1976 Legislative Session: ist Session, 3ist 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, APRIL 7, 1976

Night Sitting

[ Page

671 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued)

Mr. Kahl — 671

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

Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. King — 676

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 676

Mrs. Dailly — 678

Mr. Macdonald — 679

Mr. Lauk — 679

Mr. King — 682

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 682

Mr. Cocke — 683

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 684

Mr. Lauk — 685

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 686

Mrs. Dailly — 686

Mr. Lauk — 687

Mr. King — 687

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 688

Mr. Nicolson — 688

Mrs. Wallace — 690

Mr. Skelly — 690

Mr. Barber — 692

Ms. Sanford — 695

Mr. Stupich — 696

Supply Act, No. 1, 1976 (Bill 10). Committee stage.

On the

preamble.

Mr. King — 700

Report and third reading — 701

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 1976

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, while I have spoken

on two other occasions in this House, it was only to let be known my

views on two issues raised by the official opposition. Tonight is the

first opportunity I have in the budget debate to speak on behalf of the

great people in Esquimalt.

To name the many firsts that Esquimalt has presented to our province would take all evening, so I will highlight only a few.

It is interesting to note that in the Highway News Review

of March 31, 1965, the editor was kind enough to give a report on the

district. In this

article mention is made of the B.C. forest industry,

and I will take this opportunity to read from the issue. In the

following

article News Review has outlined these early beginnings that led to today's $800 million-a-year industry, and this was in 1965. It says:

"It was a Wednesday afternoon, and the date was August

4, 1847. Robert Finlayson, an official of the Hudson's Bay Co. from

Fort Victoria, standing on the brush-lined bank of the creek studied

the flow of water as it poured over the lip of the projecting bedrock,

dropped several feet and continued on its course to the sea.

"That morning he had left the fort and made his way to

the head of Esquimalt harbour. There he found the stream described to

him by Indians, and having worked his way through underbrush and virgin

timberland for a quarter of a mile, he now stood at the miniature

waterfall he had come to seek."

That day was one of great significance in the history of British

Columbia. Finlayson was seeking a suitable water source to turn the

wheel that would separate the first power sawmill west of the Canadian

Rockies, and he had found it on a creek which, to this day, is

identified as Millstream and located in my riding.

The report continues:

"The forest industry is by far our greatest source of

wealth in British Columbia, producing roughly half of all the money

that circulates in this province. It is of particular interest that

this industry was born in Esquimalt."

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that it is the Social Credit government of

this province that will once again assist the forest industry on its

road to recovery.

On April 27, 1849, the mill shipped its first order to the mainland

market, lumber to be used in constructing export business was born when

the American brig "Colony" loaded 4,270 feet of lumber for California.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that our fault?

Interjections.

MR, KAHL: If I research it far enough, it probably is your fault.

From the Daily Colonist on Sunday, July 27, 1969:

"From an historical point of view, Esquimalt has sat in

the shadow of Victoria, but in some respects this has been unfair. Esquimalt

is much older than Victoria and has been the scene of many historical events,

and without the navy being on guard in Esquimalt to provide adequate protection

against not only the natives, but the grasping reach of both Russia and the

United States, Victoria might have become a casualty in the development of the

Pacific coast."

I am pleased to say that I am the only MLA that has a navy base,

and, Mr. Speaker, in your difficult role, if you ever require

assistance, do not hesitate to call. (Laughter.)

In 1851, Captain Langford and family arrived on the Hudson's Bay Co.

supply ship. They were the first white family to arrive at the fort

direct from England. I am happy to say that family settled in

Esquimalt, and the area of Langford is named after them.

Mr. Speaker, the largest portion of my riding is unorganized

territory. It is the largest, population-wise unorganized territory in

Canada. That past development could be described at best as haphazard.

Outside the municipal boundaries of Esquimalt municipality, and within

my riding, live approximately 30,000 people. No local councils, no

mayors, no planning councils or zoning councils, only five capital

regional board members and myself to assist the provincial government

in the administration.

We were extremely pleased to have the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Curtis) meet with the local regional representatives. His

department is willing and ready to assist in bringing some kind of

organization to and with the local people.

The regional representatives, I must say, are excellent to work with

and represent the areas of View Royal, Colwood, Langford, Sooke and

Metchosin. They represent some of the oldest settled areas of this

province, yet with no organized local government.

Some of B.C.'s noteworthy citizens have come

[ Page 672 ]

from Esquimalt. Charles Pooley was not only MLA for

24 years during the late 19th century, but was Speaker in this House

for six years and.president of the council for nine years. The first

Queen's Printer for B.C. was a resident of Esquimalt, Richard

Wolfender. His son played an important

part in shaping the development

of Esquimalt.

I am pleased to have in the gallery today Mr. Herb Bruch. Mr. Bruch

had the distinction of serving the Esquimalt riding for 19 years, from

1953 to 1972. I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to thank Mr. Bruch

for his dedicated years of public service and express that appreciation

on behalf of this assembly and the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, all that is history. Now we must move on to serving the

needs of the citizens of our province. In September of 1972, the

economy of British Columbia was in excellent financial shape.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KAHL: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in excellent financial shape,

that is what it said in the order-in-council 3386, dated September 13,

1972. The order was signed by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. He

said the economy was in excellent financial condition, with more

persons employed than ever in its history. Order-in-council 3386 was

left by the Social Credit administration. It indicated the sound

financial shape of this province in 1972.

Since taking my office I have searched for a corresponding

order-in-council. A corresponding order-in-council would be a matter

for public record, a record that would have indicated the financial

shape of this province as of December 22, 1975. Mr. Speaker, no

order-in-council was left by the last administration that would

indicate the financial shape of our province at the time the Social

Credit government took over from the NDP.

AN HON. MEMBER: They didn't know.

MR. KAHL: None. No record as in no. 3386. Mr. Speaker, that

is why the Clarkson, Gordon study was done. I ask, why was no financial

record left?

I feel the main reason the former administration didn't leave a

financial state of the province was so when our government had to

produce one — and they did — then the NDP could criticize it and say

how wrong we were. Mr. Speaker, that was a political cover-up. On

February 28, 1975, Dave Barrett, then Minister of Finance, said of the

budget he had just presented: "It is a budget of job security. This

budget will stimulate various sectors of the provincial economy." A

budget of job security, he said. Well, Mr. Speaker, we all know what

happened to his job security.

The people found as Finance minister Dave Barrett had operated this

province as the largest, most expertly staffed, scientifically planned

and lavishly financed propaganda machine in all history. With that

approach applied to finances the people of this province headed for

financial disaster. They remembered and they showed that concern on

December 11.

The people knew that the NDP, big-handed planning with this magic

formula for growth and prosperity...the people knew that it was a bed

of bureaucracy and red tape and that political planning took precedence

over economic planning.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see in the opening speech that this

session we will be asked to move toward the ideal situation where all

of our people can have the opportunity to own their own home and the

land under it. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see in the budget speech

incentives to assist that. Several weeks ago I had the opportunity to

meet with the Vancouver East Side Tenants' association. During the

course of the discussion the group indicated there were some

half-million tenants in this province. Also during the course of our

meeting the president of the group said:

"Most tenants would rather be homeowners. And yet we

saw under the former administration more boards, committees and

commissions, all of which were a hoax for the overall plan of spreading

political propaganda. We saw a trend toward people becoming tenants of

the state and a return to 14th century feudalism."

AN HON. MEMBER: They are tenants on their own land.

MR. KAHL: Mr. Speaker, an area my constituents are concerned about is education.

I draw your attention to an

article in Weekend Magazine .

The

article is written with one point in mind, and that is simply this:

Canadian universities have blatantly neglected Canadian studies and

Canadian students, and because of it Canada's search for self-knowledge

and identity has suffered seriously.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) will

take a serious look at the report of the Commission of Canadian

Studies. The report indicates clearly that Canadian cultural values are

being lost and less and less of our cultural identity is being

transmitted to the students. Our values are coming from south of the

border.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear at this point that I am not

anti-American — only pro-Canadian. I want to make it clear also that in

order to teach Canadianism in our school system, the teachers must

first be taught by Canadians. We should support any means the Minister

of Education is giving to this

[ Page 673 ]

cause.

This brings me to my next point in education. I do hope that in the

budget is included an expenditure to aid in the development of

producing Canadian textbooks for our children. Although I know, Mr.

Speaker, that the costs will be higher because of the limited market,

we must believe that there is value in Canadian material for our

schools.

Last, with regard to education, somehow the minister must get

through to the teachers in the classroom that the Department of

Education is on the side of the children and that individual teachers,

and I have taught with many of them, are interested in teaching and

working with children. As a teacher, I must say that never before was

there a feeling of uncertainty in the minds of teachers such as there

was in the past three years. In my constituency many students have

never had the opportunity to study in depth their own communities and

their own local issues, and to study themselves and how they fit into

our beautiful province. Instead they have been inundated with material

prepared in a foreign country, taught by teachers who were prepared

also by foreigners and administered during the past three years by a

minister who was also a foreigner to the real educational needs of the

children.

The time has come to change all that, and I know the Minister of

Education can provide that direction. The proposed medical school is a

good step in that direction, because I trust it will be staffed by

Canadians and will give preference to Canadian students. Let it serve

as a model, Mr. Minister, as to how the departments of our universities

should be staffed.

Mr. Speaker, in other remarks in this chamber I have talked about

highways and health care in my riding, and I can only say I am pleased.

Both ministers regard those services as high priorities.

On January 22, 1971, the former Premier, Mr. Barrett, rose in this

House to ask leave to discuss a matter of urgent public concern. That

was employment. He went on to say that there were 70,000 people

unemployed. Mr. Speaker, after three years of the NDP, there are more

than 70,000 people unemployed. In fact, in 1975 there were

approximately 94,000. In my own constituency a mine closed down, and

many loggers are out of work.

What had the former administration done to assist in developing a

stabilized economy for our province? The budget of 1975 indicates

little if anything — no incentives, no long-range operational plans,

only a hocus-pocus, idealistic, philosophic mumbo-jumbo of promises.

While denying the people of this province an opportunity to work, they

in government spent money as if it were going out of style.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give an example of waste of public funds during the

39 days prior to the election. From November 4 to December 11 we saw a total

of 79 air trips by cabinet ministers and their executive assistants. It was

my feeling, and certainly that of the public, that we as candidates all started

equal on November 4 when the election was called. Yet 79 air trips were made

on a commercial-cost basis, which amounted to $2,318 of the taxpayers' money.

Mr. Speaker, in the federal government, cabinet ministers, executive assistants

and other politicians do not use government aircraft during political campaigns

unless they are on government business. The same is true, I am told, in our

neighbouring province of Alberta.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): What a bunch of junk!

AN HON. MEMBER: Flying Phil again!

MR. KAHL: Let me give you an example of another expenditure, while we're talking about the budget.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Esquimalt has the floor.

MR. KAHL: Since we were talking about Dunsky Advertising

before we took our dinner break, in 1973-74 the provincial government

paid Dunsky $738,477. In 1974-75 they paid $2,063,476 to Dunsky.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): How much? Whose money was that?

MR. KAHL: The public's money. At this rate — and since they

knew an election was coming in December — perhaps they would have spent

$5 million in 1975-76. The public accounts should be very interesting

to look at.

Mr. Speaker, another point about Dunsky advertising: in The Vancouver Sun of

Wednesday, March 3, 1976, it says: "The proposed new provincial logo"

— and we discussed this before we went for dinner — "commissioned by the

NDP government at a cost of $85,000, is no-go as far as the Provincial Secretary,

Grace McCarthy, is concerned."

March 31, 1976, the Sun says: "Long, a Vancouver commercial

designer, created the logo for Dunsky Advertising of Vancouver. Long

said he wished to point out that he did not receive the total $85,000

the government paid for the logo."

AN HON. MEMBER: A ripoff, a political payoff.

MR. KAHL: "He said he worked on a straight-fee basis of $35

an hour for Dunsky for more than 400 hours, for which he received

$15,000." Where did the

[ Page 674 ]

other $70,000 go?

Interjections.

MR. KAHL: I suggest a competition among school students could

have been held at no cost to the government. Undoubtedly, a much better

logo could have been created if, indeed, another one was needed at all.

Mr. Speaker, the government's budget is based on sound fiscal

policy. The moneys allotted are allocated to people services —

education, health and human resources are receiving the largest share,

and rightfully so.

Mr. Speaker, I know this money will be utilized in action programmes

that are a direct service. I know the funds will not be spent on the

government advertising what a good job they are doing, but rather the

money will be spent on doing a good job.

While I'm talking about doing a good job, let me tell you about a good job that was done in this House on March 22. Hansard shows that on March 22, the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) said:

"Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move adjournment of the

House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent importance. The

matter...is the present policy of discrimination against more than 50

per cent of our population, namely women of this province."

Well, Mr. Speaker, you might remember your ruling on that day; for the benefit of the members you said:

"...in the course of discussions today and in the following days,

in the debate on the throne speech, there is ample opportunity for anyone and

everyone to speak upon whatever matter they consider to be of importance.

The key words were "debate on the throne speech."

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): What did he say?

MR. KAHL: Settle down now; I'll get to that.

"... upon whatever matter they consider of importance." Now a move

from the official opposition considered the women's rally a matter of

importance. A check of Hansard

indicates no one in the official opposition, no one after being told by

you, Mr. Speaker, felt it was important. Not one member felt it was

important enough to devote lengthy debate time in their speech in this

House on that issue.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Esquimalt has the floor.

Interjection.

MR. KAHL: I knew you were close to the official opposition, but are you really in the official opposition?

Interjection.

MR. KAHL: No, I said the official opposition.

Then I asked what was the first member for Vancouver-Burrard doing by asking leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is she? Where is she?

MR. KAHL: Trying to embarrass this side of the House as eight

members from the rally sat in the gallery? Well, Mr. Speaker, it was a

political trick by the member for Vancouver-Burrard, and it was too bad

that those eight women could not have stayed to see that not one member

from the opposition put forth discussion on that critical issue of that

day.

Interjections.

MR. KAHL: Mr. Speaker, that 50 per cent of the population

will not forget that day. I know the women in my riding will not,

because I will remind them how they were done in. I want to state, as I

indicated to the women who visited me that day, that I am in favour of

an office to support women's rights, and I would suggest our government

could take a lesson from the Alberta government who, I am told, have an

office like same in every governmental department. However, I want to

also point out, as Joan Mackenzie has in her

article "My Battle To Be a

Stay-at-Home Mother," Chatelaine , October 1975...she says:

"I do not believe there is any real paid substitute

for mother. I concede that most hired substitutes for mother can be

better for a growing child than the rejecting, resentful,

feeling-trapped mother, but I do not believe that there is any

substitute for the concerned, loving, mature, disciplined, aware and

perceptive mother. No mother substitute can have the wells of concern,

the empathetic intuition for need-meeting, the emotional rapport, the

almost subliminal awareness of growth and growth experiences that a

loving mother has."

In the final analysis, child rearing is a religious experience, one

to one, just as marriage is, and just as you cannot, for money, hire a

wife or a husband substitute, so you cannot, for money, hire a mother

or father substitute. Although I recommend the support of a vehicle to

protect women's rights, we must at the same time protect the rights of

the hundreds of thousands of women in our province

[ Page 675 ]

who want to be stay-at-home mothers.

Mr. Speaker, I must take a moment to talk on behalf of the native

people in my riding. I am privileged to have six reservations in my

area. While it goes without saying that everyone is in desperate need

of more assistance, and I do not only mean financial, it is easy for us

to say the problem is a federal issue. We must all remember, federal or

not, that these people are citizens of our communities and, as such,

they ask no more than any other citizen. That is, simply, the right to

have a good home, good food, good clothes and a good job. Perhaps each

minister should take it upon himself to show more concern and instruct

his department to assist and work with one Mr. Dick, a native

counsellor with Manpower who is attempting to find employment for many

of our native people.

I will close with these few comments. Today we see all over our

province the sinister symbols of the inhumanity, the wastefulness, the

imbecility of industrial activity under the NDP. We see the results of

the arbitrary decisions of infallible leaders, the results that led

this province to bankruptcy, and we see the mistakes and examples of

the dangers inherent of economic enterprise without natural

free-enterprise market controls. The plan of the NDP loomed as a

self-perpetuating giant, an unyielding monster that demanded sacrifices

instead of being there to serve. Its result was self-protective

paperwork and perpetual meetings, all to the detriment of the people of

this province.

Mr. Speaker, the Finance minister has presented a good budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. KAHL: Whether it is political or not will always be a

moot point. The point is, the budget is a start on the road back — a

recovery budget moving in a positive direction to restore confidence in

British Columbia as a good place to invest, to work and to live.

Hon. Mr. Phillips moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders. Committee on Bill 3.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: There is a motion before the House, hon. members. The motion is that we move to public bills and orders.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this a point of order, hon. member?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Please take your seat.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), it

is not that the Chair was not going to recognize you. It's a matter

that the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) moved a motion

which I was in the process of repeating to the members of this House.

Following that, I was prepared to recognize you as you were on a point

of order, and that's the position that we are at at the moment.

Proceed, if you have a point of order.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre) ; Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. Provincial

Secretary....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to you and the House. I was misinformed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it's nice to know that it's not only the Speaker that makes the odd faux pas.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to raise the matter of the House Leader....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Is it a point of order?

MR. KING: Yes, it's a matter of public concern regarding the

interim supply. I wonder why the government does not call that bill. I

understand it was rather emergent.

MR. SPEAKER: I see. One moment, please.

The hon. Provincial Secretary has called orders of the day,

committee on Bill 3. That is the motion that is before us to discuss

right at the moment.

MR. KING: Perhaps she had forgotten....

Motion approved.

[ Page 676 ]

BRITISH COLUMBIA

DEFICIT REPAYMENT ACT, 1975-1976

(continued)

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

section 1.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has been able to talk his colleague, the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) into tabling the controversial letters yet,

because that is a matter that I think was clearly indicated earlier on

today, through the afternoon, that there was a matter of serious

concern regarding the need for transmitting $7.5 million to the

universities council when according to the information that the

official opposition has, no request from the universities council had

been received and, indeed, the money had been granted rather

gratuitously before it was due, or before it was requested by the

Minister of Education.

Now certainly, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Finance or the

Minister of Education have any evidence to the contrary, I think they

are duty bound to file that with the House to assuage the concern that

has been stated by the opposition.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I'm

most happy to file this correspondence and give an explanation to the

opposition. Indeed, I've been trying for some days to get up and answer

the questions of the opposition, but you know, Mr. Chairman, the

problem has been that they have been terribly anxious to ask the

questions but they haven't been anxious to hear the answers. Mr.

Chairman, they're going to get the answers tonight, like it or not.

I was shocked, Mr. Chairman, in taking over the Department of

Education, to find that commitments had been made by our universities

which went beyond the amounts of money granted by the Legislature in

this past session.

In effect, what the board of governors of these institutions had

done was not only spend all the money that had been granted by this

Legislature, but they had bargained away some of next year's taxes as

well.

The former Minister of Education (Mrs. Dailly) and many members of

the opposition have suggested to the Legislature and to the public that

no request for funds to cover these legal commitments had ever come

from the universities or the universities council. I am going to table

the correspondence this evening, and I'm going to indicate to the

Legislature, and to the public, the corrective measures that this

government has taken.

I want to start by quoting from a letter from the universities council....

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): What's the date?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'll give you the date in a minute.

"The first commitment is of a legal nature and relates

to the amount of money which is required to fulfil the contracts and

agreements which the universities have entered into in the present

fiscal year, and which will, by the mismatch of the fiscal year and the

appointment year, carry over into the fiscal year 1976-1977.

"$10,245 million is required to satisfy this

commitment, and the universities council is in total agreement with the

inclusion of this amount."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Apologize!

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the opposition asked for the

date of this letter. It's November 14, 1975, and it's addressed to the

Hon. Eileen Daily. That's the letter. No requests, Mr. Chairman, made

to the former minister! I want to tell you....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhh!

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, they didn't give ICBC the

money it required even though legal commitments were made there. Make

the commitments, Mr. Chairman, spend the money, and leave someone else

to pay the bills. It's just like renting a home, paying a month's rent

in advance, and then walking out without paying the light, without

paying the telephone, and without paying the gardener whom you have

contracted to cut the grass.

MR. KING: What a fraud!

HON. MR. McGEER: Now, Mr. Chairman, we were shocked when we

found these commitments had been made, but we saved $2.5 million

because we sent in auditors to check those legal commitments and they

came back with less than $10 million, so we've saved you money. We

saved you money on other things. The Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) will

tell you that — $340 million more in debts than you built up that

weren't put in the Clarkson, Gordon report.

[ Page 677 ]

You got off lightly!

AN HON. MEMBER: Full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the money which was allotted

by an order-in-council...and the member for Vancouver Centre may have

said it wasn't necessary, but I can tell you, had we failed to fulfil

these legal commitments, we would have left the universities on the

ropes.

Questions were asked in the House. The original request was for over

$10 million. We thought it could be cut down below that; we did cut it

down below that, and it took some time for the universities council to

come up with the proper division of the $7.5 million which the

Lieutenant Governor-in-Council did make available. That's the reason

the details were not given to you when the question was first asked in

the House. But I'll table the letter now, Mr. Chairman, from the

universities council as to how that money was to be divided....

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): On the recommendation of the auditors.

HON, MR. McGEER: On the recommendation of the auditors, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BENNETT: From their first letter of request for more.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): The NDP never used auditors.

AN HON. MEMBER: They didn't know what they were.

HON. MR. McGEER: Finally, Mr. Chairman, what have we done to

try and bring a situation under control when a board of governors at a

university or some other educational institution might feel it has the

power not just to spend the money that we grant in this Legislature,

but to spend future taxes as well, something which I cannot accept as a

minister of the Crown, and which our Premier and our treasury benches

has refused to accept?

Mr. Chairman, we have written the presidents of the universities. I

am going to quote this letter so people will understand what a

responsible fiscal policy means.

"The Department of Education has reviewed the original budgetary

request of the universities council for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1976,

as well as the revised budgetary request submitted after consultation with the

former minister, Mrs. Eileen Dailly. The requests in both these budgets far

exceed the national guidelines established by the federal government in October

of 1975.

"Furthermore, it should be clear from the Clarkson,

Gordon report that the provincial government, due to the heavy debts

incurred by the previous administration, would be prevented for some

years from providing substantial operating grant increases, even if the

national guidelines did not exist.

"Therefore, a budgetary method must be developed which

will provide for stability in our public university system. In the

revised universities council budget, submitted on November 14, 1975,

reference was made to commitments of a legal nature which the

universities during the present fiscal year...for which no budgetary

provision had been made beyond April 1, 1976."

I tabled that letter, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They don't like the answers.

HON. MR. McGEER:

"As you are aware, the universities council and the

Department of Education cooperated in utilizing the services of Price

Waterhouse and Co. to verify the financial problems created by these

legal commitments. The government acknowledges that a special problem

exists and therefore the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has approved a

sum of $7.5 million to assist the universities in meeting these

commitments. Before the end of this month the universities council will

recommend to the department the specific allocation of these moneys."

That letter has been tabled, Mr. Chairman.

"In providing this extraordinary funding to

universities at this time, it is the expectation of the government and

the department that each university will adjust its budgeting procedure

to coincide with the government's fiscal year. The purpose is to avoid

any contractual arrangements being made which assume an increase in the

flow of operating grants. It is our hope" — this is important, Mr.

Chairman — "that in order to satisfy these requirements, labour

contracts can also be made to coincide with the government's fiscal

year.

"While it is obviously impossible for governments to

budget more than one year in advance, it should normally be possible to

anticipate that a given level of funding of an educational institution

would continue so long as the student population did not decline.

Similarly, growth in enrolment would normally be accompanied by

increased revenues to offset

[ Page 678 ]

the increased demands."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote that?

HON. MR. McGEER:

"New programmes, wherever possible, should be designed to replace programmes that have become obsolete.

"I would appreciate a letter from you indicating the

concurrence of your university with these procedures at an early date.

The universities council will then be requested to provide quarterly

reports to the Department of Education, indicating that each of the

public universities is adhering to the spirit of this letter."

Never again, Mr. Chairman, will we be faced with this problem. We're

going to have responsibility — fiscal responsibility — not just on the

part of this government but every institution that depends on

government funds.

Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to table that letter, too. Let it be said

once more that what we are seeing in government departments, in Crown

corporations, in bodies that depend on government funding...the end

result of total irresponsibility. We're bringing this to an end, Mr.

Chairman, as rapidly as we possibly can. These institutions in future,

and the government in future, will be able to go step by step with the

ability of the economy and the taxpayers of this province to provide.

It's a principle, Mr. Chairman, that this group did not understand

when they were in opposition. They did not understand it when they were

in government and they still don't understand it when they're in

opposition again. Mr. Chairman, it's why they're in opposition now and

it's why they're going to remain in opposition.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I realize that there is some

licence given there because we did ask for a report to be tabled, but

we had a speech along with the tabling of the report. So I would hope...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. DAILLY: ...that I also will be accorded some of the same

licence. I will address myself to the Minister of Finance because I

realize we are in committee stage.

I would simply like to say that I wonder if the Minister of Finance

is aware of how fiscally irresponsible the Minister of Education (Hon.

Mr. McGeer) has been in the handling of these warrants. That's my first

question to you.

If he can come to you with warrants for universities, based on the

fact that they had contractual arrangements to make, so could the

community colleges of British Columbia and so could every other

institution in the public school system. Why were the universities

singled out by that minister? It's a very interesting question.

Yes, the original request was made to me. And as a fiscally

responsible government, we refused the money. We set a certain budget

for the universities of this province, and we told them they were to

adhere to it. This minister comes in and one of his first moves is to

hand out $7.5 million to the universities council which had not even

requested it of the new minister. That is his first move.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: I am asking the Minister of Finance...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Burnaby North has the floor.

MRS. DAILLY: ...if he is prepared now for special warrants in

the coming years, from that minister, for the community colleges of

British Columbia which may not be able to make their contractual

arrangements, and also from the public schools. How do these two bodies

feel? They have exactly the same problems, yet this minister singles

out the universities and gives them the money.

The other point is that I think we should make quite clear to the

Hon. Minister of Finance the question we kept asking over and over

again: that warrant, which I have already said, in my opinion, should

never have been issued; why was it issued in the last fiscal year when

it's been made quite clear by the minister today that it is not to be

used until the new fiscal year? Yet it is still listed as an

overexpenditure from the Department of Education.

I ask the Minister of Finance why the Clarkson, Gordon report was

allowed to be prepared with that overexpenditure in. If you were going

to give a 13 percent increase to the universities, as the Minister of

Education obviously wishes to do — giving them the largest increase of

all the institutions in our province, more than the community colleges,

more than the public school system — if this is so, why? May I ask the

Minister of Finance why these answers were not given to us earlier by

the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the Minister of Finance that I

can understand the position he is in. He was presented by the Minister

of Education with what apparently appeared to be an urgent need for a

warrant. The minister has shown us tonight that there

[ Page 679 ]

was no urgent need for that warrant. He was

fiscally irresponsible in granting it. I ask the Minister of Finance,

once again, to explain to us why you on Treasury Board, and the Premier

of this province who sits on Treasury Board, accepted a warrant from

the Minister of Education which was not needed and was showing that you

were fiscally irresponsible with the public money.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Chairman, I back up everything that was said by the member for Burnaby North.

It was intimated to us in the estimates last Monday that there was a

request from the universities council for $7.5 million which would

justify the requirements of government and law that may wish you to

pass a special warrant. It turns out that there was a letter of

November 14 of the previous year to the previous administration which

relates to matters extending over two fiscal years and obviously refers

to the increases in the wage patterns that are going to take place next

July. It was on the basis of this letter, and to the astonishment of

the members of the universities council, and the stories we've heard to

that effect, that they were surprised out of their chairs to hear that

they had suddenly been granted $7.5 million by special warrant. That's

true! You surprised the heck out of them.

There was no letter from the universities council justifying an

emergency that would entitle them — and you broke the law. You were

being fiscally irresponsible. No such thing! Bottom-line businessmen!

You couldn't run a peanut-oil bar!

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: No, I mean that.

But I say this in all seriousness, Mr. Chairman, that the issue of a

special warrant for a large sum of money like $7.5 million is governed

by our laws. It must be necessary and urgent. The Treasury Board of

this new government issued that money before it was asked for, with no

resolution, no discussion by the universities council. An old letter,

as I said, covering two years, addressed to the former government; that

is your justification for spending the taxpayers' dollar!

What you have been doing is a political charade to try to blame the

last government for these debts. You have been spending money like

water; you've been worse than any of those Hollywood giveaway games. I

say this: you have been fiscally irresponsible and you've broken the

law in using special warrants in the way that you've been using them.

MR. LAUK: The letter just filed by the Minister of Education....

Mr. Chairman, I can't help but comment on the old crocodile over

there, you know. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is

sitting behind the Premier, as you'll notice, and he's like an old,

sleeping crocodile. The Premier thinks he's asleep, but he's waiting

for you to fall asleep, Mr. Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, we are on

section 1.

MR. LAUK: Then his big jaws are going to go kerchomp! (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member. We are on

section 1.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has the floor, and we are on

section 1 of Bill 3.

MR. LOFWEN: We want a good opposition.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): You'd like to have a Milquetoast opposition; you're not going to get one.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Vancouver Centre has the floor. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LOEWEN: He's forgotten his speech again.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Education filed a letter from the university....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I'm referring to a letter of the several that you

filed, a letter dated March 18, 1976, addressed to Dr. Patrick L.

McGeer, Minister of Education, Parliament Buildings. The stamp when it

was received is not clear on the copy, and the letter should be read in

its entirety. It's from W.M. Armstrong, the chairman of the

universities council.

"Dear Dr. McGeer: At the meeting of the universities council held on

Thursday, 18 March, 1976, council considered the division of the funds

allocated to the universities by order-in-council 687."

The only evidence of a letter from Dr. Armstrong — and I'm

interpolating here, Mr. Chairman — was a letter dated after the

order-in-council in question. The council decided on the following

division of funds: UBC, $4.5 million; University of Victoria, $1.1

million; Simon Fraser, $1.8 million. Total

[ Page 680 ]

amount: $7.5 million.

"The allocation has been made on the basis of the

hard commitments faced by the universities in the period April 1 to

June 30, 1976."

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Yes, 1976.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: This letter is proof positive that that government

has created a fraud on the public of British Columbia by the bringing

of this bill. They have deliberately, Mr. Chairman...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: ...trumped up deficits...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: ...so they could embarrass the previous administration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member.

MR. LAUK: It is a dishonorable act. The Minister of Education should resign.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. Order!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member please be seated?

I would like to remind members of the House that order in this House

is difficult enough to obtain without having members not paying strict

attention to the fact that only one member can stand at one time, and

if that one member happens to be the Chairman, then all members in this

House will be seated.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order was that offence was taken

at this side of the House over a remark made by the member standing and

speaking in his place. The remark that was made was "a fraud being

perpetrated." I would ask the hon. member if he impugned any member of

the government when he suggested that a fraud was perpetrated. If so, I

must ask you to withdraw the remark.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw at this stage.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. LAUK: I hope, Mr. Chairman, that in the future....

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): On a point of

order, Mr. Chairman, that little member over there has not only accused

the government of fraudulent activities; he also accused the Education

minister, in his last statement, of deliberately deceiving. That member

should withdraw without any equivocation. He's done this now ever since

this House opened. He's stood on his feet and made speeches and points

of order, and it's about time that member was brought to order for once

and for all.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, so that we can proceed with

orderly business, may the Chair suggest two things? May I suggest that

the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) withdraw, without

qualification, the remarks concerning fraud and deceit? Will the member

do so?

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, out of respect for your chairmanship of this committee, I certainly will do so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to thank the member, and will you please be seated?

The second thing the Chair wishes to suggest is to the member for

Langley, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland). I would like to

suggest that the member withdraw any term that would belittle the

member for Vancouver Centre.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Okay, Mr. Chairman,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Would you please be seated?

Now let's resume orderly business. The Chair has allowed this

afternoon some latitude on Bill 3, questions repeatedly, to the point

of repetition, under rule 43, questions being asked, and now tonight,

the answer being given and I think that that latitude having been given

and appreciated on both sides of the House, we will now have to draw

the remarks remaining in this debate very, very strictly to

section 1

of Bill 3. The member for Vancouver Centre has the floor. We're on Bill

section 1. Please proceed.

[ Page 681 ]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, what has transpired this evening

raises grave shadows, casts clouds over this administration which I

regret, but that have to be cleared away. With respect to the

section

in question, we are asked to approve

section 1 of

an Act that the

opposition, the NDP, has claimed is a political Act, a crass political

Act not required for the good orderly government and financial

responsibility of this province. We have said that consistently. We now

have what we feel is clear evidence of that political Act. This casts

doubt on the responsibility of the ministers involved, the Ministers of

Finance and Education.

The order-in-council was passed on February 24, 1976. On March 18

they received a letter from Dr. Armstrong. It is very safe to conclude

that the Minister of Education pressed the universities council for the

letter. It now seems clear that its motivation was to increase the

deficit beyond its rightful proportions.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You don't know what responsibility is when you do something like this, Mr. Minister. This is dishonorable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

MR. LAUK: You ought to be ashamed of yourself. All the years

you've spent in this House and you do something like this just because

of a cheap political Act? It was not enough for them to win the

election, but they have to bring into this House this kind of trail of

irresponsible activity on the part of the executive council.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, after

your excellent presentation of the rules of the House, this member has

done it again, used the word "dishonorable" in connection with the

Minister of Education. I would say perhaps your earlier good advice to

this House was lost upon him and that perhaps, in asking him to

withdraw again, you might remind him that the tactics he has

continually used in the House this session will not go towards giving

the public a good impression of the House, nor for the good conduct of

the people's business.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order well taken. To the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, would you withdraw the word "dishonourable"?

MR. LAUK: I won't, Mr. Chairman. I don't believe it's unparliamentary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you challenging the Chair?

MR. LAUK: No, I'm not, Mr. Chairman, but I ask you to

reconsider your decision that it's unparliamentary. I don't believe it

is. It's been used before in the House of Commons, not with any kind of

a serious issue like this.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: It's not unparliamentary.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're dragging this House down.

MR. LAUK: This kind of criminal Act is dragging this House down.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! In review with the counsel at

hand here, I would suggest that the member reconsider the objection

taken at the Chair's request to withdraw. The proper definition of an

unparliamentary word is a word which would reasonably be found

offensive by opposition members. As a result, I ask you again to please

withdraw.

MR. LAUK: I do so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you so much.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, you want the orderly business of this

province to continue. This matter has to be cleared up. You expect this

opposition to roll over and play dead because there are only 18 of us

and 35 of you? You've got another think coming. When this kind of

action takes place, when this kind of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, would you please address the Chair?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, when this kind of action takes place

in the province, how can this Legislature continue on one other item of

business until the matter is settled? How can it? It cannot.

The honour of this House, the integrity of government is at stake

and we cannot allow anything to proceed in this House until that

minister either resigns or clears up this situation.

It's clearly $7.5 million in last year's budget. That belongs in

next year's budget. After a solid 10 days of questioning of that

minister, he has steadfastly refused to bring in those letters, and now

we know why: because it's proof positive that they were pumping up that

budget beyond what it should have

[ Page 682 ]

been — last year's budget.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. Minister of Education (Mr.

McGeer), although justly criticized for his activities in ICBC and

other activities since then, was still what one might call carrying out

his duties as a minister. But when this has come before the House, and

now before the public, he must answer for it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 1 pass?

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Just for the

sake of consistency in this House, I would draw to the Chair's

attention conflicting rulings that have been made with respect to

parliamentary language in this House.

The budget speech of this year, at page 10, the second to last paragraph states this:

"They should have been honest with the public and

increased the rates a year ago to put ICBC on a sound financial

footing. Instead, their fiscal irresponsibility and political cowardice

created serious financial consequences."

Again, on page 35 there is this sentence: "Never again must a

government be allowed to engage in such a disgraceful financial

cover-up." And further: "Mr. Speaker, the parties that expound this

irresponsible use of public funds...."

Now, Mr. Chairman, the House has been called to order. My colleague,

the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), has been obliged by

the Chair to withdraw statements imputing a financial cover-up....

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): The word "fraud." It was to withdraw the word "fraud."

MR. KING: I suggest that for the purposes of consistency, Mr.

Chairman, since the Speaker ruled when this language in the budget was

challenged that this was in accordance with parliamentary language,

then I submit, Mr. Chairman, that there is a conflict in the rules that

are being applied in this House, and I would suggest....

AN HON. MEMBER: It was true.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the member for Langley

(Hon. Mr. McClelland) withdraw that. I suggest he withdraw that. If

he's accusing us again, and reiterating that we are guilty of financial

cover-up, you have already ruled. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that

you might consult with the Speaker to apply some consistency to the

ruling of what will be accepted in this House as parliamentary language.

We objected to this language in the budget. The Speaker ruled it was

parliamentary and acceptable. Now we can't stand two standards. We must

have an even-handed approach to all concerned in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point of order is well taken. I think the

hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that the only rulings for which the

Chairman can be responsible are those rulings which are made here in

committee, and although perhaps some guidance can be taken by rulings

made at other times, nonetheless responsibility can only be held for

rulings here.

I wish the House to know that a list has been compiled of words

considered unparliamentary by parliaments prior to our own, and it may

be wise to have that list circulated for all members. If it is the wish

of the House to do so, I think that it can be arranged.

AN HON. MEMBER: It doesn't include "dishonourable," I'll tell you that.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, speaking to

section 1 of the

bill, in light of the documents which the Minister of Education has

tabled, I think it's extremely incumbent upon the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe) now to tell the House why he felt obliged to honour a

special warrant, and to comply with the request for special warrant,

when the correspondence tabled clearly indicates that the need for

additional moneys would not obtain until mid-year, approximately June

of 1976. It clearly indicates, Mr. Chairman, that the obligations to

which the university council referred were with respect not only to

trade union contracts that would be coming due in that period, but also

with respect to the new tenure for faculty staff.

I find it absolutely appalling that on such a loose explanation from

the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), on such flimsy

justification, a special warrant in the amount of $7.5 million should

be awarded in March to comply with a need which was clearly not in

evidence until some time in the coming fiscal year. I want the Minister

of Finance, Mr. Chairman, to explain how he can justify his obligation

to comply with the Audit Act which requires that there be a

demonstrable and emergent need for moneys issued by special warrant.

Would the Minister of Finance do that as the person responsible for the purse strings of this province?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'd like to just go over what this bill is

about and the position we are in as government. This bill authorizes

the Government of British Columbia to borrow up to $400 million to

cover an anticipated deficit. That deficit has been

[ Page 683 ]

outlined not only in the Clarkson, Gordon review, but by members of

the staff — the professional continuing staff in these buildings. Much

of the information given to Clarkson, Gordon was given in consultation

with the professional staff. I don't have to remind you, Mr. Chairman,

that before we had hardly taken office there was a dispute between a

member of the professional staff and the former Minister of Finance

(Mr. Stupich) about the anticipated deficit.

All of this, of course, had to be cleared up and was cleared up by

the bringing in of independent accountants. I say that as a new

government we've had trials trying to track down those bills that

needed to be paid, bills for which we could find no authorization.

The Minister of Finance this afternoon clearly indicated some of the

problems we have, such as an account from the B.C. Central Credit Union

for $150,000 for which there is no letter of authorization anywhere.

The minister wrote to the former Ministers of Finance, and after

clearing up which one of them was responsible, they said: "Well, surely

there will be a letter from one of the departments or somebody which

had been okayed by Treasury." But there was no letter in any department

request to Treasury for the authorization of that amount. But the

minister said then that clearly the public all knew that the Savings

and Trust was going, so obviously a study had to be done.

Things like this in which no letter of application or record is

found either in Treasury or in the department — these situations

abounded in this government. Here, in this case, we clearly have a

letter that was in the departmental files, not the private possession

of the former Minister of Education but belonging to the public of

British Columbia and to the Education department. It was dated November

14. It was from Mr. Armstrong of the universities council and it talks

about $10 million — $10 million that would be needed. The Minister of

Education, because we had run into excessive amounts — indiscriminate

spending — was being prudent with our money, the public's money, and he

brought in the accountants Price Waterhouse to check the amount. They

cut it down to $7 million plus. That's a saving for the people. It was

on the earlier letter and their recommendation in the subsequent

division. We have three documents filed. I say that minister deserves

credit for saving money for the people of British Columbia.

All governments are called upon to make judgments, Mr. Chairman:

judgments in the spending, judgments in the money to be saved. I think

that clearly in the three months plus that we have been government we

have shown good judgment in the way we have saved money far beyond what

would have been spent had that government been returned to office,

because the economy measures that we had brought in have helped to

reduce that deficit — economy measures that do not show up, economy

measures that have brought some semblance of saving for the taxpayers'

money.

We don't have to go out of our way to prove how incompetent and how

bad and how reckless that government was, but we'd like to get this

authority. We'd like to get on with the people's business — pass this

bill and get on with the business of running the Government of British

Columbia.

The people have said time and again: "Stop fighting the election of

1975." Yet since I got in this House I have not heard the election of

'75 fought; I have heard the election campaigns of '72 and '69 and '66.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) even refought the election

campaign of 1956 the other day, trying to drag up former scandals in an

attempt to take the spotlight away from their government's record of

misadministration and try to create some semblance of fiscal

management so that they could hopefully get their leader into the House

in a by-election. I say the important thing is: let's get on with the

people's business. The money has to be paid. Let's pay it and let's get

on with the job.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, that was a most interesting speech.

You know, it's a very disappointing speech. The first minister of this

province should have been on his feet apologizing to the opposition and

the people of this province.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Apologizing?

MR. COCKE: Yes, apologizing.

We asked one specific question: did that minister — we're talking

about that minister, not this minister, who is no longer a minister....

AN HON. MEMBER: Nor are you.

MR. COCKE: Yes, and I am no longer Minister of Health. We'll see how you get along.

Mr. Chairman, the fact is that he came into the House tonight,

produced a letter that came to the old government on November 14, a

request that was not adhered to at that time, Mr. Chairman.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Why not?

MR. COCKE: Because it wasn't needed at that time, as is quite amply clear now. Mr. Chairman, he doesn't understand!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The member for New Westminster has the floor.

[ Page 684 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we got the answer tonight, and how

they felt that that answer would satisfy the needs of the opposition to

find out what was really going on, I don't know. Because, you see,

that's the key letter — the November 14 letter. That letter merely says

that a letter was written asking for $10 million, some time in the

future, on November 14. Mr. Chairman, I suggest earlier this afternoon

that there was a real hard decision made in the new executive council,

subsequent to the December election, and that decision was to go on a

spending spree between the time and March 31, in order to discredit as

best they can the old government.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we listen to the Premier talk about an election

campaign being refought and refought; and I don't care, you know, in

what terms he thinks, but we know what kind of a campaign he's fighting

right now. When I suggested that they should apologize for this kind of

evidence, I really mean it, because we have all sunk just a little bit

lower because of this kind of flim-flam being presented to this House

as evidence for a request.

What about the early payment on — the Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

Mr. Phillips) is out of here — the $15 million or more early payment

to the farm assurance? What about that?

AN HON. MEMBER: What about that? Not due until April.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we really have to look at this bill,

this $400 million that we're borrowing. We have to look at moving Crown

corporation indebtedness in. We have to look at all of the other

aspects and, most of all, we have to look at the figures that were

presented by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) right at the

outset. Those are the figures that look relevant today, not the figures

that are coming up here and nobody can defend. When they answer

questions they answer in such a way as to try to confuse even further.

No, Mr. Chairman, they can't defend their position, and they know they

can't defend their position, because they did go on that spending spree

beginning late in December. Oh yes, you did.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Do you want me to tell you...?

MR. COCKE: Yes, I would like you to stand up and tell us a lot of things, Mr. Member. Mr. Slideover....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Please address the chair.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order please! The Minister of Education.

HON. Mr. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the member for New

Westminster, who was standing on his feet condemning this government

for fiscal responsibility...

AN HON. MEMBER: Irresponsibility.

HON. MR. McGEER: ...was the very same member of the board of

directors of ICBC who, in the full knowledge of the budget of that

corporation requiring transfer by the government of $110 million in

gasoline taxes and motor vehicle licence fees, participated as a board

of directors member in the decision to accept that budget, participated

as a member of the executive council in approving a budget brought down

by this House eight months later that denied to the public and to the

members of this Legislature correct fiscal information about the

transfer that would be required during that budget year. He

participated in what turned out to be a false prospectus, leaving, Mr.

Chairman, debts behind him, hoping that the continued accrual of

current premiums for ICBC would somehow cover up the debts that they

had incurred month by month by month.

When we took over that corporation, Mr. Chairman, in December of

last year, we discovered it out of cash, with debts of $169 million in

unpaid claims, unable to meet its payroll, unable to pay any of the

claims coming in, and two and a half months of the insurance year still

left.

Mr. Chairman, that was the end result of the fiscal policies

practiced by that member, and still recommended in opposition to this

House. Yes, we brought in a special warrant to fulfil the legal

contracts undertaken under your administration, and requested by the

universities council in a letter to that minister, and she's the one

who should have brought in the order-in-council, not us.

I made it clear tonight, Mr. Chairman, that we will have rescued

ICBC from its financial problems once this bill goes through. We will

then have the investment income that is built into the current year's

budget and should have been provided by the former administration over

one year ago. That corporation will be rescued financially.

I want to say again that in a comparable vein the financing of our

educational institutions will be rescued by then being placed on a

pay-as-you-go basis. We have requested from these educational

institutions a quarterly report, such as the Crown corporations will

provide and such as this government will provide, so that you will know

that those institutions have not undertaken, on your behalf, some

financial obligation that you will have to pay

[ Page 685 ]

for in next year's taxes. As of now that is the situation, because

by passing this order-in-council we have wiped off those past debts,

put them on an April-to-April budgeting procedure and now have them on

a pay-as-you-go basis. If they want to grant increases during the year,

they are going to have to show the universities council and the

government how they have laid aside reserves to cover those future

contractual commitments. That's their responsibility, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, for the first time there's common sense in budgeting

for education. Just as we are putting ICBC on a sound financial basis

by having financial reserves to cover the contractual obligations, so

we will do the same for our educational institutions, and the people

will know it in ICBC and in education by quarterly reports we will

present to the House and to the public.

Mr. Chairman, I take strong exception to the remarks of the first

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the member for Vancouver Centre, because

they were irresponsible.

AN HON. MEMBER: What — the remarks or the members?

HON. MR. McGEER: Both.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the Premier got up and gave a

repetition of his usual speech as if nothing has happened in this

committee tonight. That is a condemnation of his high office, in my

view. He has nothing to say about a minister that will provide $7.5

million to the universities, unrequested of him. His only excuse is a

letter dated November 14 to the previous Minister of Education, and

there is no indication that the previous minister would ever even

consider the request. And it's for funds that are clearly, in all the

documents tonight, only due and payable, if at all, in the fiscal year

1976-77.

That evidence has been laid before the first minister of this

province and he gets up and he makes his usual speech. I can't believe

my ears. Anyway, let's press on.

The Audit Act should be referred to in this matter, Mr. Chairman,

particularly if I could draw the Minister of Finance's attention to it.

He's aware of some of the phraseology but perhaps he's not aware of it

all.

Section 25(3) of the Audit Act, Revised Statutes of British Columbia ,

Chapter 22, 1960, says:

"If, when the Legislature is not in session, an

accident happens to a public work or building which requires immediate

outlay for the repair thereof, or any other occasion arises in which an

expenditure not foreseen or provided for by the Legislature is urgently

and immediately required 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 services in question that the necessity

is urgent, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may order a special

warrant to be prepared."

"That the necessity is urgent"...a report from the

Minister of Education. We've heard the Minister of Finance get up — I'm

not sure we can blame him, Mr. Chairman, except that his colleague is

at fault. He said he received such a report. I'm sure he must be very

surprised at the correspondence that was tabled here tonight. He must

be amazed. And if he is an honourable man, and there's no reason to

doubt that tonight, he should be shocked. For moneys coming in the

fiscal year, 1976-77, the Minister of Education used a very feeble

defence. His feeble defence, Mr. Chairman, is probably worse than the

offence itself.

He says that any request — and this is his theory —

will receive a grant, request made before they came to office and

requests made after. We've seen this afternoon $17,000 go to Dr.

Richards. The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) didn't even

look at the file; she just signed the cheque. There was $181 million

from the Minister of Education to himself as president of ICBC that

they didn't need. It's the old double shuffle. Now we have the pièce de

résistance, $7.5 million the University Council of British Columbia

didn't request — didn't request — and it's for the fiscal year 1976-77,

not the fiscal year the warrant was issued.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance, if he acted without

knowledge, did not breach the Audit Act, but the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. McGeer) broke the law. The Minister of Education did not

report the facts if he reported that the special warrant in question

was urgently and immediately required for the public good, because that

would have been a false report, as you and I can both agree. If he made

that report to the Minister of Finance, it was false. If he did not

make that report to the Minister of Finance, then the Ministers of

Education and Finance have broken the law. They've broken the Audit

Act, as I have cited it to this committee. Who is going to answer for

this? Is the government above the law? Can we get the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Gardom) to lay a charge? Can we do anything about this?

HON. MR, WILLIAMS: You're just a little opposition.

MR. LAUK: That's right, we're just a little opposition, Mr.

Minister of Labour, and we're sitting here appalled at the conduct of

this juggernaut majority of yours. You don't care what you do. You

don't care what laws you break. You have disrespect for this

Legislature, disrespect for the public and

[ Page 686 ]

disrespect for the laws passed by this Legislature.

It's a shame, Mr. Chairman, that tonight has happened. It's one of the blackest nights in this Legislature, in my view.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Don't use that word. Rosemary will be angry.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I don't find any humour in this issue, Madam Member.

MRS. JORDAN: We don't either, and neither do the people of British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: You're not kidding. Boy, tonight is a very black night.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I don't know what more can be said

about that, but this opposition is waiting for an explanation, and this

opposition is not the only group that's waiting for an explanation. The

people of British Columbia are waiting.

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Chairman, we've heard a lot about special warrants

tonight, and the Audit Act, and whether requirements are urgently required.

I have before me here a special warrant dated December 3, 1975...

HON. MR. BENNETT: Right before the election.

HON. MR. WOLFE: ...signed and requested by the minister who just took his place — the former Minister of Economic Development (Mr. Lauk).

HON. MR. BENNETT: Urgent. Right in front of the election.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Urgent. The implication in the Audit Act is if, when

the Legislature is not in session, an accident happens to a public work or building....

This doesn't sound as if a building fell down or anything, Mr. Minister

— Mr. former Minister.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Read it.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It reads: ..."pursuant to the order of the

Lieutenant-Governor on behalf of the Government of British Columbia has

entered into an agreement with the B.C. Central Credit Union which

provides for loans to be made by the B.C. Central Credit Union to SIB

International Industries." That's $2.5 million, Mr. Chairman, for...

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh! Did a building fall down?

HON. MR. WOLFE: ...the purchase of the "Arctic Harvester," a

fish boat. This would seem to be a very strange date for such an order

to be going through, just before an election — very suddenly and

urgently required. I propose that we should investigate this matter

because the former Minister of Economic Development was the very person

who was complaining about special warrants.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order!

HON. MR. WOLFE: So I think we've heard just about enough about improper special warrants.

AN HON. MEMBER: Disgraceful!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Are you on a point of order?

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Finance has raised an issue and suggested that it was in breach of the Audit Act.

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's right.

MR. LAUK: That order-in-council, which to my knowledge was not acted upon by special warrant....

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is not a point of order.

MR. LAUK: The minister has made a charge, Mr. Chairman, and I have every right to answer that charge on a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is not a point of order.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It wasn't in the budget. Here it is right here.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister of Finance, just before he sat down, seemed to focus on the whole area....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May we have a little attention? The member for Burnaby North has the floor.

[ Page 687 ]

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. Minister of Finance, as he was speaking, seemed to focus

his entire statement on the timing of special warrants, referring to

the timing of a warrant passed by the former government. Therefore my

question to you is on a matter of timing, related to timing: why was

the special warrant for $7.5 million passed in the fiscal year of

1975-76 when we know it was not needed for that fiscal year? Why was it

passed at that time?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance has falsely

charged that there was a breach of the Audit Act with respect to the

special warrant, an order-in-council, on the "Arctic Harvester." The

"Arctic Harvester" was a fishboat that was for sale, and the critical

events had accrued by that date, on or before that date, that made it

necessary for the Indian band to receive that kind of money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Mr. Member, please remember that

this is a point on which I called the minister to order, and therefore

I can just allow a very brief statement. This is away beside the point.

MR. LAUK: I understand. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, that the

minister raised it because it was for the Sechelt Indian Band, and it's

an immediate.... You fool, do you know what this order was for? Are you

attacking the Sechelt Indian Band?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the member for Vancouver

Centre please refrain from using the word "fool"? As a matter of fact, I

must ask you to withdraw the word "fool."

MR. LAUK: I withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs.

Dailly) has repeated the question and we must repeat the question

again. Why, if the Minister of Finance received a report that this

special warrant for $7.5 million was urgently and immediately required,

if he received that report from the Minister of Education, that report

was false and the Minister of Education should answer for it. If he did

not receive such a report, the Minister of Finance must answer why the

special warrant was issued. Otherwise, it's a breach of the Audit Act.

Every time we ask the question, they drag a red herring across the

floor. They try to dig up something else and put it before the

committee, because they're trying to avoid the embarrassing truth of

what's happening here with this special warrant. Why don't they answer

that question?

MR. KING: I wish the minister would explain to the House why

he felt obligated to authorize the special warrant which clearly was

not needed until the next fiscal year — in fact, some time into the

next fiscal year. There was a clear indication in the letters tabled by

the Minister of Education that the circumstances outlined by the

chairman of the universities council might be the matter for some

discussion. There was no suggestion that the money should be forwarded

either at that date or on any immediate subsequent date.

It's not good enough, Mr. Chairman, for the Minister of Finance to

get up and attempt to draw out old orders-in-council, which are not at

issue here. Even if we were to accept his inference that they had been

improperly passed, which I do not accept.... If he has that kind of

charge to make, then he should certainly table all of the pertinent

correspondence and the order-in-council with the House.

But regardless of that fact, Mr. Chairman, surely the Minister of

Finance, who is responsible for the Treasury of this province in a

government that campaigned on the basis that they were capable business

managers, that they were fiscally responsible, would not use some

previous alleged misdemeanor to justify non-compliance with law under

his administration. I'm appalled at that kind of line of defence, and I

want to ask the Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman: Has he awarded or

approved any special warrants for the fiscal year 1978 on the premise

that some undetermined commitment will become apparent through tenure

or through collective agreements?

It's just as ludicrous, Mr. Chairman; the proposition is just as

ludicrous. There is absolutely no justification presented to this

committee so far that would warrant whatsoever the granting of $7.5

million to the universities council, and, if we're to believe the

Minister of Finance's colleague, the Minister of Education, all one has

to do is demonstrate some shortfall, presumably in a Crown corporation

or within any institution of learning in this province, and that

minister is prepared to respond in advance with any amount of money,

apparently, through this procedure of special warrant.

This is clearly an abuse of the Audit Act. It's clearly an abuse of

responsible government, and I think the Minister of Finance should

offer at the very least an apology to the committee, Mr. Chairman, and

a guarantee and an undertaking that never again will he be prepared to

authorize some ill-advised and unsubstantiated request from the

Minister of Education or any other minister on that executive council

for funds that are not justified and clearly not needed until some

point in the distant future —

[ Page 688 ]

indeed, in a new fiscal year altogether.

The Minister of Finance simply has to assure the opposition that he

is going to be more responsible as custodian of the public Treasury of

this province before we can even consider allowing him to borrow for

the funds to the tune of $400 million, which, as far as we know, might

also be expended upon the unjustified demands of his cabinet colleagues.

Mr. Chairman, this is just not good enough. I'm sure realistic

members on the government side, not only in the executive branch but in

the backbench too, appreciate the fundamental concern, the fundamental

and primary answer and principle that must be demonstrated here tonight

before this kind of borrowing authority can be granted to the

government. I expect the Minister of Finance to get on his feet, in a

serious and humble way, and assure the committee that he is going to

take remedial action.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Well, Mr. Chairman, in reply to the Leader of

the Opposition, I can only say that any requests of this type as have

been discussed here tonight, and all others, receive full consideration

by myself as Minister of Finance and by our Treasury Board. I am very

proud to say that we have a very active and busy Treasury Board, which

is more than I think can be said of the former government. Full and

legal procedures were followed as required in these requests, as under

the Audit Act.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, you know, it

is certainly distressing members of the opposition to see the minister

fail, to see the minister try to, perhaps, compensate for failures and

mistakes that they've made, perhaps in haste and in the early bloom of

enthusiasm of forming a government, and the inexperience. I think some

of these things that perhaps.... And it is a serious legal matter, a

very serious legal matter, that we're discussing here; yet it might

almost be excusable. Nobody's perfect. Perhaps they made a mistake. I

wonder how we could hold them legally accountable, even though it is

clear that they've broken the law.

But how did this come about? I would ask the minister, and I say

this in all sincerity, to be a little bit, through you, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the Minister of Health.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, this is getting completely

ridiculous. Members on the opposite side of the House are saying things

that are just completely unparliamentary and really should never be

allowed in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like what?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Like accusing a member of this House of

clearly breaking the law. That's nonsense; it's unparliamentary and

must be withdrawn immediately. Mr. Chairman, we must bring some order

into this House if we are going to progress at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then stop breaking the law.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you requesting that the phrase "breaking of the law"...? It's been used several times in this House and....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

In no instance has objection been taken, and as a result the Chair

has not called to order this particular phrase because it did not

impugn any individual member, but was always referred to as government.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order. You know, some of

us have sat back and expected that perhaps the Chair might call these

members to order. I think the Chair does have the responsibility to

keep order in this House, and these members must be brought to order. I

think it's time now, because it's gone on too long.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order: Mr. Chairman, we allege that

the Minister of Finance broke the law, or the Minister of Education.

And I'll read the subsection again.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You'd better be bringing in some substantial evidence when you say that.

MR. LAUK: It's a fact! It's a fact, and they can't have it both ways, Mr. Chairman. They can't have it both ways.

If the Minister of Education reported to the Minister of Finance

that this warrant in question was urgently and immediately required for

the public good ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please.

MR. LAUK: ...then that was a false report.... .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: ...and he broke the law.

[ Page 689 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. You've passed the point of order; you're now into the substance and debating the point of order.

MR. LAUK: That is correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I make a ruling on the use of the words and the phrase "break the law"?

If the term "he deliberately broke the law" was used, then clearly

the phrase would be unparliamentary. If it were only an opinion

expressed by a member, standing in his place, that a law had been

broken, not deliberately, then the Chair would have to rule that it is

not unparliamentary — at least, not if it's not determined that it is

to be deliberate, or by a single individual.

I think that the House, perhaps, maybe would like to have an expression on that particular ruling.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, further to the point of

order: I would ask the Chair if the Chair would ask that member whether

or not that member imputed that a member of this House deliberately

broke the law, because in my opinion that's what he said. If he doesn't

have the guts to repeat it right now, and withdraw it, then he

shouldn't be in this House at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As the Chair remembers the debate, he did not

use the word "deliberately" broke the law. As a result, that is the

ruling and we ask the member to proceed.

MR. NICOLSON: It's not a matter of guts. I think I proved my point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Nelson-Creston has the floor. Please proceed.

MR. NICOLSON: What I was getting at, Mr. Chairman, is that I

think that in the flush of enthusiastic endeavour in assuming the new

responsibilities, perhaps mistakes were made. I think it's an attitude.

It has led to what we believe was the improper issuing of a warrant in

the amount of $7.5 million, which is a significant portion of the

amount being considered under

section 1 of this bill.

I think that there is a remedy. It isn't uncommon, Mr. Chairman,

when we're considering a bill of this importance, that the Minister of

Finance might have at his side the Deputy Minister of Finance. It helps

to expedite debate. It's not an admission of weakness. Just because

someone has some credential — one might be a chartered accountant —

doesn't mean that one has to carry the full weight of one's office.

There is help there and it should be used. But the minister, Mr.

Chairman, in seeking assistance in this debate has relied upon laymen —

laymen like the hon. Premier. I think that that is one of the things

which is prolonging the debate on

section 1, that is calling into

question the necessity of this warrant.

The government is pursuing a course of entrapment. That's against

the law, too, Mr. Chairman, but it's not against the law to entrap

yourself, fortunately. But they are entrapping themselves, because they

fought an election and they've won an election on the issue of fiscal

responsibility. They so much won it and were so flushed with success

that they actually believe that they are all experts, that they can get

along without the years and years of experience of senior departmental

officials, that they can fly by the seat of their pants — that the

minister can be back east, that the document can be altered without his

consent and that they can get away with that, too. That is the type of

thing that has led to this very serious error.

We focused in on one; we are focusing in on the $7.5 million warrant

which was issued on February 24, to my knowledge, prior to the session

as required by law. A covering letter comes from Dr. Armstrong on March

22 or 23 after we're in session. It details how they will divide it

between universities. Now that is not fiscally responsible; that is not

following the letter of the law as indicated in the Audit Act. That is

the kind of mistake which I think could be avoided if, instead of

thinking that they were so self-sufficient in their own ability, they

would lean a little bit upon the expertise which is at their side, and

the long years of expertise of senior civil servants — they could avoid

entrapping themselves.

I think that it's up to that minister, when something wrong is done

in government, to admit that this is what has happened — that there has

been, perhaps, a little bit of overenthusiasm, perhaps a little bit of

cockiness. All of us, I think, who have been in the cabinet benches,

Mr. Chairman, tend to think that nobody else before or since could do a

better job of that. I'm sure that I felt that way; I'm sure that the

present Minister of Finance feels that way about his position; I'm sure

that all of those ministers over there feel that way. But that's a

personal thing. You have to look beyond the personal thing when we're

dealing with matters of $7.5 million — $7.5 million which, according to

the Audit Act, were spent not urgently, and $7.5 million which are

required in a following fiscal year. That isn't in any way related to

the smokescreen that the minister tried to bring up about a fishing

boat — that fishing boat was bought in the same fiscal year. That is

going against the NDP deficit, Mr. Chairman — that expenditure. That

has been counted in the balance between receipts and....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: The minister has another chance

[ Page 690 ]

to stand up and address himself not to fishing boats, not to other

smokescreens, but to this question: does he have any evidence that it

had to be spent urgently? The evidence that we have before us here this

evening is that it was not urgently required, that it was required for

this fiscal year. Can the minister get up and take some remedial

action? Could they make a cancelling order-in-council? Perhaps that

isn't against the Audit Act to rescind that order-in-council. Perhaps

they can do that. Will the minister get up? Will he admit that he's

been human, as I think all of us have been at times? We don't expect

you to be Superman, Mr. Minister, but we do expect you to do your job,

and if you make a mistake, admit it.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Chairman, I am glad

to see that the Premier has returned, because to a degree my remarks

are related to the last remarks that he made relative to

section 1.

I was somewhat surprised to hear him berate the opposition for not

paying attention or not allowing the government to get on with the

people's business, and I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the matter

of whether or not we need to borrow $400 million is certainly the

people's business. So I was rather surprised to hear him say this, and

I was also surprised to hear him say it was the opposition that was

continuing to fight the election because, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman,

it's not the opposition; it's the government that's continuing to fight

the election.

Now if I might just repeat my question to the Minister of Finance,

he stood in his place a few moments ago and said that the Treasury

Board was a very active and a very responsible body which reviewed all

applications at great length. I would like to repeat again my question

regarding the payment of the farm income assurance to the beef growers,

a payment that was not required until April which was made in March,

and I would like him to explain to this House the rationale for making

that payment.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Chairman, in spite of the

protracted debate which has taken place on this section, it seems that

it is having some value, especially to the opposition and to the people

who are observing this debate, because slowly some admissions are

coming out of that huge government on the other side.

Just before the supper hour the Minister of Finance said that many

things could be included in the Clarkson, Gordon report to increase the

deficit and that those things weren't included. That's what he said

just before the supper hour. In other words, there was the question of

government discretion, whether they could include information in that

report that would inflate or deflate the deficit, and that's what he

said, and I believe that the Blues will bear us out on this, Mr.

Chairman, when they're issued.

So the minister was admitting this afternoon that the inclusion of

certain items in the Clarkson, Gordon report was a matter of

ministerial discretion. That is borne out again by the Clarkson, Gordon

report where it says, on page 9: "We've been advised that this grant

will be made prior to March 31, 1976." Referring to the ICBC grant, and

again to the grant of $32.6 million to B.C. Hydro, it says: "We've been

advised that these amounts will be paid prior to March 31, 1976." So

there was the question of government ministerial discretion as to what

funds, or what grants, should be included in this deficit which was

created by this government in order to embarrass the previous

administration.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: That's not the question, Mr. Minister. It's a

question of government discretion and timing — what the deficit will be

— and the Clarkson, Gordon report says exactly that very thing. By the

same token, the minister admitted that more items could be included in

the Clarkson, Gordon report, and, by the same token, less items could

have been included.

The tabling of the letters tonight by the hon. Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. McGeer) indicated not that the $7.5 million allocated by

special warrant was a legitimate expenditure within the 1975-1976

fiscal year, but that it was simply designed to inflate the deficit,

and to pursue a political vendetta against the previous government.

In reading the letter of November 14 — and I'm very pleased that the

Minister of Education has tabled this letter — it deals almost entirely

with questions of operating grants which will be required for the

1976-1977 fiscal year. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the fiscal

year which is the subject of this

section 1 of Bill 3.

The letter doesn't ask for any funds at all. It doesn't indicate any

emergency...that these funds be granted. In fact, the final paragraph

of the letter says, Mr. Chairman: "I would be happy to discuss the

basis of this submission in more detail with you at any convenient

time." That doesn't indicate to me that Mr. Armstrong was in any

emergent rush to discuss the need for $7.5 million that would have to

be expended within the 1975-1976 fiscal year. In fact, throughout his

letter he says that the amounts required would not be needed and the

figures would not be known until the fall of 1976. So it was obviously

a political decision on the part of the Social Credit government to

include the figures discussed by Dr. Armstrong, but not requested by

Dr. Armstrong, within the 1975-1976 fiscal budget in order to create

and inflate a deficit that it was not necessary to

[ Page 691 ]

inflate.

The only information that we have from Dr. Armstrong as to the

allocation of the $7.5 million — in fact, the only reference to the

$7.5 million — is in a letter dated March 18, 1976, almost a month after

the order-in-council was passed. So what we're doing is simply

discussing an order-in-council that was passed at the discretion of the

government — not of an emergency nature, but one that was passed to

inflate the deficit for the 1975-1976 fiscal year.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), not speaking on his feet

but speaking from his seat, mentioned the amounts of money that the

previous government spent like water during the short time previous to

the 1975 election, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to go over the public

accounts of this province for 1971-72.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. SKELLY: Oh, we're talking about.... We've been given

great latitude on both sides of the House, Mr. Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Gardom).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, we are discussing

section

Section 1 talks about an anticipated deficit.

MR. SKELLY: Right, but we're very....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that we're wandering a little far from

the point. May I ask you to address your remarks more strictly? I would

just remind you of the order that says in committee particularly debate

must be held very strictly to the point.

Section 1, please.

MR. SKELLY: But several members on the other side, Mr.

Chairman, have got up and piously talked about fiscal responsibility.

They've talked about it relative to ICBC, relative to many of the

amounts that have been included in the proposed deficit that will make

up this $400 million loan that we are supposed to be authorizing for

the government. The Minister of Labour, again, was talking about how

this government spent money like water in the period just before the

election. Perhaps he alluded to some of the money which was included in

this $400 million that we are being asked to authorize for the

government to borrow to repay a deficit in 1975-1976.

I'd just like to give a few examples of the amounts of money that

were spent like water by the previous government just before the 1972

election.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SKELLY: $3 million, the Department of the Attorney-General overexpended.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SKELLY: $30 million, Department of Highways....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SKELLY: $42 million....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member please be seated? I think that

enough latitude has been granted in discussing the issues that would

lead to the anticipated deficit. I believe that to go back into years

and years of previous discussion is not serving the House well in this

regard. I ask you to change the tack of your speech and make sure that

it is relevant to

section 1. I must ask you to change the tack of your

speech.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. SKELLY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I accept your ruling.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) tabled a letter dated

November 14, 1975, dealing not with the estimates of the public accounts

for 1975-1976, but for a period sometime in the future. The Minister of

Labour from his seat shouted that during the last period of our term of

office — the NDP term of office — we spent money like water. I was just

pointing out to the members that during their last term of office

before an election they spent $100 million over estimates in order to

attempt to win that election.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! We are trying to assist the

member in trying to keep his discussion as close to

section 1 as we

can. He is doing better; still we must ask him to improve. We are on

section 1. (Laughter.)

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I am improving all the time here. I

just felt it was necessary to draw the member's attention to that fact,

since it was originally brought up by the Minister of Labour (Mr.

Williams).

[ Page 692 ]

I don't feel that we can really pass this

section 1 of Bill 3,

because not all of our questions have been answered. It's just come

down tonight that the $7.5 million special warrant for education was

not necessary to repay a part of the deficit for 1975-76 and, in fact,

it wasn't necessary at all until October of 1976.

When we originally asked the Minister of Finance and the Minister of

Education in this House, they didn't know what that $7.5 million was

for. Now we find out that it was for a period sometime in the future.

There are other questions that have been unanswered, Mr. Chairman.

We are expected to vote in this

section $400 million in debt for the

people of this province. Yet even the questions they answer, they

bungle. We find out that that money wasn't necessary for the deficit of

1975-76 — it's for some subsequent year. It wasn't even requested by

the universities council and by Dr. Armstrong; he simply wanted to

discuss it at the minister's convenience.

Now what about the $185.51 million for ICBC? What about the $32.6

million for B.C. Hydro? Again, what about the terms of reference that

were initially delivered to Clarkson, Gordon? We haven't had those

questions answered. Yet we're expected to vote on this

section to

approve a

section that will put the people of this province into debt

to the tune of $400 million, and with which that Social Credit

government is attempting to drive the people of this province into debt

for the first time in many, many years — to the tune of $400 million.

And we're expected to do it almost as a blank cheque, and even....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: We're serious on this side, Mr. Member.

So we are asking questions of that side as to just what the

components of that $400 million are, and we're not getting satisfactory

answers. What were the terms of reference provided to Clarkson, Gordon?

Were they asked to come up with a deficit of $541 million? What were

the terms of reference provided to Clarkson, Gordon? Table those in the

House. Let's see those. If they are as bad as the ones that were just

tabled by the Minister of Education, maybe we should withdraw this bill

altogether and bring in a new one.

The only reason that the debate has been protracted is that we

simply haven't had the answers to the questions that the people all

over this province are asking.

I would ask the Minister of Finance to table those terms of

reference in the House. Were written terms of reference provided to

Clarkson, Gordon? If so, what are the terms of reference? Which

ministers authorized the payment of the grants to ICBC within the

fiscal year ending March 31, 1976? Which minister authorized the

transfer of $32.6 million to B.C. Hydro within the fiscal March 31, 1976?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the next member, I

think perhaps the House should be reminded that we are bound by

standing order 43. Particularly for new members, may I just recite that

section for you?

"Mr. Speaker or the Chairman, after having called the attention

of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member who persists in

irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments

used by other members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech, and

if the member still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker, shall name him, or, if

in committee, the Chairman shall report him to the House."

Standing order 43 — this is just for your edification.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I believe I do have

some new information. I've kept a private list which I'd in a moment

like to tell the Minister of Finance about. I'd like, though, to start

discussing Bill 3,

section 1, by pointing out two obvious matters. They

are, I think, equally obvious.

The first is a compliment: I think you've been a very good Chairman, and I appreciate the way you have run our meeting tonight.

The second, just as obvious to me, is that government strategy has fallen apart. It has been exposed.

One of the things that I've discovered is that most new governments

enjoy a honeymoon period as a result of the affection and good will

generated by a successful campaign and their winning of it. It's

obvious to me, Mr. Chairman, that this government has enjoyed the

shortest honeymoon on record.

I'm not aware of any shorter in the history of British Columbia

politics. They have largely thrown away the good will and have begun to

throw away the credibility granted to them as the result of a

successful election campaign.

I think tonight, though, Mr. Chairman, we've seen that government

strategy has been particularly exposed as the result of three elements

of fact drawn repeatedly and consistently and, I believe, successfully

to the attention of this House. These elements comprise more than half

the amount in dollars proposed by Bill 3 in the form of a deficit to be

loaded upon the backs of the people of British Columbia. These

elements, and I shall name them shortly, have been responded to by the

Premier and by the Minister of Education with two of, if I may say it,

the most bizarre speeches I have heard in this

[ Page 693 ]

House since I became a member — bizarre and completely irrelevant speeches about fishboats and ICBC.

The Members of the opposition have asked a number of important

questions. Important documents have been tabled and have been

responsible for other important questions coming forward. The reply to

that, not by the Minister of Finance of whom the questions were asked

but rather by his faithful defenders, the Premier and the Minister of

Education, have been — let me repeat it — bizarre and completely

irrelevant. The Minister of Finance is clearly unwilling, or unable, to

speak for himself. Anytime, I've noticed, he's attempted to do so, the

Premier or the Minister of Education have instead jumped up. There may

be reasons for that and we might get to those later.

There are three principal elements in this $400 million fantasy.

There are three principal elements in the strategy of the government to

blow up a deficit which never existed in that form in the first place.

These three elements are simply that sum of $181 million given to ICBC;

$15 million to $20 million to the beef growers' association through

the Farm Income Assurance Act — information about which will be

documented and produced later in this debate by our side of the House —

and, finally, the $7.5 million granted unrequested and not due, not for

the last fiscal year but for this one we're in now, to the universities

council. Three elements in this $400 million fantasy, Mr. Chairman,

have been exposed for what they are: a deliberate but unsuccessful

strategy attempting to persuade the people of British Columbia that we

need suddenly borrowing power in the neighbourhood of $400 million.

The $181 million cheque is now a notorious and hilarious event

which has embarrassed, and embarrassed again, the government of this

province — a cheque issued two days before the end of the last fiscal

year which we were then told would not be cashed and which we were then

further told would, if cashed, be loaned back to the government that

wrote it in the first place. An absurd course of action for a

government which claims itself to be fiscally responsible. This is

almost half their justification for the amount that they require under

Bill 3,

section 1 — $400 million.

Secondly, the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) has indicated and,

let me repeat, we will be producing documentation and evidence to substantiate

it, that this government chose as a matter of policy, as a matter of political

course and expediency, to increase the alleged deficit by some $15 million to

$20 million by making a payment to the beef growers of this province under the

Farm Income Assurance Act when it was simply not required, when it was not required

until this fiscal year and not paid in the last. Indeed, this is $15 million

to $20 million more invented in this $400 million fantasy that they're trying

to persuade the people of British Columbia is real life.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Table the documents.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You don't know what you're talking about.

MR. BARBER: Finally, the $7.5 million, which it is now clear

by documents presented by the Minister of Education himself was neither

requested nor due, would not even come necessary for payment until July

of this year, and somehow mysteriously appeared in the alleged deficit

of last year.

What we have seen tonight, Mr. Chairman, is the presentation,

consistent, logical and to the point, of evidence which to fair-minded

people must be understood as devastating. The $181 million funny cheque

to ICBC has already been understood by the people of British Columbia

as the weirdest and most peculiar sleight of hand. The $15 million to

$20 million to the beef growers will shortly be demonstrated to be more

of the same, and tonight we saw clearly in the documents that the

Minister of Education himself tabled, evidently yet unaware of their

significance, an amount which was neither requested nor due by the

universities council.

This evidence is devastating, Mr. Chairman, and it undercuts the

whole of their strategy, all of their arguments, and makes it

impossible for a responsible opposition to vote in favour of this bill.

It is devastating, and it would appear to me that this revelation about

the $7.5 million, neither requested nor due, does in fact undercut

substantially their credibility in government; and they don't even

seem to be aware of it, Mr. Chairman. April 7, 1976, will be recorded as

an embarrassing day of the first order for that government when it was

made clear that the unwanted and unnecessary expenditure of $7.5

million was exposed and exploded in this House. The action, as has been

made clear, comes dangerously close to contravention of the Audit Act.

That Act itself will be the subject of much future debate in this House.

One of the problems, Mr. Chairman, that this government has pursuing

Bill 3 is that they are a coalition government. Of the cabinet of 15,

five of them used to be enemies of the other 10. It's clear that one of

the reasons the strategy has collapsed is because they do not trust one

another.

They do not trust one another, Mr. Chairman, and they have been

unable to get together and tell the same story about the need for the

$400 million. Piece by piece, the $400 million which they claim is

required has been demonstrated to be not required at all, but rather

the result of a deliberate strategy, now collapsing in their hands, to

persuade the people of

[ Page 694 ]

British Columbia that we are in fact $400 million in debt.

The reason they have not succeeded, Mr. Chairman, in persuading the

people of British Columbia of the need for

section 1 of Bill 3 —

authority to borrow $400 million, I'm learning — is that the strategy

has collapsed. The coalition has fallen apart again because when

coalitions come under stress they cannot rely on principle and they

most certainly cannot rely on one another. They have to rely on telling

the same story and they have been unable to do so.

I have a private list, Mr. Chairman, which may interest the Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). I've been keeping it to myself until

tonight.

AN HON. MEMBER: Blacklist?

MR. BARBER: No blacklist; it's a simple list. The strategy of

this government has been exposed and exploded in part because the

Minister of Finance has been unwilling and unable to answer significant

questions put to him by the opposition. I've been keeping a count, Mr.

Chairman, of the silences. Since Bill 3 was introduced, on 53 occasions

this opposition asked questions of the Minister of Finance to which he

responded not at all, 53 occasions on Bill 3...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's give courtesy to the member who has the floor, the second member for Victoria.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: ...failing to defend the principle of Bill 3 and the

alleged need for the $400 million. Fifty-three times the Minister of

Finance has kept his mouth shut, has said nothing, has answered

questions with silence.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: I urge the Minister of Finance to do himself a

favour, to either get together at the earliest opportunity with the

Premier and the Minister of Education and determine what new

chapter of

the story is going to be told, or at least get their act together and

tell the same story, or to withdraw the bill. It has clearly fallen

apart as that element of their strategy to discredit the previous

administration. One of the reasons it fell apart, one of the reasons

why this $400 million demonstrably is not needed, was given again this

evening by the sometimes too candid Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

McGeer). If I may quote...and it will be in the Blues. I take careful

notes, Mr. Chairman, and I wrote this down as well. He is responding to

a point made by the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) and he said: "You

know, we could have increased the deficit to $340 million but we didn't

do so."

MR. LOEWEN: The Liberal leader said that.

MR. BARBER: No. Check the Blues, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: Check the Blues. I recorded it most carefully.

The minister, responding to the Liberal leader said: "You know, we

could have increased it by $340 million but we didn't," pointing at the

official opposition. "You got off lightly."

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Those are the words of a man who is revealing within them the fact that Bill 3 has a political motivation...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please,

MR.BARBER: ...and was determined from the outset to be a means

of punishing this opposition, the former government and, indeed,

generally the people of British Columbia. He did not say that $541

million was the absolutely honest and the real figure of deficit in

this province. He did not say that $400 million was what was needed to

catch up and he did not say that the additional $340 million, as

suggested by the Liberal leader, was a more accurate figure. He said

none of those things. He said: "You got off lightly."

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): You did.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: He was revealing a political statement and a

political point of view that has been taken with the finances of this

province from the beginning.

MR. LOEWEN: You sound like a child.

MR. BARBER: He sounds like a parent chastising a child,

saying: "I'll only spank you three times, but I could have spanked you

five. You got off lightly."

Interjections.

[ Page 695 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: A minister who responds to serious and thoughtful

criticism of this bill and the principle of the borrowing of $400

million, by saying, "Well, you know, we could have made it more; you

got off lightly," is confessing for everyone to hear that behind the

bill and within it and tonight now too its entire motivation is

political and not fiscal.

Finally, I wish to ask — and hope not to hear — the 54th silence,

Mr. Minister: why was the money granted in advance of its necessity to

the beef growers? The amount was between $15 and $20 million, granted

out of the last fiscal year for purposes of expenditure in this.

Secondly, and much more significantly if you don't realize it yet,

would you please tell us what the urgent need was for the $7.5 million

granted to the universities council, which they neither requested nor

needed?

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Withdraw the bill, Mr. Minister of Finance. Withdraw the bill; it has been a big mistake from beginning to end.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): The game plan that the Socreds have

been developing so carefully over the last few months has fallen apart

this evening. The Minister of Education stands condemned, and so do the

members of the Treasury Board.

You know, it's a misuse of special warrants to try to gain some

credibility with the public out there when they pass warrants which, as

the previous speakers have indicated, are neither requested of this

government nor are needed in the 1975-76 fiscal year. It's a disgrace.

The game plan, I think, has been clearly revealed to the public of

British Columbia this evening, and the fact that it has fallen apart, I

hope, has also been revealed very clearly to the people.

I assume by now that Clarkson, Gordon must be feeling some embarrassment when they recognize....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Comox has the floor.

MS. SANFORD: Clarkson, Gordon, Mr. Chairman, must be feeling

some embarrassment at this time when they recognize that ministers have

been running around looking up letters that were received by the

previous government, issuing cheques to beef growers at least a month

ahead of the time at which they were due. They were asked to put into

the Clarkson, Gordon report, and include as a deficit for the year

1975-76, $181 million when ICBC is swimming in money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. Member, these areas have been well canvassed.

MS. SANFORD: All right. But there is one area that the

previous speaker did not mention tonight, and this, I think, is one

which the Minister of Finance has failed to answer as well. That

relates to the $9 million which was advanced to the four municipalities

that had undergone amalgamation. These funds were advanced every four

months.

Interjections.

MR, CHAIRMAN: Order!

MS. SANFORD: Prince George mayor, Harold Moffatt, said that

his municipality had been receiving the grant in $700,000 instalments

every four months until last week when the $2.5 million balance was

paid off by the Socreds in the 1975-76 fiscal year — and $2.5 million

is not $700,000, as they had been receiving every four months. That

again points out that they are attempting by every means possible to

present a deficit to the people of this province. Now they're asking us

to approve a bill to borrow up to $400 million to cover that so-called

deficit. It's a sham!

MR. KING: There is the author of the budget right there. Think about this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MS. SANFORD: Even the former Socred member in this House,

Mayor Frank Ney, said that he personally was surprised to get the money

that was sent to them. Surprised, because it was not due at that time,

and it was a deliberate attempt to include in the 1975-76 budget.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was not due, not due!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you accusing Frank Ney of lying?

MS. SANFORD: I assume that the Minister of Consumer Services

(Hon. Mr. Mair) is suggesting that either Frank Ney does not know

what's going on in

[ Page 696 ]

his council or that he isn't really revealing the truth in this article.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was surprised that he paid off his debts.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, I see. I see.

AN HON. MEMBER: So was the mayor of Kamloops.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Comox has the floor.

MS. SANFORD: I've only one other brief point, Mr. Chairman. I

do think that the Minister of Finance should explain to the House

tonight — we have a right to know — who it was that authorized that

$181 million cheque to ICBC. Was it the Minister of Education, the

Minister in charge of ICBC? Was it the Minister of Finance? Was it the

Premier? Was it the general manager of ICBC? That answer we have not

received, and I think that we must know that before we vote on this

bill. We will receive it? Thank you.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: We have received it already?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister

of Finance did attempt to answer question 56 by saying that he's given

us that information already. As I recall, when that question was asked

previously, his answer was that the information was passed on to

Clarkson, Gordon by different people at different times, which is not a

very explicit reply to the question: who authorized the payment to

ICBC? For example, that very specific one the government did. The

government at different times authorized the different payments.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that the Minister of Education isn't in the

House at the moment, because it's hard to divorce a discussion of ICBC

from this discussion of

section 1 of Bill 3, because almost half of the

money required in this bill is related to ICBC.

I can't say the Minister of Education was intentionally leading us

astray, or intentionally telling a falsehood, but I just don't

understand his statement to the effect that this government hid the

information that $110 million was needed to pay bills when he assumed

command of ICBC. I don't know how that ties in with a report that he

filed in this House which showed that a maximum of $28.5 million was

required, not by that date — the day he assumed office — but as late as

February of 1976. The maximum amount that was required up to that point

in time was still less than $28.5 million. I don't know how that can

possibly be reconciled with his statement to the effect that when he

arrived $110 million was needed. There's some discrepancy there that I

just don't understand.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Eight months before, Dave.

MR. STUPICH: The $110 million was eight months before?

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: You're all aware of the fact that ICBC needed no

outside cash until it started borrowing from the banks, and the

Minister of Education filed the information in the House. It didn't

start borrowing from the bank until December 29, 1975; that was the

first borrowing, and it needed no outside cash until that point in

time. Its maximum borrowing was less than $28.5 million, and the

information given since shows that it has something like $169 million

cash on hand now.

The Minister of Education went on to say that the cash it presently

has on hand is enough to meet all of the claims and expenses of ICBC,

even without taking into account the reduce