that there's a danger in the relationship

that has been going, in that the member for Vancouver Centre lives in

the same house I live in, and I suspect that maybe he's decided that he

should take me on.

Now, Mr. Speaker, seriously, what he was challenging was whether or

not the whole question should be off the order paper by virtue of the

fact that there had not been an adjournment, but I think it's quite

clear the way it is now.

Mr. Speaker, when I closed last night at 11 o'clock, and we had a

long debate about the hour of adjournment, I was talking about the

whole B.C. Hydro question. I was relating that question to this bill

that has been brought up by the Social Credit government of our day,

Bill 3. A bill for $400 million has been put forward by the government

to indicate that they're in the hole $540 million or whatever; it's a

different figure every day, but so be it.

I said at the time that had the NDP government in 1972 decided to

take that same kind of vindictive course, we could very easily have put

up a bill for $1 billion to pay the amounts that I outlined, the Hydro

$845 million, the $52 million for BCR, and the $222 million for the

extension of the BCR, but, of course, we were not that kind of

vindictive government.

Mr. Speaker, I would, however, like to review a couple of messages

we got at that time, a couple of messages from members who somehow or

another

[ Page 425 ]

lost their way in the dark on their way to the cabinet.

Speaking of Hydro, Mr. Speaker, what did the now Minister of Education, the

then member from Point Grey, say? Hansard , good old Hansard — kind of nice to

review every once in a while. This is what the member, Mr. Pat McGeer, a member

from Point Grey at the time, still member from Point Grey but now Minister of

Education, said on October 18, 1972:

I want to make one small comment before concluding about what

is left over as one of the largest projects in British Columbia and one of the

greatest bungles that has ever been made.

The member for Point Grey, the now Minister of Education is referring to the Social Credit bungling.

I refer to the Columbia River Treaty, the fact that we are short

probably on the order of $400 million.

That was all that was known in 1972, but now we know it's considerably more, over double that amount.

We are committed to store water for a period of over 100 years

from today and it looks like all the money we'll ever get has been obtained.

He went on to say, Mr. Speaker, interestingly:

Unless the present government takes active and aggressive steps

to have the Columbia River Treaty renegotiated, the great errors, Mr. Speaker,

that were made by the former Premier and his government, not putting a cost-of-living

clause into the advance payments that were made. That was the reason we were

left with the $400 million and some short.

But the second error in negotiation — and this was the principal

reason why the present head of B.C. Hydro was thrown off the negotiation team

— was because he believed that the peaking power needed to be taken into consideration.

Those who negotiated the treaty made the stupid blunder of ignoring

it completely. So, Mr. Speaker, we've been badly skinned on the Columbia

River treaty. It's been a major disaster.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) said that in 1972.

Interesting times, interesting indeed. However, he wasn't alone. What

did the now Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) say? The second member

for Vancouver Point Grey (Hon. Mr. Gardom). He said: "Hydro? It's a

real high-amperage mish-mash."

AN HON. MEMBER: It's called eating crow.

MR. COCKE: "We pay the highest rates in B.C. — in the Pacific

northwest." February 10, 1972: "Our service is a question mark. The

performance of Hydro and its prospects are beyond public scrutiny, and

it carries the lion's share of public debt. Now the situation that we

have in B.C. with those appointed directors..."

HON. MR. GARDOM: You should have told Lorimer.

MR. COCKE: Listen to this, Mr. Member; you must hear this:

"...those political Jack Homers, the pals of government...pretty

juicy plums! No accountability to anyone!"

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I could go on with those kinds of

quotes ad infinitum. They were all made and conveniently forgotten by

this group. However, in my short time left to me let me say a few words

about ICBC. We saw today the most....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Well, leather-lungs is back. Where've you been? You haven't been talking to the farmers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you speak on ICBC when you were a director?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough I spoke plenty on ICBC.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: We have a group across the floor in this House, a

group who are sly and cunning. But are they ever clumsy! And they're

getting clumsier every day. They're losing every battle that they're

putting forward on this whole question of trying to deceive the people

of British Columbia on the whole question of whether or not we need

Bill 3. And, Mr. Speaker, let's review something that happened.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Is the member suggesting that any member of the government is trying to deceive the public?

MR. COCKE: No member, Mr. Speaker, a government.

A cheque written, by the admission of the minister during question

period, on March 30 — a cheque to ICBC for $181,510,000 that they

didn't need — and if they did, why wasn't it shown?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Did they lose that much money? Did they lose that much money? Shame! Shame!

MR. COCKE: What was the cash position of ICBC today?

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I'll read some of the quotes of the

[ Page 426 ]

Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) in just a second.

That cheque was signed on March 30. Guess when the

Lieutenant-Governor signed the order. They do things backwards. Guess

when the Lieutenant-Governor signed the order permitting the signing of

that cheque.

AN HON. MEMBER: When? When?

MR. COCKE: March 31.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh!

MR. COCKE: March 31. Disgraceful conduct, Mr. Speaker.

Nothing done in a businesslike way since that government has been in

power. "Businesslike," that's what we heard. The businessmen from

Prince George, Fort George, Kelowna — all over the place.

AN HON. MEMBER: An illegal cheque.

MR. COCKE: They can't even do business in a businesslike way.

What was the business? It was to give the people of British Columbia

the business — that's what it was. To establish that they're broke. The

Premier walking down the hall today wringing his hands, in front of the

press, saying: "We're broke; don't cash your cheques."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's against the Criminal Code.

MR. COCKE: An absolute disgrace in a rich province like this,

Mr. Speaker. I want to remind you what the member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich) said: "What are they doing to the reputation of this province

all over the world?" I ask you. Restoring it? Destroying it! Destroying

it! Down the drain with it, you say, and what a bunch of political

connivery! Be ashamed of yourselves. Hang your heads. Go back to

Kamloops and apologize to the people in Kamloops for this kind of

destructive action.

MR. LOEWEN: You did it!

MR. LAUK: Get back in your sandbox.

MR. COCKE: Oh, that little member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) who just came in from Alberta.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! The member for New Westminster has the floor.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that I make them nervous.

We gave the alternative, the gas tax route on ICBC. The government

decided to turn their back on it, Mr. Speaker. The government decided

instead to create a debt, to create a debt so that the people in

British Columbia can pay the interest, and to do it immediately,

raising the rates triple and quadruple for the young people.

That wasn't enough. Raising the rates 139 per cent, that wasn't

enough. No, they had to create a bill called Bill 3, and then, Mr.

Speaker, the audacity to try to ram it down our throats like a bunch of

bullies!

Mr. Speaker, we're not going to be bullied. We won't be bullied by

that group over there who don't have enough understanding to know

what's going on around them. Some of you might be able to run a

used-car shop, but let me tell you, member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf)....

Incidentally, I was up in this country and I was watching his

arguments. Interesting, interesting, interesting, but Mr. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I interrupt you just long enough to...?

MR. COCKE: Yes, of course, as long as you don't take my time, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. The standing orders, standing order 17(2) — and this is for the attention of all members in the House — says:

"When a member is speaking, no member shall pass between him and the

Chair, nor interrupt him except to raise a point of order." I wish the

members to observe this regulation while the member has the floor. Will

you please continue, sir?

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, thank you.

Mr. Speaker, we know why they want this borrowing authority — to

create the biggest possible debt. They're trying to punish the people

in this province for having done that dastardly thing in 1972 in

electing a New Democratic Party government.

Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, they also have to justify all of these

audits which were not audits. They have to try their very best to do

it, and the Premier says they don't need it. The Premier says they

didn't need it. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) the evening

before last said they don't need it. So who's kidding who?

Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the Victoria Times , January 27, 1976:

"Premier Bennett said today not only has the government

decided to pay off the $181 million deficit left by the ICBC's first two

years of operation, but the money will not be needed right away and ICBC can

invest it and earn millions of dollars of interest and this will help

[ Page 427 ]

cut the cost of this year's insurance."

Well, he didn't cut the cost of this year's insurance, Mr. Speaker,

so ICBC's investing the money. Build a case. I know what you're doing.

You're tricking the people of British Columbia, a disgraceful

performance for a new government. Usually the Socreds wait a little bit

longer than you've waited this time. You're right on the people's backs

already.

Mr. Speaker, the form of the bill suggests the Socred government should not

be trusted to borrow money. I say that for this reason: that the form of the

bill is a once-only proposition. It says no Liberal government, no Conservative

government in B.C., no NDP government, or for that matter no future Socred government

is permitted to borrow money — just this government, using every trick in the

book.

But a bill I suggest to you that is nothing more than the Clarkson,

Gordon report, a bill that we'll see floating all over this province

with all sorts of

preamble words added — it's a piece of PR, Mr.

Speaker, nothing more, nothing less, an idiotic piece of PR.

Mr. Speaker, in Alberta the Socred government ran deficits for

years. And what of Conservatives in Ontario? Sure, they're pretty lucky

in Alberta today, Mr. Minister of Finance, through you, Mr. Speaker.

What of Conservative Ontario? They talk about these deficits and all

the rest of these horrendous things. Ontario this year has announced a

deficit of $1.6 billion, and I just saw....

AN HON. MEMBER: They're going to get rid of the PCs.

MR. COCKE: Good, and the NDP will get in. But anyway, in any

event, Mr. Speaker, yesterday there was an announcement in Ontario, an

additional bond....

AN HON. MEMBER: An NDP government in Ontario?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that former great critic of the

Socred government, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) of this

province, has finally got over his embarrassment and he's got his

tongue back. It's nice to see you back in the debate.

Mr. Speaker, Ontario announced a bond issue yesterday of an

additional $650 million. Yes, Mr. Speaker. But this kind of debt that

we're raising in this province is debt that is artificial; it's a

figment of their Minister of Finance's mind; it's a figment of the

Premier's mind, but it had to come up. It had to come up because. they

had to prove all those points that they've been s

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31p 01s 760331p
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31p 01s 760331p
Language	en
Format	htm
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0f9c53ee8b0659e09a2bc3616ed14586fdc688c8

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (htm).

British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, March 31, 1976 — Afternoon Sitting (31st Parliament, 1st Session)

HANSARD

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 1976

CONTENTS

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 1976

order.

MR.MACDONALD:

PROVINCIAL AND ICBC CASH BALANCE

ON THE BUDGET

BRITISH COLUMBIA DEFICIT

REPAYMENT ACT, 1975-1976

Document details