1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1976

Night Sitting

[ Page

2107 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Alaska pipeline project. Mr. Bennett — 2107

Mr. Stupich — 2107

Mr. Gibson — 2107

Routine proceedings

Municipal Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 53) .

Introduction and first reading. Hon. Mr. Curtis — 2107

Auditor General Act (Bill 45) Second reading

Mr. Chabot — 2108

Mr. Cocke — 2113

Mr. Hewitt — 2116

Mr. Barber — 2119

Mr. Bawlf — 2120

Hon. Mr. McClelland — 2122

British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act (Bill 23) Second reading

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 2123

Constitution Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 15) Second reading

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 2124

Mr. Stupich — 2124

Mr. Lea — 2125

Mr. Bawlf — 2126

Mr. Lauk — 2127

Mr. Kerster — 2129

Mr. Skelly — 2130

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to

inform the House that as a result of representations which were made in

Whitehorse yesterday by the Government of British Columbia, the Yukon

Legislative Assembly today unanimously passed a motion in support of

British Columbia's wish that the Alaska Highway corridor pipeline be

given consideration by the National Energy Board of Canada and the

Federal Power Commission of the United States of America.

The British Columbia delegation pointed out to the Legislative

Assembly of the Yukon Territory, now in session, that early studies

would indicate that the proposed pipeline route has important social

and economic possibilities for both British Columbia and the Yukon.

While a great deal of work remains to be done on studies, the early

reports to the British Columbia government, from both the British

Columbia Energy Commission and the British Columbia Petroleum

Corporation, indicate that the project should be considered by the

appropriate regulatory agencies in both Canada and the United States.

I hope the House will agree that the initiative with respect to this

matter, which was taken by this government and endorsed unanimously by

the Yukon Legislative Assembly, is worthy of support on all sides of

the House.

Mr. Speaker, I'd ask leave to read the resolution passed by the Yukon Legislature, and table it in the House.

"It was moved by the hon. member for Whitehorse

North-Centre and seconded by the hon. member for Watts Lake that the

Yukon Legislative Assembly convey to the National Energy Board of

Canada and the United States Federal Power Commission the desire of

this House that full consideration be given to an Alaska Highway route

for the transmission of natural gas from Alaska to British Columbia,

and that because of the social, economic and political advantages

inherent in the Alaska Highway route, that it be considered as a viable

alternative to the coastal or Mackenzie Valley proposals, and the Yukon

Legislative Assembly formally requests that the Hon. Judd Buchanan,

Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, lend his support

to this House to ensure that in fact due consideration is given to this

proposal."

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'd also point out to the House, Mr.

Speaker, that while in the Yukon I met many of the MLAs, who, at the

invitation of the former government, have visited this House. They,

indeed, were appreciative of the courtesies at that time, and I've

invited them to come back and visit with us again. I hope that some of

our members could go up on a visit to the Yukon where their new

Legislature is emerging, and as a young government in a very important

part of Canada, that we could also take the time to help them and to

visit with them. So I hope we could have a future exchange with them,

as was started last year in 1975.

I'd also point out that while in the Yukon they presented me with

this sourdough vest. I was very pleased to receive it and wear it on

behalf of all the members of the Legislature and British Columbians. At

that time I was also able to attend several functions as the guest of

the Yukon Legislature, and, Mr. Speaker, we certainly appreciate the

good friendship that was extended to us by that Legislature.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, we would like to

express the appreciation of the official opposition for the Premier's

statement. I think that perhaps the most significant thing about this

is that another answer is being considered — at least, another proposal

has been made. Certainly we are all very interested at looking at all

of the possible ways of moving this source of energy. Certainly the

discussion of energy has heightened a lot in the last three years, and

it is going to be increasingly important. The way in which we handle

energy once we've moved it, and the way in which we move it, is

extremely important.

We're all very concerned about the coastal route; we're all very

concerned about the Mackenzie route. We do appreciate that at least

another possible answer has been thrown into the hopper, and we hope

that out of all this information that has been thrown in, the best

answer will come, the answer that will best suit the citizens of

British Columbia, the best answer for the people of this part of thy

world.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I'm

glad to have the Premier's statement. I'm sorry the British Columbia

House hasn't yet had the opportunity the Yukon House has had to debate

this proposal which, hopefully, we'll be able to do under the Premier's

estimates, and, I hope at that time, have maximum information from him.

This is a proposition that looks good for British Columbia, but let

the public not be too misled as to its value. If this pipeline is

completed, much of the pipe will come from outside of our province,

many of the people will come from outside....

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic

[ Page 2108 ]

Development): You don't know that.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano has the floor.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, if you're

able to initiate a pipe mill in British Columbia to service this

pipeline route, good for you, but I'm talking about existing facilities.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Where's our steel mill?

MR. GIBSON: I trust that the government, in advancing this

plan, will simultaneously be planning ways and means to avoid the

growing pains and inevitable disruption of an enormous project of this

kind. The tremendous benefit to British Columbia will be twofold; it

will be a better utilization of Westcoast Transmission's network and an

opportunity for long-term conservation for our own natural gas.

There are benefits for Canada as well. If this is to be the route

that is chosen finally it will avoid a lot of problems in the Northwest

Territories and give time to work out some of the problems there so

that in the fullness of time gas from the Mackenzie delta can be

brought down that route, but this would give an alternate route for

Alaska gas in the meantime. It's a very promising and exciting thing. I

hope that we will have the fullest of details in the fullness of time.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, we have already had a statement

from the official opposition and from the leader of the Liberal Party

(Mr. Gibson)....

Interjections.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, my news may

seem somewhat pale after this past announcement but, on behalf of my

colleague from Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree), I would like the House to welcome

Mr. and Mrs. Harry Woollam of Enderby who are here to hear the most

exciting debate on Canada's most exciting bill this evening.

Introduction of bills.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

Hon. Mr. Curtis presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Municipal Amendment Act, 1976.

Bill 53 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 45.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano on a point of order.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I think it would be proper to ask leave, this being private members' day.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 45, with leave.

Leave granted.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Who's speaking next, before I answer that? (Laughter.)

AUDITOR GENERAL ACT

(continued)

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I rise in

support of Bill 45, the Auditor General Act. I was rather amused by an

aside from the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) — I , guess the

only member for Vancouver Centre. The other one (Mr. Barnes)— I don't know whether he's the first or the second —

is always absent. The taller one is always absent. But, you know, in an

aside about the potential job creation in the north through the

movement of a resource through the province of British Columbia, in

which jobs are going to be created, the member for Vancouver Centre

suggested that we shouldn't be gambling with our resources. Well, Mr.

Speaker, we know full well what's happened to our resource under the

auditor-general bill, Bill 45. What happened to our resource is that

resource exploration in this province was destroyed by the former

government. Here they're suggesting that we're gambling with a resource

which belongs to someone else, when those people not only gambled but

they wasted taxpayers' money, which is a great principle in this....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member....

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): You're being silly, Jim.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Member, we are dealing with the Auditor General Act.

[ Page 2109 ]

MR. CHABOT: Well, the auditor-general, I'm sure, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Could I proceed? Would the hon.

member please relate his comments to the principle of Bill 45, which is

the Auditor General Act?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, my comments are related to the

waste, abuse and extravagance of taxpayers' money, and I am sure that

the auditor-general will have an opportunity of examining the wasteful

years — the lost years in British Columbia — those three years and

three months that were lost in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHABOT: I'm sure that he'll have an opportunity to render

a judgment — the auditor-general, once he's in place — on the kind of

extravagances that took place...

MR. LAUK: Who will it be — Gunderson?

MR.CHABOT: ...the kind of expenses that took place at places

like Baceda's cabaret in Vancouver; the kind of expenses that took

place at Marriott's Camelback Inn in Phoenix, Arizona...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhhhhh!

MR. CHABOT: ...at the Waldorf Astoria — thousands of dollars

in New York — and I am sure that the auditor-general will have an

opportunity to express his point of view as to whether these taxpayers'

dollars were used wisely or wasted at these resorts, at these enjoyment

centres.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): None of them were bar bills, were they, Jim?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's your own member.

MR. CHABOT: Well, I hear an hon. member say that none of

these were bar bills, but I have no intention of revealing where these

bills were accrued. I've seen them. But I'm not going to comment on

them. Nevertheless, you know, when I look at this bill I have to

conclude that it's the best Auditor General Act that has been

introduced in Canada and, as the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) might say, the best in the world.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak to the press gallery!

MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, the principle of the bill is

one which will allow full scrutiny of taxpayers' expenses. No longer in

British Columbia will the government be able to conceal expenditures

from the taxpayers of this province. On an annual basis the taxpayers

of this province will get an annual report of the kind of expenditures

that have been made in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like the coverup of the BCR.

MR. CHABOT: Like Maxwell Henderson and his exposition of the

Bonaventure — I'm sure that if one were to look back on the last three

and a half years in British Columbia there'd be many Bonaventures to be

revealed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHABOT: No longer will the government be able to purchase

and refurbish, no longer will the government be able to be wasteful and

extravagant, and if they are, this legislation will ensure that their

extravagance and their wastefulness will see the light of day.

Embarrassing or not, the government's accounting to the taxpayers of

this province, which is only right, for once and for all will see the

light of day.

Never again, Mr. Speaker, will it be the sole responsibility of

members of the public accounts committee to ferret out extravagances on

the part of the ministers, extravagances on the part of government.

We'll have an auditor-general who will assist and who will give a

public accounting on extravagances of government.

The auditor-general, Mr. Speaker, will expose the shenanigans that

take place in government. The auditor-general will expose the

shenanigans that took place in the purchase of the Westcoast

Transmission shares by the former Minister of Finance. And that was a

shenanigan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: That was! That was abuse of taxpayers' money, an extravagant abuse of taxpayers' money.

MR. LEA: No confidence in the private sector!

MR. CHABOT: No longer will it be necessary for the members of

the opposition or for the Leader of the Opposition to ask questions in

the House, because an auditor-general and his staff will reveal the

facts of life as far as government expenditures are concerned. Because

on March 18, 1974, a question was put to the former Minister of Finance

(Mr. Barrett) who is seeking re-election in

[ Page 2110 ]

Vancouver East. If I had the record he has in government, I wouldn't

be running again. I'd be long gone out of this country and out of this

province as well. Because Mr. Bennett asked the hon. Minister of

Finance on March 18, 1974, the following question: "Has the provincial

government purchased shares in Westcoast Transmission Co. Ltd. on the

open market? Question 2: if the answer to No. 1 is yes, was the

brokerage commission paid? Question 3: if the answer to No. 2 is yes,

what was the amount of commission paid? To what firm or individual was

the commission paid, and was the commission paid a negotiated

arrangement?"

In reply the answers are: "Yes, yes, No. 3 (a), $405,000 to purchase

the shares" — 1.1 million shares of Westcoast Transmission.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: That's the answer of the Minister of Finance in

March of 1974. Then he said: "Who paid it?" The taxpayers of this

province paid it. Absolutely!

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: The brokerage fee, $405,000. To be exact it was

$404,993.75 — to Wisener and Partners Co. Ltd., whoever they are. And

3(c), "Yes" — "Was the commission paid a negotiated arrangement?"

Well, I would hope that the auditor-general would have some comments

about this kind of a negotiated arrangement, because it is common

knowledge in stock market circles, Mr. Speaker, that any stock

transaction, purchase or sale of $500,000 or over has a negotiated

price, and we have the figures here submitted by the former Minister of

Finance of the province to suggest that yes, the amount of commission

paid by the government of British Columbia or its agencies was

$405,000, paid to Wisener and Partners of Toronto.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: No, not paid by the government.

MR. CHABOT: Well!

AN HON. MEMBER: Go look at public accounts. It was paid by the seller.

MR. CHABOT: No, no, $405,000.

MR. LAUK: No!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Columbia River has the floor at the moment.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, it

was a very simple question that was put to the Minister of Finance of

the day: was a commission paid, and if the Minister of Finance hadn't

paid, on behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia, $405,000...?

MR. LEA: Read the whole thing, word for word.

MR. LAUK: Tell the truth.

MR. CHABOT: All right, I'll read the whole thing word for word.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member for Columbia River has the floor.

MR. CHABOT: Yes. Question 75 was answered on March 18, 1974.

Mr. Bennett asked the hon. Minister of Finance the following question:

1. Has the provincial government purchased shares in the Westcoast

Transmission Co. Ltd. on the open market?

MR. LAUK: Answer: yes.

MR. CHABOT: Answer, yes.

MR. LAUK: Question 2.

MR. CHABOT: Question 2: if the answer to question 1 is yes, was a brokerage commission paid?

MR. LAUK: Answer: yes.

MR. CHABOT: Question 3: if the answer to question 2 is yes, what was the amount of commission paid? The answer to that one is $404,993.75.

MR. LAUK: He didn't know to ask the fourth question.

MR. CHABOT: Part (b): to what firm or individual was the

commission paid? Wisener & Partners. Part (c): was the commission

paid in negotiated arrangement? And the answer was yes, it was a

negotiated arrangement.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: He admits how much was paid; he admits that it was a negotiated arrangement.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: How stupid can you be over there? It's quite

obvious that the taxpayers of this province paid that negotiated

arrangement. We know full well that the sole negotiator on the part

of the

[ Page 2111 ]

government was one Dave Barrett, seeking re-election in Vancouver

East today. He was the sole negotiator who paid this extravagant price

of $405,000 in commission fees. The people of British Columbia have

been taken on the purchase of Westcoast Transmission shares, Mr.

Speaker. The auditor-general will reveal these kinds of shenanigans if

they ever take place in government again.

MR. LAUK: Would you stake your seat on it, Jim? Would you resign?

MR. CHABOT: The Minister of Finance, in all his wisdom and lack of knowledge of the stock market, and the lack....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member for....

AN HON. MEMBER: No, Mr. Speaker. No, Mr. Speaker. Those members....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

[Mr. Speaker rises. ]

Interjections.

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

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I hear a lot of abuse being hurled across the way.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): If you're wrong, will you resign?

MR. CHABOT: If I'm wrong? Oh! Now you know....

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: That's all I'm doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Columbia River has the floor.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, all I'm doing is quoting responses

that were given to us by the former Minister of Finance (Mr. Barrett)

of this province.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Columbia River has the

floor, speaking to this bill. Would you kindly extend to him the

courtesy of the House and allow him to continue his speech and his

delivery to this House?

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much. They are suggesting that their Premier lied to the House when he gave these answers, because...

MR. LAUK: You're a disgrace!

MR.CHABOT: ...all I'm doing, Mr. Speaker, is quoting

information conveyed to this House by the Premier, and they're

suggesting if I'm wrong that maybe I should resign. Well, maybe if I'm

wrong it's because the former Premier of British Columbia lied to this

House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: The former Premier lied to this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

AN HON. MEMBER: You're dumb!

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): And you're so clever!

MR. SPEAKER: Will you kindly return to the principle of Bill 45, which is the Auditor General Act?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, it's abundantly clear when we're

looking at the auditor-general that he will be able to examine the kind

of erroneous — as those people reveal it, it's erroneous.... They're

challenging the word of the former Premier of this province, the former

Minister of Finance. They're suggesting that he lied to this House

when he gave this answer. I suggest that the Premier gave the

information that was conveyed to him, in reply to the questions that

were put in the House.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, and this kind of a deal was negotiated directly by the Premier with Wisener &

[ Page 2112 ]

Partners in Toronto, for which the taxpayers of British Columbia

have been bilked the sum of $405,000. It has become quite evident that

if the Premier had any brains at all....

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Sorry, the former Premier. Well, I'm talking in

the past, and when I'm talking in the past I sometimes.... Well, Dave

Barrett, if he had any brains at all, would have looked at the

possibilities of buying these shares at the best price possible for the

taxpayers of this province.

I'm sure the auditor-general, in bringing down his annual report,

would reveal the kind of abuses that have taken place in the purchase

of Westcoast Transmission shares, because it comes to light that the

shares were available from El Paso Natural Gas.

They could have been purchased directly from El Paso Natural Gas at

no cost to the taxpayers of this province. Yet the taxpayers have been

burdened by a cost, in the words of the former Premier, of $405,000.

It's my understanding, from conversations I've had regarding this

exorbitant cost, Mr. Speaker, that a deal of this magnitude, which

involved purchases of over $500,000 of stock, could have been made

through negotiations of a broker other than Wisener and Partners from

Toronto for between $50,000 and $75,000.

MR. LAUK: Nonsense!

MR. CHABOT: The member for Vancouver Centre says it's

nonsense. He has great knowledge of the stock market, I assume. He

spent most of his life defending heroin addicts — that's all his

practice ever was.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Member, may I draw your

attention to the fact that we're debating the principle of Bill 45.

Many asides are hurled across the floor of this House, but you're the

only member who has possession of the floor at the moment. Those asides

you do not have to reply to. When they're hurled out, they're not

hurled out in debate. You're the one who has your place on the floor of

the House at this time in debate. You must take full responsibility for

the remarks that you deliver to this House as long as you have

possession of the floor. Intemperate remarks cast across the floor,

regardless of how much provocation you personally feel may be involved,

are not in good keeping with the House.

I'd ask you to return now to the principle of Bill 45 and direct your debate to the Auditor General Act.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

The principle of the bill is the establishment of an auditor-general

in this province who will reveal any shenanigans that might take place

in government. I'm suggesting that the shenanigans that have taken

place in this province in the last three and a half years would fill a

full book of the auditor-general in his annual report. It's quite

common knowledge that the transfer of shares that I'm referring to —

the Westcoast Transmission shares which were purchased by the province

— could have been made through a broker other than Wisener and Partners

for between $50,000 and $75,000. And they could have been purchased

directly at no cost to the taxpayers of this province.

But, no, through direct negotiations through the former Minister of

Finance, one Dave Barrett, who is seeking re-election in Vancouver

East, the taxpayers of British Columbia have been subjected to a cost

of $405,000. It's a very sad episode in the history of this province

and the history of government in this province. I would like to see an

auditor-general even look at this particular deal alone; look back and

come up with a decision as to whether it was wise and what the

motivation was behind the expenditure of $405,000 of taxpayers' money.

I can't really understand why Wisener and Partners, after its

original direct negotiations with one Dave Barrett, found it necessary

to seek a seat on the Vancouver Stock Exchange in British Columbia. Was

it after having made this great windfall profit that they found that

the profits were so great and the individuals they were dealing with so

lacking in knowledge and ability that they thought here was the great

opportunity to pluck the taxpayers of British Columbia? Is that why

they came to British Columbia and established themselves on the

Vancouver Stock Exchange — because they found somebody willing to waste

and abuse the taxpayers of this province?

HON. MR. MAIR: Easy pickings.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, easy pickings. It appears that that was the

prime motivation in Wisener and Partners securing a seat on the

Vancouver Stock Exchange.

We have the conclusive evidence, Mr. Speaker. The Premier indicated

on March 18, 1974, that he paid a commission of $405,000 in the purchase

of Westcoast Transmission. Yet it wasn't too long after, Mr. Speaker,

that Wisener and Partners of Toronto denied having received $405,000.

They denied it. They suggested that they had received only about

$200,000. One has to question who is right. Who is telling the truth in

this said episode, Mr. Speaker? There's a serious discrepancy here

where the former Minister of Finance suggests that he paid $405,000 and

Wisener and Partners of Toronto indicate they haven't received more

than $200,000. What has

[ Page 2113 ]

happened to the additional $205,000? Who got the additional $205,000, or where did it go?

MR. LAUK: I'll tell you.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, did it go for a condominium in Hawaii?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. CHABOT: Do you think it went for a ranch in California?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. CHABOT: Somebody has to answer these questions as to what

happened to the additional $205,000. Did it go for an apartment

building in Seattle? The taxpayers of this province, Mr. Speaker, have

a right to know what happened to the $205,000.

Mr. Speaker, never again, because of the introduction of this bill,

will the taxpayers of this province be subject to being fleeced. Never

again will the question arise as to what happened to $205,000 of

taxpayers' money, because the auditor-general will have a

responsibility to give an accounting to this House. Here we have a

serious conflict of statements between the former Minister of Finance,

who says he paid $405,000, and Wisener and Partners, who suggest they

received no more than $200,000. It leaves a lot of questions in the

minds of the people of this province as to what happened to the other

$205,000.

No longer will it be possible for the Minister of Finance in the

province of British Columbia to be able to wheel and deal with friends

without the possibility of being exposed by the auditor-general. I'm

sure the auditor-general will be exposing any kind of deals such as

I've just talked about, Mr. Speaker, and no longer will it be the sole

responsibility of members to ferret out this kind of information, these

kinds of contradictions, these kinds of wasteful measures that took

place in the last three years.

MR. LEA: You're in so deep you can't get out.

HON. MR. MAIR: Oh, go steal a memo.

MR. CHABOT: I'm very grateful, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister

of Finance is investigating what has taken place regarding the purchase

of the Westcoast Transmission shares, and the investigation is needed

indeed.

In Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, we have Bonaventure affairs; in British

Columbia it appears that we have Wisener and Partners affairs. Thank

God for the auditor-general — these kinds of shenanigans will be

exposed in the future.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, probably in

all the time I've been here — and I've seem some real shenanigans from

that side of the House — I've never seen such an acrimonious, spiteful,

misleading kind of play as I have tonight. Mr. Speaker, that member

taking out his frustration in not getting into the cabinet on this side

of the House is just a little bit too much.

Mr. Speaker, he closed off his phony discussion by saying that there's an investigation....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, you're going to accept from me the same kind of discussion that you accepted from him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Hon. Member. Will the hon. member please take his seat?

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): You're going to be fair.

MR. SPEAKER: I intend to be fair to all sides of the House.

MR. LAUK: You let him slander this side of the House and a former Premier of this province! Shame!

[Mr. Speaker rises. ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Hon. Member for New Westminster, the

debate that you engage upon, as long as it's related to the Auditor

General Act, will be allowed. But when you refer to another hon. member

and the remarks that he made as being phony remarks, then that is using

the word "phony" in a personal manner against another hon. member. If

that was your intent then that is not permitted, as you know. If it's

an observation, that's one thing, but if you're accusing him of phony

remarks, then that is not permitted under the rules of this House. This

is all I want to point out to you.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat. ]

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In any event, Mr. Speaker,

what I'm discussing is the question that the member spoke about an

investigation going on and he didn't have the patience to wait for that

investigation to conclude. Instead of that, Mr. Speaker, he gets up,

using the Auditor General Act as an opportunity or an excuse to raise

the kinds of questions that he raised. Mr. Speaker, I find that a bit

much.

Mr. Speaker, there was an excess of one million shares. Had we had

an auditor-general at that time, as we will have in the future, he

would have known all

[ Page 2114 ]

this. There was an excess of one million shares bought. The bid

price for those shares, Mr. Speaker, was El Paso, and El Paso paid the

commission. My understanding is....

AN HON. MEMBER: The vendor does.

MR. COCKE: The vendor does. If I sell a house, I pay

commission on the house. If I sell shares, I pay the commission on the

shares that I sell. Mr. Speaker, the member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot) doesn't know it, but an auditor-general would certainly know it.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: The ex-Premier could not answer a question that

wasn't asked. The question was asked: what was the commission? The

ex-Premier answered that question by saying what that commission was.

It was a commission negotiated, and I understand there is a possibility

that El Paso didn't pay the full commission but were able to retain

some of the commission themselves. If that's the case....

Interjections.

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

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, however, if that member is

intimating, even in the slightest way, that someone from our government

or someone from the civil service or anybody...

MR. CHABOT: I suggested Dave Barrett.

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

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that member is the most irresponsible

creature I have ever seen in this House. The one person who did not

enrich himself in any way shape or form having been Premier of this

province was one Dave Barrett, a person whom...you aren't fit to wipe

his shoes!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the hon. member please address the Chair?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Are you on a point of order, Hon. Member?

MR. LAUK: Yes. The hon. member for Columbia River just

commented across the floor indicating that he thought Dave Barrett, a

former Premier of this province, enriched himself by virtue of his

office. It was a clear suggestion by his remark. I would ask that

member to withdraw the remark, not because he is offending...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: May I finish?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member....

MR. LAUK: He is not a member of this House, but I am raising

another rule. If Mr. Speaker were patient, I could finish quickly. The

point is this....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has the floor on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The point I am raising is

this: the suggestion by the member for Columbia River is clear slander.

If he said it in the corridor, he could be sued and, I would think,

successfully. Now it's long since the practice of parliaments in the

British system that members are not allowed to slander innocent citizens

outside of the House in this chamber simply because he is hiding behind

privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, may I reply to the point of order

before I give you the floor? Hon. members, in this debate this evening

there have been asides cast back and forth across the floor. If those

words were uttered on the floor of the House when a person is standing

in his place, those words would have received the full consideration of

the Chair, and the Chair would have asked that person for an immediate

withdrawal. That has happened in this debate in the last hour, or the

better part of the last hour. Now to ask a person who is not in

possession of the floor to withdraw words is something that, to me,

becomes a bit of a problem, because I try to maintain order, and the

person who has the floor at this particular time is the hon. member for

New Westminster, no one else.

MR. CHABOT: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) didn't hear me well when I said "Dave

Barrett." When I was responding to the member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke), who has the floor right now, he was commenting on the fact that

possibly civil servants had negotiated this agreement of the sale and

purchase of Westcoast Transmission....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is not time for

[ Page 2115 ]

an explanation of what you have said in your speech. You can argue

that point at the end of the hon. member for New Westminster's address.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, one of the things I would like to

deal with for just a moment, and an auditor-general would know this, is

that when a large block of shares is bought, if they are bought through

the normal way of buying shares — through the brokerage houses, picking

them up in small lots — then you force the price of shares up. At the

time we are talking about, the asking price for those shares was $22.50

— the market price. The bid price was somewhere between $21.75 and $22.

But, Mr. Speaker, the asking price was $22.50.

If you even paid the market price, even paid the $22.50, you are

going to pay $500,000 more than the $22 that we paid. We paid $22. The

50 cents would have given you the extra $500,000.

But I suspect that you would have paid much, much more than that had

you done it through the normal acquisition, because once somebody

starts buying blocks of shares of this sort, then naturally the price

goes shooting up because people realize that somebody wants them.

So since there was a block of shares available and since the advice

was that it was an excellent buy, and since the seller pays the

commission...and you see the fourth or fifth question on that —

unfortunately, the former Minister of Finance (Mr. Barrett) didn't

gratuitously answer it himself — and that is that the purchaser does

not pay the commission; the seller pays the commission.

So, Mr. Speaker, we've had all of this screaming and these antics

around a situation that has paid off for the province. Take a look at

their value now, and think in terms of their future value. The value

that I can see is the fact that this province, at long last, got a

handle on a conveyer of natural resources, the pipeline people, who, as

a matter of fact, were assisted greatly by our policy on increased

price for natural gas.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we could have paid as high as $25 or

more for those shares, on an average, had we bought them through what

they consider to be the normal method of purchase. If you're in the

market for a million shares, a block like that, and if you can make an

excellent deal.... And there was certainly no way, no way at all that

anybody was enriched by that deal, and that member knows it over there.

He's playing politics, and I think it is the shabbiest kind of politics

I've ever seen...

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Typical of that government.

MR. COCKE: ...just the shabbiest kind of politics. If he, by

rumour-mongering like that, is trying to somehow or another affect the

results in another jurisdiction, in a by-election, I just find that,

Mr. Speaker, one of the most deplorable things. If there were an

auditor-general in this province....

MR. SPEAKER: May I interrupt you for just one moment, please?

I would ask you to relate your remarks to the Auditor General Act,

which is before the House this evening.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. As a member of long standing in

this House, I'm sure you are aware of the fact that the rules of debate

on the principle of a bill are that you must relate your remarks to the

principle of the bill. I'll allow some latitude, as I have done to

other members in other bills, provided you relate your remarks to the

principle of the bill.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and as I said at the outset, if

there were an auditor-general I'm sure that we wouldn't be going

through all of this. But there is a comptroller-general, and really I

think that I find the accusations that are being made pretty insulting

to those people who work in the comptroller-general's department.

MR. CHABOT: Nonsense!

MR. COCKE: No nonsense about it.

MR. CHABOT: Nonsense!

MR. COCKE: No nonsense about it. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I believe that....

Interjections.

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

MR. COCKE: We are all just a little bit ashamed of ourselves this evening for what we've seen in our House.

AN HON. MEMBER: So you should be.

HON. MR. MAIR: There's the member for overrun.

MR. COCKE: If you're a responsible minister....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member

[ Page 2116 ]

for New Westminster has the floor.

MR. LEA: Call motion 9!

MR. COCKE: I just hope that you're not any part of that kind of rot.

MR. LEA: Read Motion 9. That's about your memo. Read Motion 9.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go steal a memo!

Interjections.

MR. LEA: I'll bet it dies on the order paper.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I think enough has been said. I would

support an auditor-general, and particularly tonight after witnessing

what has occurred this evening. That member could have gone and pulled

the vouchers.

MR. CHABOT: I hope it never happens again.

MR. COCKE: I just find it disgraceful. I do, Mr. Member.

Regardless of how you feel about not being elevated, regardless of how

frustrated you must feel, I really think that you could have done a lot

better had you given a considered argument tonight.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Hear, hear!

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, of

course I am rising to support Bill 45, the Auditor General Act. Mr.

Speaker, I am very pleased that this Act has come before this House at

this time, a very short period of time after this government was

elected. This was an election promise. It was a commitment by this

party to bring forward this bill so that we could have an independent

auditor-general for this province — a tremendous step forward, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I think shows the fairness of

this legislation and shows the true scope of what this government is

attempting to do for the province of British Columbia and the citizens

of British Columbia, is that the appointment of that independent

auditor-general will be done by a special committee of this

Legislature, and I agree with and support the comments of the member

for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) who asked that in this special committee all

parties be represented. To the member for Oak Bay, I agree with that. I

think it would be a good step to make sure that every party was

represented in the selection of that auditor-general.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that the auditor-general would be

independent. He would have far-reaching powers, and I would refer the

members to

section 6, which states that: "The auditor-general shall

examine in such manner as he considers necessary the accounts and

records of the government relating to the consolidated revenue fund and

all public money, including trusts and special funds under the

management of the government and to public property.

Mr. Speaker, he has far-ranging capacity to look at all aspects of

public funds. And he'll report annually to this Legislature. His report

will be placed before this body to be discussed. And in regard to

section 8(c), I believe it is....

Interjections.

MR. HEWITT: His purposes in his report, Mr. Speaker, are very far-ranging, and I would just like to comment on some of them.

The auditor-general shall report annually to the Legislative

Assembly and he shall observe that accounts have not been faithfully

and properly kept, that public money has not been fully accounted for,

essential records have not been maintained or the rules, procedures or

systems of internal control applied have been insufficient.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on. There are a number of things in that

particular

section which I'm sure we will be dealing with when we

discuss the bill in committee. But it is far-reaching and it includes

the Crown corporations. I would suggest to you and to the members of

this assembly that the famous or infamous situation of ICBC when we had

a $34 million loss in 1974 — and the previous administration and the

directors of that corporation were well aware of the problems.... They

were well aware that they were making political decisions not based on

actuarially sound information, but political decisions that resulted in

a $150 million loss the following year.

Mr. Speaker, the information regarding that Crown corporation would

come before this House. We would not have experienced the wrath and the

lengthy debate on something that would have been brought forward,

placed before this assembly, placed before the people of British

Columbia so they would have understood that the decisions that were

made by the former administration were political and that ICBC was

being run as a political instrument and not as a sound insurance

corporation. Mr. Speaker, if nothing else, if that administration had

brought in a bill such as this, they wouldn't have been able to

hoodwink the public in the province of British Columbia for two years.

Mr. Speaker, there's another one that came to mind. I'm a new member

in this House like many others sitting back here — new members who

aren't quite familiar how this whole system operates. But we're

learning fast. We've had to learn fast in the face

[ Page 2117 ]

of what was left by the previous administration. The famous study,

the special study on B.C. Savings and Trust, Mr. Speaker, a study that

was commissioned, I gather.... There is no record. There was no record

of who commissioned it, who authorized payments for it. And if I'm not

mistaken, the figures were something like $150,000 billed for that

study.

Mr. Speaker, as a former director of the corporation that was in

part carrying out that study, I know it wasn't that corporation that

was doing anything that they were not proud of. But I would say that if

an administration can't keep track of their accounts, can't do the

proper thing in commissioning a study or authorizing the payment of a

bill, then we certainly should have had the auditor-general last year

and not this year.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to comment, too, on the famous $ 100 million

overrun in 1974 by the famous Human Resources Minister, the small one.

It was $ 100 million — and as an alderman of a city at that particular

time, the man wouldn't even face the convention of UBCM because he was

ashamed of that.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, the representatives of the municipalities across this

province were pretty touchy on that particular date because he wouldn't

perform. He wouldn't show. He performs very well in this House. He can

comment along with the best of them. But when it comes to taking care

of the people's money, he's done a very poor job, in my opinion.

HON. MR. MAIR: You betcha! Protected it here, Jim. Safe and sound. Safe and sound.

MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I've been a member of the public

accounts committee this year. As a new member, it's a very difficult

procedure. It becomes a political forum many, many times.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Who makes it that?

MR. HEWITT: The chairman of the public accounts committee,

the member for Nanaimo, says, "Who makes it that?" And, Hon. Member, I

have to agree with you that we have two political parties there, and

the odd time we have a representative from the Liberals and the

Conservatives. But we get into a political debate. I think the member

for Nanaimo, being an accountant, would agree that an auditor-general

would solve some of the problems that that committee faces, because we

do get into political discussions.

But then I would ask you, Hon. Member — you were Minister of

Finance. You've been a member of this House. You were a member of the

cabinet. Why not 1973? Why not 1974? Why not 1975? This government

brought this bill in, not your government.

MR. STUPICH: It will be there when we get back in 1979.

MR. HEWITT: Never again, Mr. Member. Never again. Mr.

Speaker, the auditor-general also has the opportunity to review the

accounting procedures of the government to make improvements and

recommendations where necessary, and I think that's a very important

part of his role.

Mr. Speaker, in regard to Crown corporations, he would have the

ability to review the accounts of the Crown corporations. Maybe

something that has come out of the Clarkson Gordon report in regard to

the Ocean Falls Corp., which that previous administration talked about

in saving of jobs and the fact that that company was purchased — it was

there, the town was saved and the jobs were saved.... Maybe, just

maybe, we wouldn't have to go through a Clarkson Gordon report; the

auditor-general would report in regard to the position of Crown

corporations. I would just like to read out of the Clarkson Gordon

report, because the opposition has never brought it up in all the

debate.

"The estimated operating loss for the year ended December 31, 1975, amounts to $310,000."

Not too significant, Mr. Speaker.

"The company owes $5 million to the province, on which

the interest is accrued but not paid, and has a bank loan of $1.7

million, as of December 31, 1975. There are no major capital

commitments, although, in management's opinion, if operations are

continued with the existing facilities, the company's competitive

position will deteriorate.

"Alternatives, which are being considered, will require capital additions ranging from $40 million to $250 million."

Mr. Speaker, Crown Zellerbach knew how obsolete that operation was.

That government keeps commenting on the savings of jobs, but if they

would look and consider the fact that the company is operating with

obsolete equipment.... Until Clarkson Gordon did the report, I'm sure

nobody was aware that it might be a quarter of a billion dollars to

bring that operation up to where it can make a profit in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I think things like that should be brought before the

public. The decision can be made in this Legislature with the public

being fully aware of what the government is doing, rather than hearing

the great things that they're doing to save jobs but

[ Page 2118 ]

not fully recognizing the impact on every taxpayer of this province.

Mr. Speaker,

section 11 of the Act allows for the auditor-general to

make a special report to this Legislature at any time prior to his

annual report. He is not hamstrung; he can come in and make his special

report if he feels that the situation deems it necessary. That is a

pretty liberal part of his job, Mr. Speaker, the fact that he can come

before this House and speak his piece to make us aware, and make the

public aware, of the problem, should it exist.

Section 3 says that a government, the party in power, cannot relieve

this man of his position; this Legislature is the only body that can

relieve the man of the position of auditor-general. Mr. Speaker,

that's the kind of Act that this government, this Minister of Finance,

has placed before this House. It's no wonder the opposition would not

dare oppose any portion of it, because it is the most open piece of

legislation brought before any House in any province regarding an

auditor-general. Mr. Speaker, I commend the Minister of Finance for an

excellent piece of legislation.

I believe it was the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who's

not in the House at the present time, who commented regarding Westcoast

Transmission and the purchase of the shares. He made some comment on

how good a deal it was. I can tell you what little we have accomplished

in public accounts is to find out, as late as this morning when we have

the Bank of B.C. representative there, that in 1975 the previous

government had the opportunity to exercise rights to purchase

additional shares in the Bank of B.C. At that time we owned, I believe,

and as the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) commented, approximately

55,000 shares — 51,055 — 10 per cent of the previous total

capitalization of that company, which of course was all the province

was allowed to have in the Bank of B.C.

They expanded their capital by issuing rights. We had the

opportunity to pick up one share for every two we had, for an amount of

$15 a share — at the time the market value of those shares was $18.

We have a company that has gone, I believe, from $30 million in

assets in 1968 to $625 million at the end of 1975 — a growing western

bank, a bank that B.C. can be proud of. And that administration failed

to exercise the rights and allowed the opportunity to pick up another

25,000 shares with the Bank of B.C., through their superannuation fund

as an investment to protect the superannuation fund of the province for

the employees.... They didn't want to pick it up; they let it go by the

board.

That, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure an auditor-general would bring out in

this House and say that this is mismanagement, this is something on

which the particular party in power made an error, something that they

could have accomplished for the benefit of the Bank of B.C. — a

western bank, 92 per cent owned by people of the province of British

Columbia and a good investment for the employees of the province. And

that previous administration didn't pick it up. An auditor-general

could point that out to the public of this province and to the members

of this House.

Mr. Speaker, this government has taken a great step forward...

AN HON. MEMBER: Ha!

MR. HEWITT: ...and the people of B.C. should know, and should

know well, that the opposition is in full agreement with this bill.

They dare not be. They had three and a half years to bring forward such

a bill. The "people's party" — quote, unquote. The people's party, but

they never once thought to protect the people's money. They had a $ 100

million overrun in 1974 in the Department of Human Resources. They had

astronomical losses in ICBC.

Interjections.

MR. HEWITT: And they ended up with a $541 million deficit at

the end of 1975, but never once did they ever say "Maybe we should have

an auditor-general to make sure that all the facts are placed before

the people of B.C."

AN HON. MEMBER: They were ashamed.

Interjection.

MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in Public Works, another item we've

dealt with in the public accounts committee is construction of

provincial buildings. The estimates were $20 million in 1974-1975 and

the actual expenditures were $41 million, an overrun of 106 per cent in

that one particular

section of that department. I'm sure an

auditor-general would bring that forward to the people of British

Columbia or might just check the appraised values of property against

the purchase price of property to ensure that money was well spent.

Mr. Speaker, those are the types of things where an auditor-general

is needed, and this government is prepared to bring forward this

legislation, to pass this legislation, to make sure that the people are

informed.

MR. CHABOT: Never again.

MR. HEWITT: That party likes to be known as the people's

government and I say you failed to recognize that you were the trustees

of the people's money. You were the custodians of the taxpayers' money

but you gave consideration to protecting those funds.

[ Page 2119 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: You blew it.

MR. HEWITT: And the former Premier (Mr. Barrett) who had the

time, and he thought the ability — and the arrogance — to take a dual

portfolio, a social worker in the position of Minister of Finance...to

such an extent that the province was completely out of control in 1975.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague in front of me has mentioned it and I will

close my remarks with it. Never again should such a thing be allowed to

happen, and this government is going to ensure that never again will it

happen, by passing this bill and having an auditor-general in the

province of British Columbia.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): This has been a pretty miserable debate tonight, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARBER: What's miserable about it is that this kind of

debate tonight threatens the principle of the bill that the government

has introduced.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: This bill is going to receive unanimous support.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's hear the member who has the floor.

MR. BARBER: This bill is going to have unanimous support,

will pass without a single dissenting vote, because no one, certainly

including myself, disputes the need for an auditor-general. In fact, in

my very first speech in this House I commended the government for

having had the guts to introduce the auditor-general and the ombudsman.

I said at that time that I wished the previous Social Credit government

had done it. I wish our government had done it. I'm glad you're doing

it. I support the principle of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, what has happened tonight though, if I may repeat it,

is that the principle of this bill and its successful implementation

have been endangered by this kind of debate, because there's a very

special relationship required between the government and the opposition

in order to put an auditor-general successfully into place.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) earlier today....

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Will you hear me out? Will you let me speak?

MS. BROWN: Dear Jim!

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: The Minister of Finance earlier today gave a very

dignified and a very respectable presentation of this bill. He did not

for a moment indulge in politics, in partisanship or in embittered

recollections of an election just fought. I was most impressed with the

dignified and serious way that the Minister of Finance introduced this

bill. He set what I hoped would be a constant tone throughout all of it.

The special relationship required between government and opposition

is this, Mr. Speaker: it is that we are required by the bill itself to

come to unanimous and complete agreement on the appointment of the man

or the woman who shall fill that position. This position is, like that

of the ombudsman itself, one which requires, in the quality of the

human being who holds it, some very unique capacities and one that

requires of us in the debate around it some very mature consideration.

We haven't seen that, Mr. Speaker; we haven't seen it tonight at all.

The Minister of Finance gave it earlier today; we've seen none of it

tonight.

What I want to point out for the third time, is that this kind of

debate endangers the success of the bill. We are expected to come

together, opposition and government in one room, and between us select

one person to hold this most important office. It was my understanding,

as a member of the back bench, Mr. Speaker, that this bill was going to

go through with no acrimony, with no bitterness and no partisanship.

The bill is not retroactive. No one is talking, ordinarily and prior

to tonight, about how far back these powers should go. Do they go back

to ICBC? Do they go back to Ocean Falls? Do they go back to the Dease

Lake extension of the B.C. Rail, and the suspension of the accountant?

Do they go back to the Columbia River Treaty itself? Does it go back to

Robert Sommers?

This is not a retroactive piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, and no

one, prior to tonight, proposed that we go back and fight the partisan

battles of last year and the year before and the decade before and the

decade before that. This partisanship tonight has poisoned the debate.

No one has proposed that we go back and fight our political battles

again over this thing called the auditor-general.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: That's the point, Mr. Member. We shouldn't go back that way at all; we should be looking ahead. We should be looking ahead.

[ Page 2120 ]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please, hon. members, order.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, partisanship on this issue and on

the issue of the ombudsman poisons the debate and is going to diminish

the outcome. It serves none of us to engage in it.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) set a most important tone.

This bill requires a most important relationship between government and

opposition, and that relationship is endangered if we practise

conventional politics. It is endangered. As far as I am concerned, I

say let's be done with it; let's forget about that. Let's forget what

happened last year or a decade ago or the decade before that. Let's

look toward a future upon which we are all agreed in this House, Mr.

Speaker. I predict...

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): With better government maybe we wouldn't have had to raise the sales tax; maybe we wouldn't have had to raise other taxes.

MS. BROWN: Oh you'd raise them anyway.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Victoria has the floor. Please proceed.

MR. BARBER: If it's going to be retroactive at all, how far back do we begin digging?

AN HON. MEMBER: Go back to McBride.

MR. BARBER: Would members propose that we dig into the very

terms of Confederation to find out just how much we lost financially in

that deal? Oh come on! Come on.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: The government has asked the opposition to

participate jointly and maturely in a decision about who shall be the

auditor-general, what those duties should be and how they should be

exercised, and I think that's excellent, Mr. Speaker. I want to say it:

I commend again the government for having the willingness to do that,

and again the Minister of Finance for having introduced it in such a

sober, such a decent-minded way earlier today.

Mr. Speaker, let it go through; let it go through tonight. Forget

the poison; forget the partisanship. Let's set up an auditor-general

who has not been the subject of partisan debate.

MS. BROWN: Hear, hear!

MR. BARBER: Let it go through tonight. We are all agreed that

it will get a unanimous vote. Let it go through and don't burden the

auditor-general with a history which from the first day of debate once

again in this degenerate political province saw a degenerate debate

occurring. Let it go through without politics. Let's give the

auditor-general half a chance, and a fair chance at that. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Victoria, followed by the Minister of Health.

MR. BAWLF: The second member has just sat down, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair stands corrected. It is the first member for Victoria. Sorry.

MR. BAWLF: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I feel confident that when

all the members of the House have had their opportunity to speak to

this bill, it will indeed pass unanimously. But I do feel that every

member of this House should have an opportunity to express his views

with regard to the bill.

Certainly, the question of retroactive reviews by the

auditor-general is not a factor here. But at the same time, Mr.

Speaker, you will recall that the last time I was on my feet in this

House I was speaking about the alarming trend in government spending. I

think that this is germane to this debate because, as you will recall,

I was responding to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who wasn't

in the House at the time, but who had told us of his concern for the

warchest spending of governments.

I pointed out to the House that in their last year in office the

former Social Credit government had increased their spending 11 per

cent,

whereas in their last year in office the party opposite had

increased their spending 58 per cent across the board — a staggering

sum. And we weren't talking about an adjustment to ferry rates; we

weren't talking about an adjustment here or there. We were talking

about 58 per cent across the board, Mr. Speaker. How appropriate that

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who is now scurrying from the

House, to coin the phrase "the election year war chest."

Well, I think it is germane to this debate that we consider the

implications of increases in spending of that magnitude and, as I

pointed out to the House, consider the trend that represented. If we

doubled spending, if we followed the lead of that previous government

and doubled the spending of the taxpayers' money in this province every

three years, within a decade the budget of this province of British

Columbia would not be $3.6 billion, it wouldn't be $5 billion or $ 10

billion, it wouldn't be $20 billion — it would be $ 27 billion in 10

years.

I think that an auditor-general would be very concerned about that kind of trend. I think he would

[ Page 2121 ]

have expressed his concern some time ago, had he been in office. I

certainly feel that this province would have benefited from a review of

the type of increase in spending that was fostered by that former

government — 58 per cent in one year.

Mr. Speaker, there is no government anywhere in the world that can

increase its spending by that magnitude and at that rate, and do so

efficiently. It can only be described as a phantasmagoria of spending.

I just give you a couple of examples that I think an auditor-general

could have dealt with and, very much to the benefit of this province

and the people of this province, the taxpayers of this province could

have exposed.

I give you an example of the $10,000-a-day waste that took place as

a result of delays on the building of the Vancouver court house

project. Now it is bad enough that that project, leaving aside the cost

of the amenities, is now costing over $100 a square foot to build —

$100 a square foot, twice what the space would cost if produced by the

private sector. I'm sure an auditor-general would have been very

concerned about that and brought that to the attention of this

Legislature and the people of this province, because that cost

represents, if you like, a rental value or an economic rent which is

far, far, far beyond what is necessary to accommodate the functions

that are taking place there. It can only be described as a monument to

waste.

It is bad enough that we are facing that kind of cost, but to find

that the former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hartley) had no control

over that project — as related to the Select Standing Committee on

Public Accounts by his deputy just a few days ago — and to find that

the consultants who had directed the project, and who had been chosen

in an international contest for competence through a due process of

selection, had been fired, that the project had been interfered with,

not through the Department of Public Works, but by the then-Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources, the former member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Williams), the one who pulled the disappearing act, and to

find that a new consultant was appointed on an open-ended fee basis, so

that the more costlier the project the more fee is paid, are very

disturbing facts, Mr. Speaker. And these are the sorts of facts which

would be disclosed by an auditor-general, and redressed before this

Legislature.

That former Minister of Lands and Forests who interfered with, and

in fact ran, the Department of Public Works, who appointed consultants

without even consulting with the Minister of Public Works....

AN HON. MEMBER: There goes the opposition.

MR. BAWLF: Oh, I see the last of them have left, Mr. Speaker. Even their

leader is leaving. Well, Mr. Speaker, I must say for the record that we now

find that there is not a member on the benches opposite representing the opposition

in this House.

Interjections.

MR. BAWLF: Well, democracy will carry on without the participation of the opposition, it seems.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the Minister of Lands and

Forests was running the Department of Public Works, and I'm sure that

the auditor-general would have had something to say about that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I think....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye! Aye! (Laughter.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Hon. Members, the first member for Victoria has the floor. (Laughter.)

MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, just for the record I'd like to carry

on with this line for just another moment or two and then perhaps we

can go to estimates, seeing as how there are no members of the official

opposition here to do their duty in this House.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, there's a great deal of levity here,

but may I just say that it is shocking indeed to realize the excesses

that the former government went to in spending.

When you consider that the Minister of Lands and Forests, the former

member for Vancouver East (Mr. R.A. Williams), together with the

present only member for Vancouver East, the former Attorney-General

(Mr. Macdonald), could get together and overrun the Department of

Public Works to the extent that a project was held up, and it cost them

$10,000 a day for more than a year, while in that time the project was

scaled down....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister of Consumer Services on a point of order.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I note that the members of the

opposition in their seats tonight are heckling the speaker and I think

that they ought to

[ Page 2122 ]

be brought to order with all due respect to the Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! That is not a point of order when the seats are empty. The member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BAWLF: It's awfully hard to maintain a train of thought

here with all this heckling from the opposition benches. The silence is

deafening.

As I was saying, the members, former and present, for Vancouver East

overran the Department of Public Works and delayed a project for one

year at a cost of $10,000 a day. What did they accomplish, Mr. Speaker?

They reduced the floor area and the size of that building. In fact a

courthouse building which had once been planned to be 39 courtrooms was

reduced to 35 courtrooms. The actual floor space was reduced. But the

cost of the project escalated $15 million with all of the largesse that

was incorporated into that structure, so that today, Mr. Speaker, there

is no one who can afford that building — not even the taxpayers of this

province through all the magnanimity of the former government — because

that building has cost more than double what it should.

Mr. Speaker, I could talk about some of the other excesses of that

government. I'll just touch on one other.

Section 8 of this Bill makes

it clear that we expect the auditor-general to go beyond the kind of

analytic generality engaged in by an auditor in the private sector. If

government operations are not being administered properly, it is the

auditor-general's duty to draw that to the attention of the House.

In addition to the fiasco in the Public Works department, Mr.

Speaker, we might have seen an auditor-general, had he been in place,

had the former government kept their promise to create such an office,

come before this Legislature and tell us about the administration of

the transit system in this province. This bill, at least, provides that

an auditor-general may make examinations of Crown agencies. The people

of this province would have learned that one Mr. Parker, who was

directing the Transit Bureau, was giving orders to the B.C. Hydro

transit division to expend moneys in reorganization operations. Mr.

Parker was giving these orders right down to the foreman levels in the

shops, circumventing the existing management of B.C. Hydro with the

result that the transit system of this province has operated at losses

in the tens of millions of dollars, Mr. Speaker. In fact I believe a

figure of $50 million over the last three years would be reasonably

accurate — $50 million in losses which B.C. Hydro have had to pay for

as a Crown agency with little, if any, prerogative as to the management

of that system, the management decisions being made by one Mr. Parker

of the Transit Bureau, nominally seconded to the former Minister of

Municipal Affairs, but in fact once again under the direction of the

former Minister of Lands and Forests, that former member from Vancouver

East who pulled the disappearing act.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on at great length about these kinds of

excesses because when you consider that the government of the day

increased their spending 58 per cent in one year, increased their

spending a total, in one year, from $2.1 billion to $3.4 billion,

spending an increased amount of $1.2 billion in just one year, there's

no question that there must be just a galaxy of excesses of spending

and mismanagement.

Mr. Speaker, I could, as I say, go on, but seeing that the

opposition benches are still empty, that the members of the opposition

see fit not to represent the people of the province in this Legislature

and in this very important debate, in a debate which is bringing to

this province the most enlightened auditor-general's programme in the

country, perhaps I will sit down and allow one of my colleagues to join

the debate. I thank you for your time and say that I look forward to

unanimous support for this bill.

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

wanted to point out, first of all, that our member for Kootenay (Mr.

Haddad) is noted to all members of this House as a magician, and I

asked him the other day to make the opposition disappear. I didn't

think he was that good. (Laughter.)

Anyway, I'd just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I'm very proud to be

a part of this government, having the opportunity to speak to this

bill. This is a good bill. It's the kind of bill which should make

every member of this House very proud, and I certainly am proud to

support it as the best auditor-general's bill in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like, by leave, to ask for second reading of Bill....

AN HON. MEMBER: Here they come, running down the hall.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're back!

MR. LAUK: Not just to fill in the time, Mr. Speaker, but I

understand that a motion to adjourn debate on the Auditor-General Act

was moved, that you heard the vote, I called for a division, and it was

ignored.

[ Page 2123 ]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. Members! I would like to

draw to the attention of all members of the House that at the time the

vote was taken there was no dissenting vote and the vote was declared

carried, so your point of order cannot be entertained.

MR. LAUK: Can you point out any rule to me that I, as a

member, cannot call for a division? The Auditor General Act could pass

tonight in this Legislature, and we've heard the poisonous debate from

the government side of this House all night.

The opposition members, including the Liberals and the Tories, left this House in disgust and protest at the acrimonious....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. Member!

[Deputy Speaker rises.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has no knowledge when members

leave, for protest or for any other reason. All that the Chair has to

be guided by is the fact that when the vote was taken there was no

dissenting vote, the motion was carried, and the next order of business

was called for.

[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat.]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 23, Mr. Speaker

BRITISH COLUMBIA

BUILDINGS CORPORATION ACT

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker,

Bill 23, the British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act, is just a

small little item. This bill is to finance the construction of public

buildings up to the value of $200 million, if required, and none of the

money will be borrowed unless it is required. The term can be up to 30

years for borrowing — the term of the money.

Normally the funds for these buildings have come out of the

Department of Public Works, as requested by other departments of

government. I think probably the main principle in this bill is that

the department of government that now requisitions will have to give a

better argument for the need of it. The big thing is that they will

have to pay rent once the buildings are constructed, for whatever

department they're constructed for. It puts, in other words, the

responsibility on the user department, which has not been the case in

the past, because all of that has fallen on the Department of Public

Works. It will let the corporation enter into joint undertakings with

others, and it will certainly simplify procedures. It is intended that

this corporation be self-supporting; that is, it'll pay rent to the

amount that will be required to pay back the debt that's incurred plus

the operating expenses.

Regarding buildings that are presently under construction, I think

the downtown Vancouver building referred to in the department now as

block 51, 61 and 71 will be one of the ones that will be financed by

this bill from here on. I think a little bit of history should be given

here. The prior Social Credit government, in 1968, created the $25

million building fund to construct a building in downtown Vancouver and

that fund now has no funds left. We're faced, in the case of the

downtown Vancouver building.... It's estimated to cost now $135 million

and $25 million has been spent. It's estimated that another $110

million will be required for this large downtown Vancouver complex.

That means we will have to provide out of the funds in this bill $110

million.

In that downtown Vancouver complex there are 547,600 square feet

involved in the courthouse in block 71; the government office space is

127,000 square feet. Foodfair and retail space is 23,000 square feet.

The media centre is 46,000 square feet.

Another building that could be partially financed from this B.C.

building fund created by this bill would be the Blanshard-Courtenay

structure in Victoria, which contains 232,418 square feet. An estimate

of the cost is $22 million. Another building in Victoria that will be

funded from now on from the funds derived in this bill is the health

services building in Victoria, containing 215,000 square feet at an

estimated cost of $13.5 million.

I would like to just point out one thing here, Mr. Speaker: this

bill provides the funds to continue these projects that I've just

mentioned. The point that I would like to raise here is that these

buildings will not be able to continue without the passage of this

bill. We hear from the opposition side all the time: what is this

government doing to create jobs? I would suggest that Bill 23 does just

that because, as far as I can find out from taking over the department

in December, the prior administration had no provision made to continue

with these structures, although they were going on with the structures.

But there was no funding available to continue, and I might say that

they couldn't have found it out of the 1976-77 budget. Therefore this

bill will provide the funds to continue.

You might be interested to know that because of the funds that will

be available from this bill, in 1976, 1,000 jobs will be created, or

certainly continued, which would not have been possible without this

bill. In 1977, it will create 1,500 jobs; 1978, 700 jobs; and when we

get into the year we hope to complete the

[ Page 2124 ]

downtown Vancouver building, 1979, 500 jobs will be created.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: I would urge swift passage of this very important bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Will the hon. House Leader accept a motion to adjourn debate on this?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We will accept this first adjournment,

but I'm going to ask the House just to wait a few minutes until one of

our ministers returns to introduce the next bill.

MR. LAUK: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the second

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), I move adjournment of this

debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In the absence of the Minister of Mines

(Hon. Mr. Waterland), I would ask second reading of Bill 15, intituled

Constitution Amendment Act, 1976.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in

my place to introduce second reading of this Act. The Constitution

Amendment Act repeals the provision dealing with the salaries of the

Clerk of the House, the Deputy Clerk and the Law Clerk. These salaries

are now provided for in vote 1 in estimates.

The most important part of the Act and the principle behind the Act

is to reduce the salaries of the ministers of the Legislature, the

sessional allowances and expense allowances of members of the

Legislative Assembly and the special allowances of certain officers of

the Legislative Assembly by 10 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, the objective behind the bill fulfils a commitment made

by those who belong to the Social Credit Party in this province who

fought an election on the basis of the inflationary trend which was set

by the former government of this province. It fulfils a commitment made

to the people of British Columbia that leadership in the country — the

national leadership, the provincial leadership, leadership at all

levels of the community — should be set and that all of us have a

responsibility to the people of British Columbia to recognize that

there are very many people in our province and in our country who do

not enjoy a high level of prosperity. It is showing leadership in the

province of British Columbia.

I fully support the motivation behind the bill and would hope that

all members of the House would show the same leadership that the bill

expresses. I move second reading.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I think if this bill is to have any

value at all, it would have to be in the expressions that the hon.

Provincial Secretary voiced at the end of her address when she

suggested that it would show some leadership.

Although I commented on this earlier in another debate, I believe

this is where the government has fallen short. Certainly as members of

the Legislature we do want to join in anything that will show real

leadership in a campaign to impress upon the whole community the

importance of fighting inflation, of trying to control prices, wages

and everything else.

But it would seem in this that the bill has been dropped almost with the noise of a damp sponge.

Prior to the campaign and during the campaign there was much mention

of a cut that was going to be made in the salaries of members, of

ministers and of other senior civil servants. It was announced in the

throne speech but it was certainly far from the most important

announcement in the throne speech. There has been no mention of it at

all since that time, really — not that there should have been — but the

bill was introduced and has been sitting around for quite some time now.

If the government had really wanted by this means to show some

leadership in the community, then I would have suggested, Mr. Speaker,

that it's something that should have been introduced very early in the

game, when the community was still aware of the speech made by the

Prime Minister on October 14, when he tried to impress upon the

community the importance of showing some leadership. But instead of

that it was long delayed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you do it?

MR. STUPICH: We didn't call the session, Mr. Speaker. The new

administration called it. This administration wanted to show this

particular kind of leadership. We chose a different kind of leadership,

Mr. Speaker. I'm quite ready to respond to that question, but it would

be out of order in discussing this particular bill. We did choose an

entirely different kind of leadership and did our best to show that

kind of leadership in the community.

This government feels that this particular bill is the kind of

leadership that it chooses to show, but as I say, Mr. Speaker, as an

example of leadership it has really been singularly unsuccessful. It

has not impressed the community. I have not heard of one single

instance of any recognition in the community that this bill is before

us as an example of leadership

[ Page 2125 ]

that will be followed by anyone else in the community.

I think the question of the salary for members and for cabinet

ministers' expense allowances and all that is quite apart from this

discussion of the anti-inflation programme.

The minister, in introducing this legislation, dealt with it in

those terms, that this was supposed to be an example to the whole

province. Mr. Speaker, I can only say that the response from the

community, so far, has shown that the community in no way recognizes

this as an example of leadership. This government, of course, has

failed the province miserably when it comes to the question of

leadership in every way. This is just one more example of the

government's failure to lead the community, failure to lead the

community in what the minister said was supposed to be an example to

show the community how to respond against the fight against inflation.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to support the legislation, but we must

recognize that the government, once again, has failed the community

because it really hasn't impressed upon the community that it is

exhibiting leadership.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier is amused at that. I challenge the Premier

to stand up and give me one example of recognition on the part of the

community that this government, by this bill, is showing some

leadership. As I said, we will support the bill, but we are still

looking for that spark of leadership that is so lacking in this bill

and in everything else that the government has done to date.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Nanaimo has

said, we will be supporting this bill. But I think this bill does give

the opportunity for members to talk about the pay that politicians get

in serving British Columbia or any other jurisdiction, and the

difference in attitude between working people and millionaires — the

people who are in control of much of the economy of much of this

province, or the people who are friendly to people who are the

corporate structure, many of them not even residing within this

province or within this country, and the power that comes from that

group.

Basically, what is happening in the legislatures, or has happened

throughout the legislatures of this country, for many, many, many years

is that the wages of politicians were purposely kept low so only one

class of people could afford to represent the people in the Legislature

of this province and every other province — purposely kept low so that

there could be class rule, class economic rule. That has been the

history of the province; that has been the history of other provinces

throughout this country.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): What utter nonsense!

MR. LEA: No, it is not utter nonsense. It was only three

short years ago in the province of Alberta where a member in that

Legislature made approximately $6,000 a year. I know that the leader of

our party in that province had to rely on the New Democratic Party to

make up the rest of just a liveable wage — just a liveable wage so he

could represent the party and his constituents in that Legislature.

During the last election in Britain, a person running for office

over there said that the British parliamentary system is just fine for

the powers — the real powers, the economic powers within the world — as

long as that system serves their will. When it no longer does, they

will destroy it, as they destroy everything else that hampers their

desire to make unconscionable profits.

Now I am saying in this Legislature yes, we will support this

legislation to show that we, along with other parties, are willing to

make a sacrifice to show leadership. But it does give the opportunity

to talk about the class structure within our society that the Social

Credit Party is so fond of saying does not exist. But it exists. It

exists! You go out and ask the unorganized, the unorganized who work

for the minimum wage in this province, how they feel about millionaire

politicians coming in here and then talking about cutting their wages

10 per cent. Ask them how they feel about that. Ask them what kind of

leadership, ask them what kind of sacrifice that great party is calling

upon themselves to make. I know, for instance, that there are people in

that back bench of that party who are average working people, who are...

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Name one.

MR. LEA: ...only pawns of the people who they serve in that party who are the class representatives of wealth.

There is no reason in the world that any member of any legislature

should have to be ashamed for accepting a decent wage for representing

the people of this province. There is no reason, none whatsoever. What

millionaire politicians would have us believe is that you should not

even accept a throwaway. That way they would like it very much because

only they and their friends could then afford to be within this

chamber. That's really what they're all about and what they really

want, but they haven't quite got the intestinal fortitude to go all the

way.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: I know, Mr. Speaker, that there are members in that back bench

who feel exactly the same way I do about it. I know there are. And it's

in this debate that they can stand up and say yes — yes to show leadership at

this point during a

[ Page 2126 ]

recessionary period. This bill isn't bad, but they should also take

this opportunity to stand up in their place in this House and talk

about the kind of power structure there is within society and how

they're just happy with it the way it is, and they don't want it

changed. They know there's only room at the top for a certain amount

and they don't want to share anything with anybody at any time. They

know that.

Sometime, not only in this Legislature, but throughout the province,

let's get different politicians from different backgrounds and

different desires to go out and discuss this issue and let the people

of this province talk to us about the kinds of people they want to

represent them — not talking about the political differences between

us. I'm talking about the kind of person, the kind of background, the

kind of desires that members have as individuals — not in a political

partisanship way. It's about time that that debate took place.

We politicians have been a bit reticent about going out and talking

to the people of this province about the kind of money that politicians

make, should make, shouldn't make. And we should. That debate should go

outside of this chamber to the people. It's not good enough, during the

election campaign, to talk in a very sanctimonious way about cutting

the wages of cabinet ministers, knowing full well that the person who

made that statement — at that time the leader of the Social Credit

Party — could very well afford to pay the province $52,000 a year for

the privilege of being Premier in this province, and not miss it at all.

MS. BROWN: Out of petty cash.

MR. LEA: Out of petty cash out of the hardware till.

That's what it's all about. There is no reason — and I repeat it —

there is no reason for a politician to be ashamed of accepting money

for working for the people of this province, no matter what party that

politician belongs to. No matter. And we're going to see more of it

because it started quite a while ago, right after that government was

elected. When they were elected they said: "Let's cut down on the staff

of the opposition. Let's try to make them ineffective, because, after

all, we in our party can afford, through party funds that come from

goodness-knows-where, to pay for everything we need."

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Where's the war chest now, Mr. First Member for

Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) ? Let's talk about that. They have their corporate

friends out in election time, being paid a full wage by those

corporations to go out and represent that party. The people from this

party do it on their own time for no money. That isn't the way they

operate, and if they had their way, Mr. Speaker, they would destroy

this system. They would destroy it.

One way to destroy it would be to keep the average person out of

this Legislature so only the wealthy, or people who aspire to be

wealthy and who will go along with the wealthy, will govern and make

the rules for this province through this Legislature.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: This is a good time to talk about it, back bench,

because I know some of you feel exactly the same way I do. Don't let

worrying about getting into cabinet bother your principles; get up and

talk the way I know some of you have talked outside of this chamber.

Get up and defend the system we are here to defend.

MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, it's nice to have an opportunity to speak when there's a member of the opposition in his seat.

Interjections.

MR. BAWLF: I rise to support this bill, and I will do so in a

brief way, but I would just like to respond to two points raised by

members opposite.

First, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) speaks of leadership and

says that the effort to reduce the cost of government, starting right

at the top by reducing the salaries and expenses of the MLAs and

cabinet ministers, isn't a mark of leadership. Now since I raised the

subject while he and all his colleagues were out of the House, perhaps

I should just say again, that I wonder what kind of leadership the

people of the province think it is when the former government increased

its spending in one year by 58 per cent. Is that fighting inflation?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, play it again, Sam.

MR. BAWLF: Obviously not. It's a disaster for inflation.

Mr. Speaker, then we have the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea)

standing up and talking about the sad story about the people who aren't

able to sit in this House because they are not millionaires. I would

ask that you perhaps consider that it would follow from his argument

that the people who have sat in this House the longest are the

millionaires.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if you consider the longest-sitting member

presently sitting in this House, presently a member of this

Legislature, the member for Atlin (Mr. Calder), I don't think he's

anything close to being a millionaire, Mr. Speaker. What about his

predecessor as the longest-standing member of the House, Mr. Nimsick?

Was he a millionaire, Mr.

[ Page 2127 ]

Speaker? What about the other members of this House who have been

here of long standing — the member for Skeena, formerly the member for

Omineca (Mr. Shelford), the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), and

many other members in this House?

MR. LAUK: Oh, come on Sam. You're boring the heck out of us.

MR. BAWLF: These people are not millionaires, Mr. Speaker. They have had longevity in this House.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. Members. Order, please. The first member for Victoria, please proceed.

MR. BAWLF: The members of this House enjoy very reasonable

remuneration for their efforts on behalf of the people of the province.

They will continue to enjoy that. This example that is being set is

good leadership, Mr. Speaker, and I support it wholeheartedly.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Let's hear it for the city lawyer.

MR. LAUK: I'm only a country boy, Mr. Speaker, trying to do my best, a barefoot country boy trying to do my best.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On Bill 15, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Well, I was barefoot and now I'm barefoot again because of this bill. I can't afford shoes.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has come full circle.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He's worn out his shoes going up and down the basement steps.

MR. LAUK: We have a dumb waiter there. Oh, I'm sorry, he's sitting here now.

Mr. Speaker, I'm a little disappointed that the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) are

exchanging pleasantries during this very serious debate. They haven't

yet taken notice that I'm directing the attention of the House to

what's going on in their comer. I think it is a very serious matter and

that the Provincial Secretary and the Minister of Highways should stop

exchanging these pleasantries and raising suspicions....

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

MR. LAUK: Oh, thank you very much. I suppose....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Get your hands out of your pockets!

MR. LAUK: You get your hands out of the people's pockets, Mr. Minister.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. Members. Please allow the first member for Vancouver Centre to address himself to the bill.

MR. LAUK: They are showing remarkable leadership by this bill, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, there he is, the intelligentsia of the Social

Credit. There he is, that powerhouse for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl). You

stick with it, Lyle. I'm behind you all the way.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's appropriate to point out that they are

providing great leadership. Let's give the example of a florist...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: ...selling her flowers. I might suggest that even

though she buys her daffodils — most of them in the cabinet — at 50

cents a dozen, she sells them at $5 a dozen. When her customers

complain she says: "But I'm showing leadership. I only pay myself $1.50

and I put the rest in the bank." And the customer goes out saying: "My

goodness, it's great. That's wonderful leadership."

That was the point that the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) was

trying to make. You don't raise taxes and you don't raise insurance

rates and you don't increase inflation and then take a 10 per cent cut

and say you are showing leadership. It's

an act for Ringling Brothers.

Barnum and Bailey want to have a look at this thing.

MS. BROWN: That's what's sending it up!

MR. LAUK: That's not leadership. Leadership is when you show

government restraint in holding back taxes, holding back the costs of

government as best you can, and then if you take a 10 per cent cut in

your salary it means something to the people. But now it is a joke! Now

it's a joke and it's another broken promise. It's another broken

promise. Then

[ Page 2128 ]

old Sam the land developer got up. I was really amused. He was

wondering why the opposition left when he was speaking. He shouldn't

wonder about that. I'll send him over the definition of a bore. It was

delivered by Dr. Samuel Johnson.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The story goes that the first member for Victoria

(Mr. Bawlf) was speaking during the campaign to, oh, a thronging crowd

of 10....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. Member. I can't see how this relates to Bill 15.

MR. LAUK: I'm going to discuss his salary.

MS. BROWN: It's his salary. Should he be paid?

MR. LAUK: Should I be paid? Yes.

And one of the members of this throng fell asleep and he asked one

of the people next to him, "Would you wake that fellow up?" The fellow

said to Sam, "Well, you'd better. You put him to sleep."

But you know....

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): That one had whiskers on it.

MR. LAUK: That one had whiskers on it? Who got you that shirt?

MS. BROWN: Who writes your lines for you?

MR. LAUK: Well, you know, Mr. Speaker, it would have been a

better example had they acted in government and in cabinet to reduce,

not increase, taxes; to reduce, not increase, insurance rates; and then

take a 10 per cent cut in salary. I think the point was well made by

the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) that it's easy for millionaires,

like the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), the Premier, the

Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the member for

Kootenay (Mr. Haddad) — I was going to say the member for Coquitlam

(Mr. Kerster), but he's been having a rough time of it lately — and the

first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf); it's easy for these people to

talk about showing leadership in taking reductions in salary.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Could I have a little order in my back bench here, please?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nobody's listening to you, even in your own party.

MR. LAUK: That's right. Nobody's even listening to me in my own party. Shocking!

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Let me assist you, Hon.

Member. Would those members in his own party please pay attention to

what the hon. member is saying? (Laughter.)

MR. COCKE: You're asking too much, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, it's easy for

these people to talk about showing leadership when they've got such

large bank accounts. It's a party of millionaires, a party of big

business, and they think that a 10 per cent cut is really going to

impress the people?

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): You wouldn't know a working man if you saw one.

MR. LAUK: Oh, Mein Kempf comes up again. There he is. Here's

a guy that was running for the resource board at one time, and then

someone had a better offer from the right-wing coalition.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Opportunism knocks, eh? Opportunism knocks up there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. Member. To Bill 15, please.

MR. LAUK: That's right. The mills of the gods grind slowly — that's because they use oxen. (Laughter.)

You know, Mr. Speaker, it's regrettable, indeed, that the government

tout this Act as being

an Act of leadership. It's really another

broken promise, like freezing taxes. They say they're going to take a

10 per cent cut from the cabinet, and now it's only going to be for a

year. You know, these little things that the government does....

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Move an amendment.

MR. LAUK: Move an amendment.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Go ahead.

MR. LAUK: It's your Act. Robin Redbreast says: "Move an amendment." (Laughter.) It's your Act.

[ Page 2129 ]

You're the man who's weaseling out of your promises. You've been

weaseling out of your promises since December 11. You do it every day.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: You use excuses.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Old Sam Slick, he makes a promise...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: ...and then the next day he pulls it back.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. Member! You were doing so well in the early part of your speech. Please address the Chair.

MR. LAUK: I will. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but Robin Redbreast came and piped in.

MS. BROWN: That's a pretty vest.

MR. LAUK: You know, it seems to me a very important thing

that people really do show leadership and not just put up a facade, a

little show, and I think that is what the government is doing. They're

playing games with the people and the people's opinions in this

province, I think, in the same way the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is probably the worse demagogue this country has

ever seen. This is the kind of snake-oil act that's been going on with

this government for some time.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Some offence has been taken at the word "demagogue." Were you imputing any improper motive to the...?

MR. LEA: Don't they know what it means?

MR. LAUK: Oh, I don't think the hon. Premier knows what

"demagogue" means, because if he did he'd certainly stop the Minister

of Human Resources from being one.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. Member. Was the member for Vancouver Centre imputing any improper motive to the minister involved?

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Human Resources?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. LAUK: No, I wouldn't impute anything like that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Please proceed.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: So I think, okay, we'll go along with this for now,

but we must suggest to you, Mr. Speaker.... I hope Mr. Speaker's in

good health — either Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: That's right.

I think that we would certainly support the principle of this bill,

but we can't resist the opportunity of lecturing the government.

Interjections.

MR. BAWLF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Just to set the

record straight, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk)

referred to me as a land developer. I'd just like to call to his

attention, for the record, that I am not a land developer nor have I

ever been a land developer.

MR. LAUK: What do you do?

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): I'd like to, Mr. Speaker,

through you, remind the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) in some

of his remarks, which were, I think, campaign remarks for a certain

by-election, that I didn't get paid while I was running for office in

Coquitlam. That's a fact. Our party didn't pay any of their candidates

to run in any areas, and your candidate is being paid $ 1,000 a month,

or being maintained by $ 1,000 a month, paid directly to him by the

party to run in a by-election in Vancouver East. So get off that

pompous nonsense.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Member, we're on the principle of Bill 15.

MR. KERSTER: Yes, we are. Mr. Speaker, I'm getting right to that principle.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. KERSTER: The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk).... I'll get off the case of the apeman from Prince Rupert — and

I withdraw "apeman, " Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 2130 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. KERSTER: I can't call the hon. member for Prince Rupert a fool, because that would be unparliamentary.

MR. SPEAKER: That's right, and I'm sure you're not going to do that.

MR. KERSTER: I therefore will not do that. I think the first

member for Vancouver Centre and the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich) are both missing the point of Bill 15, if in fact they ever

understood it. First let's pass Bill 15. We had three years of

conversation and three years of no action. That's leadership, you see.

That's leadership by example — something you never understood and you

never will understand over on that side of the floor.

Introduction is not the accomplishment; passage of the bill is.

Passage is proof of leadership. I suggest that action, not words, acts

more as a catalyst to inspire leadership in any sector. We've had lots

of words, plenty of words, except when you gracefully absented

yourselves from the House this evening. It was most pleasurable; it was

somewhat of a pause that refreshes. Let's get away from all of these

nonsensical words and twisting and convoluting from that side of the

House. Let's get down to fact, let's get this bill passed, let's have

action — and then you'll see results.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to support this legislation, but I won't be voting against it because I have no objection to it.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I know it sounds a little difficult — I'll run it

by you again. It doesn't really represent any kind of a serious attack

on inflation, so if it comes up for passage, certainly I'll vote for it

— if I'm here to do it. It's kind of the same simplistic approach that

the Socreds or the coalition government there has adopted to inflation

right across the board. It really doesn't reflect any kind of serious

analysis of the question of inflation to cut members' salaries by 10

per cent or any other percentage. There's no serious analysis of the

question whatsoever, and no suggestion in this bill at all of

leadership. The only suggestion of leadership really came from this

side of the House when a private member's bill was presented which

would subject members to an independent tribunal. This is done in other

areas of the world that probably have a more mature system of

parliamentary democracy than is reflected in this House.

Remember the days before 1972 — and you probably remember those

days, Mr. Speaker — when they used to have what Dave Barrett called the

round-robin system, where the leaders of the parties would meet

secretly in each other's office and set a level and there would be no

debate at all in the House. It would pass so that there would be no

notice to the public of what the members' salaries were going to be.

That's not really the way to deal with the question of salaries and

benefits of members over the long term. The first leadership moves were

made when the previous government brought up the changes of the

Constitution Act and allowed members' salaries to be debated in public,

in the House, and there was debate on all sides of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: They voted against it.

MR. SKELLY: Did they? I don't recall.

The only really serious move towards leadership in this area has

come from this side of the House, and it came in the form of a proposal

to develop a tribunal for members' salaries and benefits. I don't think

it represents leadership simply to cut members' salaries and benefits

by 10 per cent across the board. There are members here from all

sections of the province — members who find it more difficult, more

expensive to serve their ridings than members, for example, in

Victoria. This is the kind of information that could be brought before

a tribunal and members would have to justify their salaries before a

tribunal and in public. I think that's really an approach that shows

leadership — not the approach that is being shown by the Social Credit

Party.

I recall when the former member for Omineca (Mr. Shelford) was

defeated when he was a cabinet minister, and he complained about the

salaries that were being offered to members in this House at that time,

and I think justifiably. He said that he had supported this province

out of his pocket over the years he had been in office to the tune of

almost $60,000. I don't think any member should be required to do that.

That member had an extremely difficult riding to serve, Mr. Speaker. It

covered almost a third of the province, and I think the member was

justified in making those comments.

No member in this House doing the business of the people of British

Columbia should be required to subsidize the business of this province

out of his own pocket. There is a real danger, Mr. Speaker, in that if

the member can't afford to subsidize the business of the people of

British Columbia himself there are often people in the wings who are

ready and willing and able to do it for him provided he votes the right

way. I'm not suggesting for a minute that that member would have done

that; that member wasn't that type of a person.

As I said when I opened, I don't support this type of legislation. I

think it's a little silly and simplistic. I won't vote against it. I'll

accept a 10 per cent cut in

[ Page 2131 ]

salary, but I do hope that over the next few years the government

will take a serious approach to the question of members' salaries and

benefits. I do hope that the government will take a serious look at

some of the suggestions that have been made from this side of the House

in the form of a tribunal to establish members' salaries.

Mr. Speaker, the hour is approaching 11, and I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1976, 2001, 2011, 2013: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada