1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5285 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents

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

Mr. Strachan –– 5285

Oral Questions

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

School taxes. Mr. Lauk –– 5287

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

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

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

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

Mr. Ritchie

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Howard

Estate Administration Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 2).

Third reading –– 5295

Company Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 3).

Third reading –– 5295

Credit Union Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 4).

Third reading –– 5295

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

Hewitt)

section 1 –– 5296

Mr. Hall

Mrs. Wallace

On the amendment to

section 1 –– 5296

Mr. Hall

Division on the amendment

Third reading –– 5297

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

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

Mr. Howard

Mr. Barnes

Mrs. Dailly

Division on the amendment

On vote 164: minister's office –– 5302

Mr. Hanson

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I

know you'll be delighted to be made aware that in your gallery today

are 40 of some of the finest citizens British Columbia has ever had.

They are members of the Vernon old-age pensioners association. They've

taken Victoria by storm this week. In fact, I suspect that Victoria

will never be the same. Under the direction of two very outstanding

ladies, Mrs. Dolly Birtelson and Mrs. Eleanor Downs, they are here this

afternoon to enjoy the Legislature. I would ask you to wish them well

and also to give them a very warm welcome.

Also, on behalf

of the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) and myself, I

would like to invite the members of this House to welcome 25 students

from the Pleasant Valley Senior Secondary School in Armstrong. These

students are visiting today in the Legislature with their teacher Mr.

Charles Christie and two chaperones. The students are here to become

authorities on the legislative process, They also had the opportunity

to visit the Ministry of Tourism and become professional tourist people

this morning. Crown Zellerbach assisted them in coming here. Would you

give them a very warm welcome.

MR. KING: I want to

thank the Minister of Tourism and advise her that I've never had any

difficulty in speaking on my own behalf. But certainly I do welcome

today the class of grade 11 students from Pleasant Valley Senior

Secondary School in Armstrong, along with their instructor Mr.

Christie. I thank the Minister of Tourism for her participation in

making their stay here a pleasant one. I want to advise the House that

I also had the good fortune to meet and chat with them briefly this

morning.

MR. RITCHIE: I have the pleasure of

introducing three people in the gallery today. The first one is Mrs.

Eileen Mackey of Abbotsford, a great supporter of our Premier — and

myself. We also have a gentleman by the name of Elwood Veitch, who is

the bursar of Pacific Vocational Institute and the former member for

Burnaby-Willingdon and Minister of Tourism and Small Business

Development. My third visitor is Pastor Lennox, director of the

department of public affairs and religious liberty of the Conference of

Seventh-day Adventists of British Columbia in Abbotsford. Would the

House please welcome these guests.

MR. LAUK: I'd like

to join the member for Central Fraser Valley and welcome Pastor Lennox,

who's been sending me that marvellous magazine Liberty

for some years now. I appreciate that. Secondly, I would like to join

the member for Central Fraser Valley in welcoming Mr. Elwood Veitch,

because in the Douglas Heal report he's given the name of Baby Hughie.

MR. NICOLSON:

I notice in the galleries this week that the attendance of one of my

former teaching colleagues has been great — in fact, maybe even better

than my own in the House this week. I would like to introduce a person

who used to teach commerce at L.V. Rogers High School in Nelson when I

used to teach physics, Mr. Lorne Vaughan. I hope the members will join

me in welcoming him.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'd like to

introduce to the House Mr. Peter Abrosimoff from the great city of

Grand Forks. Mr. Abrosimoff, who is an alderman of the city, was

visiting with me this morning, and I would ask the House to bid him

welcome. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to

welcome a gentleman whom we see periodically and whose firm assists in

bringing many of the students to this gallery, Mr. Bob Porter of Crown

Zellerbach.

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

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. For the second day in a row may I ask the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) to please observe the

rules.

Mr. Strachan, Chairman of the Select Standing

Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, presented the

committee's third report, which was read as follows and received:

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"That

the standing orders have been complied with relating to the petition

for leave to introduce a private bill intituled West Kootenay Power and

Light Company, Limited, Act, 1897, Amendment Act, 1981, except for late

filing, but with respect thereto the petitioner has paid double fees in

accordance with standing order 98(3).

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

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

Chairman."

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

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

TOURISM MINISTER'S VISIT TO MANILA

MR. HALL:

It is my pleasure to welcome the Minister of Tourism back to the

service of the House and to wish her well. I have some questions for

her.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the

minister's visit to Manila last year, could the minister advise when

she decided to go to the Philippines?

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Thank you for your warm welcome back, Mr. Member. I was pleased to note

that after over a month and a half of opportunity to question me in the

House in question period and during my estimates, when I was ill you

finally thought of something to ask.

My decision to go to

Manila was made in the line of my duties while I was in Japan in

concert with the federal government, the government of the Philippines

and my own staff.

MR. HALL: Were any arrangements by

the staff of the Ministry of Tourism made prior to the minister's

departure from British Columbia on October 14, 1980?

[ Page 5286 ]

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

MR. HALL:

In order that we can get all of the information, were any arrangements

by the minister's staff prior to her departure on her far-eastern

travels made for any visits, business contacts, arrangements with

tourist travel wholesalers or any promoters whatsoever in the

Philippines — to be seen by the minister in Manila?

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

MR. HALL:

Were any arrangements made by the staff of the Ministry of Tourism

prior to the minister's departure from British Columbia on October 14?

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

In light of the second question the member asked, I'll take it as

notice. But generally, it's been public information ever since I was

there and came back that my visit to the Philippines was a business

visit — in keeping with my responsibilities as Minister of Tourism — to

promote tourism in that great country. There have been a lot of

benefits that have and will accrue to British Columbia as a result of

that visit.

MR. HALL: Perhaps when the minister

answers the question, she would also file any press releases subsequent

to her arrival back in this country that deal with her visit to Manila

and the Philippines that she just made reference to.

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

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

It was made in concert with my ministry, the federal government, the

people in the Philippines — in both the industry and the government —

and within the same procedures followed for the whole trip.

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

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

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

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Speaker, my trip to Manila was a business trip. Unlike the second

member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), when he was Minister of Tourism, and the

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), when they went to Asia, I

didn't take a wife, a mistress, a husband or any families and friends.

I was there in the discharge of my duties under the proper auspices of

the government of British Columbia and in accord with those auspices.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister protesteth a little too much. A

series of questions about the minister's travel arrangements are always

in order. Any suggestion the minister may have left with the House that

any members at any time and any place have taken people who shouldn't

have been taken on trips should be withdrawn.

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

MR. HALL: Yes.

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

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that there are times when the Speaker and

the Chairman ask for things to be withdrawn without members having to

get up to ask for them. With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, if you

could not see what was wrong with the statement made by the minister, I

would suggest that you and I may have a discussion afterwards.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. I would ask whether or not the Minister of Tourism was

casting any aspersion upon any member of this House. If she was, I must

ask her to withdraw.

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

MR. HALL:

My last question to the minister is: will the minister file with the

House details of all her out-of-province and offshore travels since her

appointment last year, up to and including March 31, 1981 ?

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Those will be before the public accounts committee within the proper

procedures of this House. I'll also file my expenses for my Inner

Harbour swim.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of

order, reference was made by the minister to a trip taken by me to the

Orient, with regard to my wife. I wish the minister had been notified

that my wife's expenses were paid by me personally. I ask for a

withdrawal of any attempt to imply that any member takes wives or

"mistresses." This is an accusation that the minister either backs up

with facts or withdraws completely from this chamber.

MR. SPEAKER:

I've asked the hon. minister whether or not aspersion was cast on any

member. Hon. members, many times in debate statements are made on both

sides of the House which are not intended. The Chair asks whether or

not that aspersion was intended. If it was not, then, of course, a

withdrawal is not required if no aspersion is intended.

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

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT:

You don't have the nerve to say it outside the House either. Smearing

tactics — absolutely smearing. You can smear me, but don't you smear my

wife. That's going too far.

Interjection.

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

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. When withdrawals are required it is for unparliamentary

language or terms. If imputations are made, it is the Chair's duty to

inquire whether

[ Page

5287 ]

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

would recommend to all members that if we use only temperate language,

perhaps we would never have to make the distinction between

unparliamentary terms and imputations.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I've waited for the appropriate moment to rise on a point

of order and I point out that the minister implied that my wife

accompanied me on my trip to Asia in my role as Premier, somehow

illegally or illicitly. I am asking that the minister declare here in

the House that she has no evidence that any such imputation is valid. I

ask for a complete withdrawal of that allegation.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Opposition knows that any member who stands in this

House to make any statement accepts the full responsibility for that

statement and its veracity. Therefore the Chair cannot possibly defend

its accuracy or otherwise. Each member accepts that responsibility for

himself or herself.

I could invite an apology, which the

minister may wish to give on her own, but I have no authority to

require it. Perhaps the hon. minister would clarify.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member rose and appeared offended and asked

if I had intended any offence, I suggested to you that I hadn't. I did

not intend any offence. I would hope that the Leader of the Opposition

would not try to twist the facts and statements in order to build a

case so that he could be thrown out of the House or attract undue

attention to himself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Hon. members, perhaps it would help question period a whole lot if we

would be more careful in the language we use. Apologies which cannot be

required would then not even be asked for, and therefore question

period could progress in an orderly fashion. I recommend the practice

to the House. By the way, the time I've taken now will be added to the

end of question period.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I

rise on a point of order. The minister has made the matter worse. I did

not appear to be offended; I am offended by an allegation that has no

foundation in fact. If the minister does not have the sense of decency

and courtesy in this House to give a withdrawal or to state clearly

that there was no imputation, then I'm prepared to let the matter stand

on the minister's conscience, but I find it somewhat distasteful.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

On a point of order, as a member of this House I find it somewhat

objectionable that a colleague of mine, and a member of this House, who

when asked a question by the Speaker of the House states emphatically

that there was no malice intended, is then further accused by the

Leader of the Opposition in carrying on this debate after the matter

had been dealt with and clarified thoroughly by the Chair.

SCHOOL TAXES

MR. LAUK: My question is to the Minister of Education. Yesterday Vancouver

city council voted unanimously to demand that the provincial government refund

$12.1 million of school taxes to city taxpayers. This does not represent the

actual surplus of the school district budget but represents that overage over

and above the contribution of the provincial government in past years. Has the

minister decided to allow school districts to rebate their surplus to taxpayers

in their districts rather than to transmit the surplus to Victoria?

HON. MR. SMITH:

The member knows that the equalization finance formula, which does have

its down sides, still has as its fundamental principle that money is

shared around this province between the rich districts and the poorer

districts and districts that have lower tax bases. That is done so that

there will be equality of education. I thought that the member and his

party were in favour of that principle. I can answer the question by

telling you that, first of all, Vancouver school district is not going

to be sending more money to the province than it raises. It's going to

be receiving a small net amount from the province and some direct-aid

grants, but it will not be sending money back. I have not decided to do

what the member suggests.

MR. LAUK: Apart from the

jiggery-pokery, can the minister explain why his answer is not in

accord with statements made by the B.C. School Trustees Association?

They state that over the whole province in 1981 the province will

provide 33 percent of education costs compared to 48 percent provided

by the province in 1975. The percentage of the provincial share of

school-district costs across the province has been steadily dropping

under this administration, yet his answer indicates it's equalization

that's the issue. How does the minister explain that lack of accord

with the views of the elected educators in the school district?

HON. MR. SMITH:

I always have difficulty because this member doesn't understand the

finance formula or the difference between the money the province puts

into the basic program — which has reduced in percentage terms but not

in dollar terms — and the amount of money in percentage and dollar

terms that the province puts into education. As the member knows, this

administration is putting more money into education across this

province overall — in excess of 65 percent, plus the universities —

than it was in 1974.

MR. LAUK: The question to the

minister was: how does he make his statement on equalization accord

with the statement of the school trustees, who challenge the government

and state that the ever-decreasing percentage of their contribution to

school costs is not consistent with what's happening in every other

province of Canada, particularly provinces like Manitoba, where 80

percent of the school costs are provided by the provincial treasury?

How does he make his statement accord with that?

HON. MR. SMITH:

The question gets ever wider and more confusing — like the member.

There is absolutely no correlation between equalization and the

percentage that is put into the basic program overall across the

province, as the member knows.

MR. LAUK: That was my point.

HON. MR. SMITH:

They have nothing to do with each other at all. Equalization is the

basis upon which the money that's collected is distributed. The member

knows that. This province is paying a higher percentage of the cost of

education, as I've said, than when you were sitting on Treasury Board,

hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Not true.

[ Page 5288 ]

HON. MR. SMITH:

Yes, it most certainly is true — in percentages and dollars. It's only

in the area of the basic program that you're talking about. I've

acknowledged many times that that percentage has gone down, not the

absolute dollars.

MR. LAUK: Does the minister by his

earlier answer undertake that no transmission of taxation funds

collected in the school district of Vancouver will be sent to Victoria?

None? Not including so-called special grants that every school district

is entitled to if they show need, on the basic education program is the

minister undertaking that no surpluses of taxes in the school district

of Vancouver will be sent to, the central treasury?

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

MR. LAUK: You're a charlatan.

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

MR. LEA:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to get your guidance. During

question period the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) made a

statement, if not exactly, very close to what I'm going to say. When

asked about her travel outside the province, who accompanied her and

who paid, she said that the public paid because she was on a business

trip, unlike — she used that word — us when we were in government, the

Leader of the Opposition and others who took their wives and their

mistresses. She said that hers was a legitimate business trip, paid for

by the public, unlike when we were in government and we took our wives

and mistresses on the public.... Sir, how do we deal with that? It is a

charge that was made in this House by that minister. Is there no

recourse?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think that I

dealt with it in question period, but I'll repeat it now. If

unparliamentary language is used, we can ask for a withdrawal. If

imputation was made of wrongdoing by any member, then it is the Chair's

responsibility to ask whether or not that imputation exists — whether

it's intentional — and if it is then the chair asks that it be

withdrawn. If it is a statement, whether correct or incorrect, that

statement is the responsibility of the member who has spoken and must

be dealt with by that member; it cannot be dealt with by the Chair.

MR. LEA:

Then am I to say to the minister — or anybody — that she's a charlatan?

That's an example. If I should say, "You are a charlatan, a crook and a

liar," and she takes offence; and if you, Mr. Speaker, say to me, "Did

you mean anything by that?" and I say: "No, I didn't," you say: "Well,

that satisfies me." How can that be? I don't care what word she used.

It was an accusation that when we were in government we travelled on

public expense, paid for our wives and our mistresses. It's not an

imputation; it's an accusation. "Imputation" means something a little

more subtle than that, surely, Mr. Speaker. Is there no way that a

member of this House is not required under those circumstances to

either put up the facts to prove what she has said, or to withdraw? I

can't see any other way to go.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon.

member, it would be an onerous responsibility to ask the Chair to

determine if the contents of every speech were absolutely correct. As a

result the Chair must ask the members. Unparliamentary language is

clear; the Chair can make the decision that it is unparliamentary. It

is asked that it be withdrawn. It is offensive not just to the members

but to the House itself. With regard to accuracy of statements or

accusations which are made across the floor, it would be impossible for

the Chair to determine whether or not those are accurate. As a result,

if a member objects, it is the Chair's responsibility to ask whether or

not any accusation of wrongdoing, imputation of wrongdoing, or any

impugning of a character is involved. The Chair asks that member then

for clarification of that matter. If the member denies that such

intentions exist, it closes the matter. If the member admits that such

intentions exist, then it is the Chair's responsibility to ask for a

withdrawal.

MR. LEA: I have one final question. Would

it be the proper form, then — if I understand you correctly — for those

people who feel they've been offended, or are offended, to treat this

as a question of privilege in order to find out whether or not the

charges being made by the minister are indeed correct or incorrect?

Would that be the proper method to follow?

MR. SPEAKER:

A motion of privilege could be made. It would then have to be

determined whether or not the motion was indeed a prima facie case of

privilege. If it was, of course, it would at the will of the House be

referred to a committee, I'm sure. I can't begin to forecast the wish

of the House in that instance.

MR. BARRETT: On the

same point, there are two aspects to this. One, of course, concerns

matters that members take personal offence on, and the other, grave

charges in front of the House. One of the most serious charges that can

be brought in a house of parliament in the British Commonwealth system

is a charge of misuse of public funds. That is a serious charge with

many references to it in Sir Erskine May and Beauchesne. As a matter of

fact there may be an appropriate standing order of our own House that

deals specifically with that; the former Liberal member, Mr. Gibson,

made the famous statement, "money talks," and was ejected from the

House for making that statement.

What we have here in front

of us, Mr. Speaker, is a need for direction. An allegation has been

made by a member that other members, while in public office, misused

public funds. In my own case — which I'm at liberty to speak about

since I have the floor; I'm not referring to any other allegation — the

imputation was that there was a misuse of public funds through my wife

travelling with me. It was a charge, not an imputation. It was a

statement that, unlike other members of the government, the former

Premier — as I was — took his wife and somehow misused public funds.

That is a direct, serious charge. That cannot be dealt with by saying:

"Oh, no, I didn't imply anything by that charge." The charge itself is

a statement of allegation.

Now either the minister backs it

up with fact, or there are other means of dealing with that charge in

the House. Those other means have not been dealt with, in my opinion.

Frankly, I would have been satisfied with a straight withdrawal by the

minister. But I wasn't offered that by the minister; I was offered a

further compounding statement by

[ Page

5289 ]

the minister, making remarks questioning my

sincerity in terms of my right to ask, which I found even more

aggravating and somewhat offensive. I can handle myself in this House

and speak for myself, but when a member makes an allegation about my

wife, suggesting that my wife misused public funds, that goes too far.

I am controlling my anger, but I'm very angry and unhappy about that

very false, malicious statement. I don't think as a member I have been

satisfied with the dealing of it. I think it is a very serious charge.

I would ask you, sir, to consider some method, perhaps later this

afternoon, and advise the House how such a matter can be dealt with. It

is an absolutely false statement and it is made against somebody who

does not have the ability to defend themself in the House, as I have

been able to do for 21 years and I hope for a long time hereafter. My

wife is a separate citizen. The statement is false and it leaves a

false impression.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I

just address the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I can

understand how the member could be visibly shaken and disturbed.

However, in making his objections the Leader of the Opposition has

underscored the Chair's responsibility. It is the member who made the

accusation — in this instance the Minister of Tourism — and it is that

member who must accept responsibility for the statements made. If the

Chair were to accept that responsibility, the Chair would first of all

have to do the research to be sure that the statement was correct or

incorrect. Following that the Chair would have to either ask for a

withdrawal or.... You can see the conundrum. The House does provide the

measures for correction in this instance.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

I've been listening to this debate with great interest. I would first

like to say that when something I inadvertently said — certainly not

with any malicious intent — offended some of the members of the

opposition, I complied with your request to make it very clear that I

was not laying any charges and that I had no malicious intent. It would

appear from the debate that for some reason the Leader of the

Opposition is entwining this around his wife, Mrs. Barrett. I believe

that Mrs. Barrett is a very honourable and well-respected lady in this

province. I think the Leader of the Opposition is very fortunate to

have her as his wife. I would not in any way offend her.

my recollection 1 did not in any way — as the Leader of the Opposition

now seems to be trying to say — accuse Mrs. Barrett of travelling on

public funds. I would ask any member who felt offended to please accept

any reassurance I can give them that the statement was not meant

maliciously and was not meant to offend them. It was not meant to

suggest that their wives or whoever travelled with any members of that

very large party that went with the Premier to Asia travelled on public

funds irresponsibly. That was not in my mind. It was not my intent, and

I certainly hope it was not in my statement.

MR. SPEAKER:

Would the minister in concluding her remarks also say that if it was

misunderstood she would apologize. I think that would conclude the

matter.

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

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would suggest that there is a

remedy. There always seems to be a remedy in parliamentary procedure.

It's found in Abraham and Hawtrey's Parliamentary Dictionary .

One example it gives of the duties of the House Leader is that when a

member is named, Mr. Speaker cannot initiate a motion. It is the duty

of the House Leader to protect members of both sides of the House.

Information has been brought to this House. That information cannot be

a lie because we are all honourable members.

MR. SPEAKER: That's right.

MR. NICOLSON:

The information is that some members, whether it be the Leader of the

Opposition or someone else — and obviously it's not the Leader of the

Opposition — have taken their wives or mistresses on travel at public

expense. Information of a very grave nature has been brought to this

House — information perhaps not offered with malice, but nevertheless

there.

It is my point of order that in keeping with the suggestions to be found in Abraham and Hawtrey's Parliamentary Dictionary ,

it is the responsibility now of the House Leader to bring forward a

question of privilege in order to defend members of this House, who now

are all under a cloud. I suggest that that is the remedy to this if the

House Leader will do his duty, as has been done in many previous

parliaments.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think that

we could likely debate this point of order until adjournment time

tonight. I think the House is satisfied that the remark was made and

was questioned, that it has been clarified that there is no intent, and

that it has been apologized for. I recommend that we move to the

business of the House.

USE OF GOVERNMENT VIDEO FACILITIES

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday in oral question period a question was put

by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), who is not in the

chamber at the present time. I would refer him and other hon. members

to page 5179 of Hansard .

With respect to that

question, I am informed that the comptroller-general of the province of

British Columbia has caused a review of payments from vote 173 for the

fiscal year 1980-81, as it relates to

section 23 of the Financial

Control Act of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia ,

chapter 129; and I am further informed that the comptroller-general

finds no breach of law, as demanded under

section 23 of the Financial

Control Act, on the several castings of payment made regarding the

question raised in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not

offering a legal opinion; I'm simply referring to the fact that the

comptroller-general, in assisting me with the answer to this question,

has indicated that he can find no breach of law.

PHARMACARE CLAIM DELAY

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, I believe it was last Thursday that the following

question, to which I would just like to give the answer, was asked in

the House: "What measures are being taken to alleviate the delays in

processing Pharmacare claims?"

[ Page 5290 ]

am advised that the situation regarding Pharmacare payments is now

under control, but that the cause of the problem has not as yet been

permanently corrected. A new processing system designed specifically

for use in the Pharmacare program was initiated in December 1980,

following two years of planning. This new system offers improved

efficiency in acceptance of valid claims only, and production of

current data as a prime control feature. In theory, the above

advantages were to be accomplished with no impairment of established

payment efficiencies.

Experience over the first four months

has confirmed the ability of the new system to improve the acceptance

factor; that is, rejected claims which would previously have been

accepted are in the area of 4 percent of total claims. But

unfortunately the new system does not appear capable of handling the

current volume, and the compromises made to facilitate payments have

impaired the data necessary for full audit controls. Compounding the

above is a serious delay in cheque production. This frequently requires

10 to 14 days following completion of claims processing and can impair

any improvements in our own efficiency. This has been discussed with

the Ministry of Finance, and we've been assured of cooperation in the

future.

Recommendations on means of correcting the problems

we have experienced are expected from the B.C. Systems Corporation on

an immediate basis. In the meantime, phone monitoring of claims

processing is being maintained to ensure prompt payment times. I would

like to thank the member for the question, and I hope that that will

suffice.

MR. LAUK: Under standing order 35, Mr.

Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the

purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.

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

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, on December 1, 1980, the Education minister estimated the

basic levy for school purposes at 41.2 mills. On February 27, 1981, the

B.C. School Trustees Association announced that the provincial

government contribution to school district costs has sunk to the lowest

level on record in the province. In 1981, the province will provide 33

percent of education costs, compared to 48 percent provided by the

provincial government in 1975.

On April 16, 1981, the

Education minister announced the basic levy for school purposes: 41.8

mills. This, combined with increases in property assessment, amounts to

crushing property tax burdens on homeowners. This is particularly true

in the lower mainland, where property values are skyrocketing due to

the lack of Social Credit housing policy. Even the mayor of the city of

Vancouver was surprised at the increase in the mill rate after the

delegation that was before the minister a month previous. On April 18,

1981 the chairperson of the Vancouver School Trustees Board announced

that for the first time the Vancouver School Board will not receive any

support from the provincial government for school purposes; in fact,

she pointed out that the Vancouver district will have to transmit $2.5

million to the provincial government in excess taxes collected. On

April 28, 1981 the Vancouver city council voted unanimously to demand

the provincial government refund $12.1 million in school taxes to city

taxpayers. This sum represents only the excess beyond the funds

required to operate the Vancouver School District.

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

Therefore,

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn to debate the

unanimous request of Vancouver city council that the provincial

government refund to city homeowners $12.1 million in excess school

property tax revenues.

MR. SPEAKER: The statement is

rather lengthy. We will consider the proposal put forward by the

member. Without prejudice to his place in debate, we will make a

decision as to whether or not it qualifies under standing order 35.

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order, I wonder if Your Honour would be kind enough,

having made a decision about the request for an emergency debate, to

advise the member who raised the question, and in other cases advise

members who raise such matters, in order that they may adjust their

other duties to be sure that they are here when Your Honour comes back

with the ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: I always seek to be as

courteous as possible in these matters. If inadvertently a member was

not in the House at the time I made the decision, I apologize.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF THE

PROVINCIAL SECRETARY AND

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

(continued)

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

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Chairman, I wish briefly to conclude the remarks that I started

yesterday. As the members will recall, yesterday I referred to an

article that appeared in the Democrat

in February 1981, which gives some false information. On this side was

heard a member saying: "A typo." That can happen once, but I don't

think that we can agree that that should happen a second time.

However,

speaking on this amendment, I want to end on a more humorous note,

because there's been a great deal of humour taking place all through

this debate. The humorous amendment as stated by the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) is to reduce the spending to $4.50, the average

price of a theatre ticket.

Speaking of theatres, I did a

little bit of homework. I have come to some conclusions in respect to

the debate that has been taking place in the House. I have a few Oscars

that I'd like to hand out, if I may. I'd like to start out with the

member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr.

Leggatt), co-stars in the film The Great Escape from Ottawa . I have the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) starring in the film Great Expectations of Becoming the NDP Leader , and the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) in the film Back Roads , but Rocky

would have been more appropriate. I will conclude my remarks by saying

that I fully support our minister in his endeavour to set up a program

that is going to get the message of our government across properly. I

and the rest of my colleagues here will, I'm sure, be opposed to this

amendment.

[ Page 5291 ]

MRS. DAILLY:

The speech we've just heard was a continuation of the speech we heard

yesterday by the member for Central Fraser Valley, and just reinforces

in our minds the importance of bringing this motion to the House. It's

obvious the member from Fraser Valley still doesn't understand the

issue. It's a straight issue of political morality and how public funds

are used.

The member who was just on his feet has used to

support his argument the fact that an apparently incorrect statement

was printed in the party paper, the Democrat ,

paid for by members of the New Democratic Party. So he follows from

that and says that it is therefore vital that the Social Credit

government beef up their PR machine so they can get out there and

correct these terrible false statements made in a one-party sheet.

Obviously he and the rest of Social Credit cannot differentiate between

straight partisan politics and giving out straight government

information. That member has just stated that he thinks it is correct

for the government to use public funds to continually correct every

misleading statement made about the Social Credit Party. The minister

responsible for this portfolio and ministry says: "All we're going to

do is beef up our public relations" — if you take the composite sum of

all the departments, it's going to be $25 million — "to give out

information to the public." Yet one of his own backbenchers has just

said that he thinks it's important to use it to correct misleading

information. When we hear those kinds of remarks we begin to see that

basically this is what it's all about.

The idea of hiring

Mr. Heal, and hiring Hollywood people to come up and beef up the images

of the cabinet ministers; the whole idea of moving the studio that used

to do health programs under the auspices of the media czar....

There

is no question in anyone's mind that the whole basic idea is simply to

beef up the sagging fortunes of the Social Credit Party. We are all

paying for that. The members of my party, members of the Conservative

Party and the general public resent the fact that their money, paid

through honest taxes to this government, goes to put across the Social

Credit Party line. At no time in any speeches made by any of those

backbenchers or by that minister has anything been said that does not

confirm that this is basically what the reorganization of the

minister's department is all about. He has not given us any statement

at all that makes us feel this minister has a grasp of the fact that he

has in his hands — who told him to do it we don't know, but he has it —

a massive public relations ministry that is there for one purpose only:

to bolster the Social Credit fortunes.

We keep hearing that

it's not true. If it's not true, will you tell us why you have to have

Hollywood people brought up, why you have to hire a special Mr. Heal

who is going to coordinate all government ministries? We understand

that some of the former information officers in the other ministries

are rather concerned about this, because suddenly their own PR is taken

out of their hands. Why? Why is it all put in the hands of one person?

It's not only the opposition that's suspicious about this. We have some

quotations here — unidentified, but as quoted in the Vancouver Sun

on April 4, 1981, when it first came out that Mr. Heal had been hired

and the reporters were questioning why. It says here that one of the

government people — whoever that would be — suggested that it would be

necessary to try to make the new initiatives of each minister more

meaningful. He also suggested that when Mr. Heal was contacted he said

that he doesn't feel it is going to be his role. I think that this is

important. Mr. Heal actually said that he doesn't feel it is going to

be his role to guard against possible abuses of the studio by ministers

who are unable to distinguish between fact and politics. We heard

another backbencher yesterday say: "We make sure that we tell our

bureaucrats what to do." So here we have this super deputy minister of

information saying: "I'm going to do what I'm told. It's not up to me

to differentiate between fact and politics."

What we're

concerned about is that it is quite obvious that the Social Credit

cabinet, because of their failing political fortune, have decided as a

last-ditch attempt to restore themselves, and the only thing they can

do is to beef up their image politically and with the public. And here

we have Mr. Heal almost admitting that he has come to do their bidding.

This is the whole issue: the differentiation between fact and politics

when taxpayers' money is being used. I have some more of my colleagues

who feel it is important enough to further discuss this whole issue at

this time. I will continue later.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr.

Chairman, the member for Burnaby North has placed the case very

compellingly. I recall that when the last election was called there was

an issue of B.C. Government News

to rush the details of that budget in a very politically slanted way,

at public expense, out to the people of the province, and how the

printers were taken from the Queen's Printer's office in Victoria to

Vancouver to rush out that propaganda. What we're seeing is — it's been

very well expressed here: and I agree that the government pretend, at

least, to not know what we're saying — a most dangerous departure in

terms of using public money for, private, partisan, political purposes

of the government in power.

That's something that has many

humorous aspects to it. We can all have a joke about it. Why should the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) with a frizzy hair

problem receive attention at the taxpayers' expense, when with the

greater such problem I get no attention paid to myself at all? Nor

would I take it, because I think it absolutely wrong that you should

dip not into your party funds but into the taxpayers' pockets for party

purposes. I don't know what more we can say about it.

would think that there is hardly a person in the province of British

Columbia who does not know that this government are compounding the

dirty tricks that we've heard so much about, and which are so well

documented, by trying to retrieve their reputation at the taxpayers'

expense. All I can say is that your Mr. Heal is going to be your Mr.

Achilles' Heel, because I think everybody in the province of British

Columbia knows what you are doing, and I don't think there's any doubt

that they will usher, in as polite a way as they can and at the

earliest possible opportunity that they can lay their hands on, this

discredited government into the oblivion it so richly deserves. This is

a very serious amendment. They should give the boot to Heal, as my

friend says.

This debate has got its humorous aspects. It's

got things that touch the very essence of the kind of democratic

process that we're concerned with. So let the issue be talked about as

it will in all of the villages, towns and cities of British Columbia.

But when people are being bought by a propaganda machine paid for by

their own money, then they should rebel. I'm quite sure that they will

and that this government will not last beyond this term of office. It's

this kind of thing to which there is no defence that means that we're

going to have to see something new in the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 5292 ]

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased that the member for Burnaby North (Mrs.

Dailly) put forward a countering argument with respect to one of the

matters raised by the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie). I

notice he is something like a hit-and-run driver: he is gone from the

chamber as soon as he concludes his remarks. That occurs; members are

absent from time to time. I think though that one should at least stick

around to see if there is any comment about what has been said.

The member for Burnaby North pointed out that yes, it was a typographical error in the Democrat ;

but, more importantly, it was a publication paid for by those of us who

pay our own personal money to become members of the NDP. There is a

very distinct difference there.

It's ironic that the member

for Central Fraser Valley would have sought to raise such a question,

given his history of having knowledge about the misuse of public funds.

The member for Central Fraser Valley is the chairman of the Social

Credit caucus, having deposed the former chairman in a bloodless coup,

I understand. He got unanimous support for doing that. Under the

control and the authority of the member for Central Fraser Valley are

public funds provided by this Legislature to the Social Credit caucus

research bureau. We're talking about advertising and the connection

between the essence of what the government is now trying to do by

having hired Mr. Heal. The Social Credit caucus research bureau, in

addition to having used public funds participating in phony

letter-writing campaigns in an earlier period, also used public money

to put out a publication entitled Government Reports , now published by the Social Credit caucus, of which the member for Central Fraser Valley is chairman.

The member for Central Fraser Valley was chairman of caucus at a time when the Social Credit caucus put out one of these Government Reports

deliberately and consciously mispresenting the position of the member

for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). It deliberately and consciously attributed to

the member for Alberni a statement in this House which he never made.

This was a deliberate and conscious misuse of public funds to tell a

falsehood about what had happened in this chamber. The result was a

letter of apology, regretfully resulting in proceedings in court. The

Social Credit caucus research bureau, also under the guidance of the

member for Central Fraser Valley, did the same thing in a Government Reports

headed April 10, 1981, in which they provided information that falsely

represented the position of the Leader of the Opposition.

only put those down as saying that it is unfortunate that the member

for Central Fraser Valley — raising the matter of a private

publication, which we pay for out of our own dues, that had a

typographical error in it — should be the same person responsible for

having published on at least two occasions deliberately incorrect and

inaccurate information about activities of members of the opposition

using public funds to do so. That's what we're talking about when we're

talking about the funds available to the Provincial Secretary, to the

audio-visual centre, which is under his control, and to the management

of that by the political deputy minister of propaganda.

The message is threaded throughout the Social Credit government and Social

Credit caucus activities. They're not content to meet political differences

of opinion head-on. They don't desire to engage in a debate about merits

of subjects. They want to approach them in an underhanded and sneaky way. That

kind of history is in the background: the fact — as I said earlier — that Mr.

Heal's first venture, paid for by the general public, was to go to a secret

meeting of Social Credit and discuss with Social Credit members at the Harrison

Hot Springs Hotel how they would manage the news and the information that was

going to come out of government.

Mention has been made of the use of the audio-visual centre to produce vignettes

or documentaries, television programs that are going to get some kind of message

out to the general public. Cabinet ministers are going to be involved in those,

using public funds to do it. I want to draw to your attention the May 2 to 8

edition of T.V. Guide . I believe they call it the western Canada edition. In

any event, it covers the television programs coming along in that period between

May 2 — that's this coming Saturday — and May 8, the week following that.

On the inside of that, you see the following advertisement, which I would draw

to your attention. The headline of that following advertisement — a full page,

paid for by public funds, incidentally — says: "Can You Afford Not to Watch?"

It's advertising a half-hour television program which is going to be aired

on Sunday, May 3, at 6:30 p.m., when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) presents "Energy Strategy for Survival."

You

may remember, Mr. Chairman, that the first member for Victoria (Mr.

Barber) a few days ago raised the matter in the House that such a thing

was taking place, or had taken place, in this audio-visual Centre that

Mr. Heal is now running, and there was a government denial that they

were doing such things. "Oh, no, Mr. McClelland isn't going to be on

any television program; oh, no, there is no advice to be given to

cabinet ministers; oh, no, it's just the normal programs that we're

going to do." Well, now we find that this government has dipped into

the taxpayers' pockets for $1, 595 to run a full-page ad in TV Times , plugging a half-hour presentation by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

"Can You Afford Not to Watch?" — that's the title. When they

talk about affording things, I think the title should be: "Can You Afford

to Have This Government in Office Much Longer?" That's what we should

be asking ourselves. It's only $1,595 for a small, full-page ad; a half-hour

of prime television time is $8,200. So that's nearly $10,000 of the taxpayers'

money used already.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Good.

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

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

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

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

MR. HOWARD:

I shouldn't say the only thing that's good about the government House

Leader — he's said many things that are good. But yesterday he hollered

across the House to me with respect to one of the members in his

cabinet and he said: "She's sick." Well, after today I must admit that

he was absolutely correct.

[ Page 5293 ]

But

here is $1,595 of the taxpayers' money, $8,200 to buy a half-hour of

prime television time for political propaganda purposes, deliberately

developed in conjunction with the Kamloops by-election, and the

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) chortles

about it and says: "Fine." The Provincial Secretary laughs and says:

"That's the way to go; that's what we're trying to do." Well, how much

time was spent in preparing this half-hour documentary? Who knows?

don't see too many people in the gallery here, but I would really urge

everyone in the public gallery — the media people who are here — to

really promote that and got the general public to watch that program; I

think it's going to be worthwhile watching. Those television buffs or

people who want to tune into channels 6 and 8 next Sunday at 6:30 p.m.

and watch this documentary are going to have to give up something in

order to do it, because a competing television program on channel 2 is

"Disney's Wonderful World." They're going to have to give that up. I

think that's a wonderful selection of prime time by whoever arranged to

slot this in there at 6:30 p.m. and compete with "Disney's Wonderful

World." The title on "Disney's Wonderful World," which people will have

to miss seeing, is "Disney's Greatest Dog Stars." Well, they can tune

into channel 6 or channel 8 at 6:30 p.m. and see Bennett's greatest dog

stars. I think it was the Premier who said it took him only two weeks

to train his dog, you know,

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair

and the House appreciate the mariner in which the member is addressing

this, but under the parliamentary guidelines that we adhere to in the

House, somewhere along the line I think the Chair would have to caution

the member about the word "dog" in reference to any particular member —

be it of any side of the House — by any member. I would ask the member

to use the discretion he has....

MR. HOWARD: I

withdraw that reference to the individual so named. Perhaps they can

tune in at 6 o'clock and watch half an hour of Disney's greatest dog

stars and then tune in at 6:30 and see the government's favourite dog

star. How will that be? There's no individual mentioned. There's

competition on channel 11, back to back with "Star Trek" — science

fiction — so folks are going to have to give up watching science

fiction and see some other kind of fiction at 6:30.

Sure, we

have a little fun about this, as the second member for Vancouver East

(Mr. Macdonald) pointed out. Yes, there are amusing anecdotes that one

can talk about, because the whole fiasco lends itself so beautifully to

humour. The whole fiasco of hiring this guy Heal as a propaganda deputy

minister and of having him run off to Hollywood and getting a couple

of, I think somebody called them, film-makers or dress-up artists, or

whatever they are, to add to it certainly lends itself to a humorous

quality. But the main question facing us is not humorous at all.

Perhaps we use humour a bit to make the point that there's a gross and

abusive misuse of public funds involved here, as there has been

consistently throughout Social Credit's history of government since

1976. It's another example of having absolute disdain for the general

taxpayers of this province. There's a question of integrity involved.

the humorous side, as I said, people should watch this program at half

past six on Sunday night. I haven't had the benefit of being in

Hollywood and seeing how film-makers do things or anything else, but I

would urge all British Columbians who are able to watch that program at

6:30 on Sunday night. The way to get the message as to what's happening

— as to whether or not the slick artists from Hollywood have been

successful in remaking the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources — is for those of you all across this province who watch that

television program to just watch the visual part and turn down the

sound so you don't hear what the minister says. Just watch him. See

whether his eyes are sincere when lie talks about this particular

strategy that's involved. See whether his make-up is on straight. Is

his hair combed? Have his teeth been gleamed and shined up? Watch for

those signs. You cannot beat that technique for determining whether or

not the person on the other end of the television program who's talking

at you out of the box is really sincere. The only way you can determine

sincerity — whether the words are coming from the heart or whether

they're coming from some Hollywood script writer — is to watch the

individual without listening to the words. Don't be misled by the

sound. Watch intently and I think that you will see clearly that this

program is a phony program, that this program, paid for by the

taxpayers of this province, has one design only and that's, at this

point, to influence the Kamloops by-election, using public funds to do

it. That's the disgraceful and sad part of what we're faced with. The

humorous

part is there as well, in terms of the procedures and

techniques that go to slick people up to make them look like something

they're not.

The essence of it is — this cannot be said too

many times — an abuse of the taxpayers of this province. The essence of

it is basically — I suppose one could use the word — theft of

taxpayers' money for partisan political purposes. Not that the minister

is a thief. No, of course not. I'm not saying that. It's the attitude.

It's the lack of conscience — and consciousness — on the part of the

government as to just what is happening here. So long as that warm

muffin of a minister, the Provincial Secretary (Hou. Mr. Wolfe), goes

blithely along and tries to tell us, "Oh, nothing has changed, there's

no difference, everything's going to be the same," and that sort of

thing, how can one balance that with the facts? Obviously the only

cabinet minister interested in paying any attention to what's happening

in the House is the Provincial Secretary. Now he's even been abandoned

by the government House Leader; the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations is walking out. Mr. Chairman, notice that there are two

Social Credit members sitting in their seats in the House. They're

running for cover.

MS. BROWN: Is that all?

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

order to see whether or not there's any interest on the part of Social

Credit members other than those who are sitting in their places in the

House — all two and a half of them — and whether or not they're

interested in taking

part in this debate.... The only way we can find

that out, Mr. Chairman, is to move that the committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

[ Page 5294 ]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 48

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Mussallem

Sanford

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Passarell

NAYS — 2

Lea

Mitchell

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

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

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

MR. NICOLSON:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this being Wednesday, and private

bills having precedence, I notice there is one on the order paper, Bill

PR401,

an act in respect of Montreal Trust Co., etc. A leave motion is

required.

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

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

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. The bill before us stands in the name of

Mr. Ree, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano. If it were his wish

to proceed, then that would be the case. If not, then leave is not

required, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of the

member to be present in the House. He is present in the House, but this is the

orders of this day, and if we're to divert from the standing orders then

we are without a leave motion. I must say that this has been canvassed. I recall

very vividly Mr. Gibson, when he sat in this House, bringing this particular

point up in the past. It was reviewed by Mr. Speaker and it was agreed that

this required leave. If we're going to depart from requiring leave, it requires

a specific direction from a standing orders committee to change standing orders

or a substantive motion of some kind in this House. I rise, Mr. Speaker, simply

requesting that procedures be followed. The minister has proposed that we go

on to something.... I merely rise to preserve the rules of the House, not

to oppose the order of business which the House Leader has proposed. I merely

suggest that leave be asked — which is the practice.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Notwithstanding all that, hon. member, there is nothing to compel the

member to insist on the bill being proceeded with. On that basis, leave

is not required at this time to go into....

MR. REE:

Without prejudice to debating the issue of that bill at a later date I

am not desirous of proceeding or in a position to proceed with debate

on it today.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, move adjournment then.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, once the bill is in the House it is

in possession of the House, not of the hon. member. The hon. member

certainly has his duty to move the motion and so on. Once the bill is

before the House, it is the property of the House, not of the hon.

member. Just ask leave.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members,

on this particular point it is not mandatory for the member to call the

bill. If the member wanted to call the bill:, then leave would be

required. Leave is not required at this stage. That concludes the

matter.

MR. NICOLSON: I challenge your ruling.

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 26

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

NAYS 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Sanford

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

[ Page

5295 ]

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

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, the point of order I want to raise with you that developed

during the proceedings just a little while ago is this: standing order

25 sets out what the daily routine of business will be and what the

business will be after the ordinary daily routine. It sets them out by

days, and so on. Standing order 27 says: "All items standing on theOrders of the Day

(except government orders), shall be taken up according to the

precedence assigned to each on the order paper." Standing orders 31 and

32 make reference to matters either being dealt with or being permitted

to maintain their precedence on the order paper when called.

submit that the implication in all of those is that the items standing

on the order paper under headings or classes of subject matters should

be called exactly from the Chair or from the Clerks at the table, just

as in the Routine Business

section under standing order 25. The Clerk

at the table generally proceeds to skip over Presenting Petitions,

Reading and Receiving Petitions; he doesn't call them, but only calls

for Introduction of Bills and then Oral Questions by members. I submit

that the Clerk at the table, by not proceeding to call those other

items as they are listed in here, denies members the opportunity to

proceed if they desire to do so under any particular item listed.

The

question I want to raise with you for consideration is this: why do the

standing orders appear to be violated by the Chair, by not proceeding

to call items in the order that they appear — instead of leaving it to

any individual member to decide whether or not to proceed when it gets

to that class of business in which they may be interested?

submit that what the Chair should do — and what I asked the Chair to

rule — is the ordinary, routine business under standing order 25. Mr.

Speaker asks us to rise for prayers, and the next item should be read —

Presenting Petitions, Reading and Receiving Petitions and right the way

down the line. When we get beyond the ordinary routine business and get

into the order paper on government days or anything else, those items

should be called as they appear on the order paper and not be allowed

to be glossed over and forgotten about.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

The processes that have been followed in this House have been similar

in consistence since 1966 when I came here. The House has developed its

own practice. I think the member has raised a point that is deserving

of consideration, although I don't think it's valid, because the House

has developed a practice which the House has accepted since everybody

in this Legislature has been elected, as a matter of fact. I think it's

a matter that you, Mr. Speaker, could take under review.

MR. HOWARD:

On a further point of order, I submit that the standing orders are

precise and clear. The only way that you can do something other than

what the standing orders require is by leave by unanimous consent.

There may have been a practice established, but nowhere in the standing

orders, in May or anything else does it say the practice of the House —

whatever it might be — shall override the standing orders and shall be

taken as leave for unanimous consent.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the member for Skeena and the government

House Leader make good submissions on this particular point. I am going to ask

for maybe a day or two to consider the point. Certainly the practice of the

House has been one that we are currently following. Nevertheless, the point

made by the member for Skeena is a valid one. I will undertake to have that

reviewed in the next two days.

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

ESTATE ADMINISTRATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

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

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

COMPANY AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

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

Sections 1 through 39 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

CREDIT UNION AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

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

Sections 1 to 26 inclusive approved.

[ Page 5296 ]

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed: Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

SENIOR CITIZEN AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE GRANT ACT

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

section 1.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Chairman, you will remember, I'm sure, that during second reading

of this bill I regretted on behalf of the official opposition that the

government had seen fit to finance this legislation the way it did, and

in particular had sought to dress up the Agriculture estimates by a

huge sum of money. I think we have to remedy that. Therefore I think we

should move an amendment to this section. The Agriculture critic for

our side will be dealing with that as the next contributor to this

debate.

MRS. WALLACE: The second member for Surrey

has stated much of what I was going to say. I do feel that, seeing we

are discussing a piece of legislation which sets up the practice in no

uncertain terms as to how this is to work....

Section 1

details that persons over 65 shall have the reduction and: "A

regulation made under this act may (

a) provide for financial assistance

in respect of premiums payable after November 14, 1980, and (

b) provide

that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia give credit in the

amount of the grant in respect of a prescribed portion of premiums

payable...."

The point is that there is no way that the

legislation is going to set the amount of dollars that are required.

The legislation is saying that whatever the ICBC figure is, that amount

will be matched. The one thing lacking in the legislation is that it

doesn't say where the money is to come from. Therefore I move the

amendment standing on the order paper which would change

section

2(b)(i), line 1, which now reads: "The government shall pay the

corporation for the amount so credited." My amendment, by adding after

"corporation" the words "out of the consolidated revenue fund," would

change that to read: "The government shall pay the corporation out of

the consolidated revenue fund for the amount so credited." That is my

amendment, Mr. Chairman. It was sent in earlier; it's on the order

paper.

Speaking in support of that amendment, it would

appear to me that the act is remiss in not including any particular

direction as to where that funding is to come from. I'm not talking

about amounts of dollars, Mr. Chairman, because that is specified in

section (1) of the act, which indicates that the dollars will be set by

the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia according to the amount

of the rebates they give to seniors over 65. What I'm saying is that

there should be a provision in this particular bill that will include

the source of those funds, and then we don't have to have the kind of

nonsense that we had when we were discussing a previous item of

business in committee in this House. This would set it once and for

all; it would be over and done. It would be dealt with from the

consolidated revenue under this piece of legislation without having to

find a place to put that money somewhere else. Because that's where

it's coming from anyway, Mr. Chairman; it's coming out of the

consolidated revenue of this province. That's what this bill should

specify, and that's why I'm moving this amendment.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, I cannot support the amendment for two reasons. First of

all, I've referred to

section 42 of the

Interpretation Act, which, if I

may quote from it, says: "Where

an act provides for a payment of public

money for the administration of or for any of the purposes of the act,

the provision shall be deemed to authorize the Minister of Finance to

make the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund with money

authorized by the act of the Legislature to be paid for those

purposes." In other words, the

Interpretation Act indicates that if an

act stipulates that moneys shall be paid out, as this one does, it

automatically follows that it would be paid out of general revenue.

The

second point I make, Mr. Chairman, is that we had the opportunity to

introduce this bill in 1980, and that gave us the time to provide for

the funding in the budget and in the estimates of the Ministry of

Agriculture and Food, as I as minister am responsible for the insurance

corporation. So we had the ability to provide that funding in the

estimates and therefore in the supply bill. That is the normal and, in

my opinion, the preferred route to go, because it identifies that

expenditure with the minister responsible.

To make a

comparison, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if you look at the other

sector of my estimates — that other responsibility I have, which is as

the minister responsible for the Agricultural Land Commission — it

shows the expenditure to be made for that responsibility. I see very

little difference in that responsibility and being responsible for the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and therefore authorizing the

payment of the grant to senior citizens under my estimates. Therefore

I'm not in favour of the amendment and cannot support it.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Chairman, it is exactly because we know the Minister of Agriculture

and Food doesn't see the difference between the money that is going

into his vote for the ALR and the money that's going into the vote for

ICBC that we feel this amendment should go through.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

[ Page

5297 ]

NAYS — 27

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Mussallem

Waterland

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Hyndman

Davidson

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

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

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

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

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF THE

PROVINCIAL SECRETARY AND

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

(continued)

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

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yesterday during my estimates the Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Barrett) took exception to a recent release of the Social Credit caucus

document, Government Reports . He seems to feel that the way this report comes

out, there's an inference in it that during the debate in this House on

the bill covering medicare having to do with extra billing and so on, he did

not attend that vote to absent himself from it. I'm rising now to assure

this committee and the member through you, Mr. Chairman, that in fact he did

attend a special concert on that evening at the University of British Columbia

along with myself. I saw he was there and wanted to satisfy the committee on

that score. The

article as it's written is merely a quotation from Hansard

of statements made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

and the opposition leader. I guess a person could make any inference he wanted

to from that, but I'm rising to explain, as a courtesy to the member, that

he did attend that concert with me on that occasion.

MR. HOWARD:

The matter just dealt with by the Provincial Secretary is a very

welcome and pleasant observation on his part, putting the factual

matters before the House that way and agreeing that the Government Reports

in question issued under the authority of the member for Central Fraser

Valley (Mr. Ritchie) did carry an inaccurate and incorrect reference to

the Leader of the Opposition. In light of what the Leader of the

Opposition said yesterday standing in his place and which is confirmed

today by the Provincial Secretary, I wonder if we could ask if the

member for Central Fraser Valley in his capacity as caucus chairman

responsible for this particular document will issue a subsequent issue

of Government Reports with a retraction and apology for having given incorrect information about the Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I only wanted to point out, as I did earlier, that the account in this report is simply a verbatim account of what was said in Hansard

on certain occasions. If one wants to take an inference, that's fine. I

wanted to make clear, in courtesy to the member, that we did attend a

certain function, I presume that would set the matter to rest.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

We are indeed honoured to have in your gallery this afternoon a most

distinguished delegation from the People's Republic of China. They are

a head office delegation from Beijing to Canada under the direction of

deputy general director for Travel and Tourism China and the

vice-president of China International Travel Service, Mr. Yue Daiheng,

The members of the delegation are some of those whom I met when I was

in China: Mr. Wu Daozhi, Miss Yang Shihua, Mr. Liang Jie, Miss Chen

Jianhua and Mrs. Maria Flannery from eastern Canada. This most

distinguished and most welcome delegation is here to discuss a number

of matters relating to their interest in British Columbia and to

further discussions with our government that were initiated between

some of this delegation and other members of the Chinese government

when I was privileged to be on business in China on behalf of the

government of British Columbia and the Ministry of Tourism. I would ask

the House to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. BARRETT:

May I respond by welcoming my wa da po ying Richard Lui in the gallery,

accompanying the delegation from China. May I say on behalf of the

official opposition, nehow — Wa ning! Wa ning!

[ Page 5298 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Some latitude has been allowed by the Chair with respect to caucus

business and other items. I think it's incumbent upon the committee now

to return to the amendment on note 164.

MR. BARNES: I rise to support the amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: The $4.50.

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

won't be speaking too long. I just wanted to say a few things at this

perhaps most serious point in British Columbia's history. It's somewhat

of a sobering reality that the government was serious when it hired the

Hollywood team of Norm and Gayle Sedawie to assist the government in

trying to improve its public image. At first I thought that this was an

indication that Social Credit was finally developing a sense of humour,

and that we'd all be having a good laugh next day, and that the

headlines we had seen about Hollywood coming to British Columbia,

mainly in Victoria, were really just a put-on, not being too far from

the Fourth of July. Apparently it wasn't meant as a humorous ploy or

joke. It was a very serious attempt, believe it or not, to actually

believe that it could hire someone to do more damage to it than it has

already done to itself. This team of people was really being asked to

accomplish the impossible.

I think the committee would

perhaps benefit from reflecting on a character from Greek mythology

referred to as Achilles. This celebrated warrior was feared by most of

his enemies, until it was discovered that he had his strength from the

heels up, and that he had apparently been dipped in the river Styx. He

was dipped in the river with his ankles still above water; he was

invincible and superhuman only from the ankles up. His enemies did not

realize this for some time. But once they discovered that he was like

any other ordinary human being from the ankles down, they soon reduced

him to an ordinary mortal. Mr. Douglas Heal has been celebrated as

somewhat of a warrior in his own profession as a public relations man

for Lovick advertising. No doubt he was very good at what he was doing.

You know, it's typical of Social Credit to embark upon projects

half-cocked, rather than doing their homework and the preliminaries

that are necessary to ensure that their schemes and ideas can be

successfully pursued. Obviously the Premier and those advisers would

have been well-advised, when they were interviewing Mr. Douglas Heal

for the impossible job of overhauling a too far-gone government image,

to have asked Mr. Heal to remove his shoes. Perhaps they would have

discovered that there were wings attached to his heels, and perhaps

they would have realized that he was vulnerable, unless he intended to

do his work by flying around. Surely he has proven himself to be a

perfect example of a symbol of vulnerability with respect to his duties

since he has been acting in the capacity of trying to improve the

government's image. I'm sure that they could have done much better

without his assistance, not to mention the immorality of the idea in

the first place. As I said, I thought it was a joke and never took it

seriously. Apparently the government really believes that it can import

morality and that it can be something other than itself. That's really

tragic.

I'm standing here this afternoon to suggest that it's never too late

to recognize faults and mistakes. Surely the government will not continue with

its project of producing its own programs, of trying through some kind of canned

scheme of fantasy imported by some marketers from another sphere in our community

to change an image that is truly reflecting what the government believes in

and stands for. It's one thing to have fun in Hollywood and create images

so that we can all enjoy fantasies such as Walt Disney did with his Disneyland,

but I think for public officials, elected to remain sober and conscientious

and to reflect the requirements and needs of the community, it's worse than

gross indecency to even suggest that they would in any way attempt to manipulate

the image that truly reflects what they are. We get plenty of this through the

electronic and printed media, and other kinds of soothsayers out there who think

that they can captivate the public fancy by exploiting their vulnerable nature,

by stimulating the instinct of greed or in some way diverting them from the

realities of day-to-day existence and responsibility to encourage them to go

too far in debt, to disguise the fact that they should be more frugal in the

management of their affairs in order to have a good time today, and all these

kinds of things.

What

moral and honourable reason could this government have in suggesting

that it should do anything about its image other than the very best

possible that it can for the people of British Columbia? It's still

very difficult for me to believe that the government is continuing to

carry on with this $62,000 political appointee and these $14,000

advisers who are coming up to suggest that there is some simple way of

governing the province of British Columbia through media manipulation,

through techniques of advertising and deception and by creating a world

of fantasy. I find that one of the most ugly revelations that I have

had the opportunity of observing since I've been in this Legislature,

which has been for nearly nine years. It's so grossly indecent that

it's really one of the most unbelievable things.

I think

that the only excuse I can give this kind of pathetic restriction and

the kind of inability to recognize what really matters in this province

is that the government is just desperate. It has overextended itself.

It built this coalition on the premise that it knew best what the

people of British Columbia needed, without any recognition for the

understanding of the value of the commitment on the part of those

people who would be elected to actually go beyond political aspirations

and considerations and to actually try and do things that would be

constructive and positive for the average person in this province. The

government received a very huge mandate after its campaign in 1975,

after having suggested that the previous administration was

irresponsible — accused them of shovelling money out of the back of a

truck. We were trying to make up for inequities that had existed in the

basic services for the basic human requirements in this province, The

people bought it because we were just a plain old lacklustre

administration doing what we thought was best for the people, and not

spending a lot of money on our images and for propaganda about what we

were doing — we were just doing things for people. Now it seems as

though that is coming in style again. It seems as though now — some six

or seven years later — even the public is beginning to realize that

they don't want any razzle-dazzle; they don't want the canned

mentality, fantasies that are imported from somewhere else to try and

smokescreen the people of this province. They are now saying: "We don't

want to see you. We want to observe your actions. We want the benefit

of what you're doing. Don't bother about whether your hair is in place

or how you're dressed. We've played that game too long."

[ Page

5299 ]

That's something, Mr. Chairman, that really should have been in

place a long time ago, because of the high cost of political propaganda

and the high cost of marketing foods and commodities that should be far

cheaper, because the amenities of life could be a lot cheaper. If

people did not feel they had to deceive the public in order to give

them their fair share of the resources of this province, we would all

be a lot better off.

Mr. Chairman, we're looking at an

administration that will spend nearly $25 million on political

propaganda to perpetuate itself while, at the same time, it will spend

barely $75,000 to disseminate information with respect to human rights

in this province. I think that that graphically illustrates the concern

that every British Columbian should have, not to mention the hundreds

of millions of dollars that this government has very cleverly

rearranged, through its fiscal policies and programs, which allow it to

put its hands on huge amounts of public funds to pay off friends like

the B.C. Buildings Corporation, when they wiped out Public Works and

allowed themselves an opportunity to pay off friends in the convention

centre, where they have feasibility studies going and no commitments

but lots of money going out for all kinds of commissions and

investigations. But we know that. We know that this government didn't

invent these ideas; it just recognized an opportunity to deceive the

public, who were conditioned by many prior administrations, including

the W.A. C. administration. But it's about time we recognize that it

cannot go on forever.

The kind of image that that government

over there needs I don't think it is capable of even recognizing, let

alone carrying out. You don't need Douglas Heal to tell you what

morality is about; you just need to take a look at the people who are

out on the streets as a result of greedy, insensitive and indifferent

people, who are inclined to think that money is the only factor that

really matters in this society today, the only thing that they can

trust and count upon. It's a revelation, perhaps, that is not entirely

the fault of the government, when they attempt to sell the people an

image which is an illusory view of what is really happening. Perhaps

they, in their own limited vision, believe that it is appropriate to do

whatever you can to hang on to power — because, after all, that's what

the free marketplace is all about. That's what our licensing systems

are about: those people with the power get their licences to exploit

and take advantage of those without in the free marketplace.

MR. KEMPF: You're absolutely disgusting.

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

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your intervention on my behalf. I don't

believe that that member for Omineca requires any retort. The member

suggests that a discussion in this Legislature about morality and the

creation of false impressions by public officials in this Legislature

is gutter stuff. He says that there is something wrong with talking

about morality and about public officials beginning to try to do

something for the people instead of for themselves. He says that that's

all wrong — and he was once a mayor of a city. I think it's quite clear

that that is one of the faults of a coalition. That's one of the faults

of an overambitious neophyte, who comes in and thinks that he can gain

power by trickery rather than by performance.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I will now ask the hon. second member for Vancouver

Centre to come to order. We are on the amendment to vote 164, and the

committee will be well served if we can stay on that amendment and

remain, all of us, parliamentary, in the finest traditions of

parliament.

MR. BARNES: There's no need to belabour

the point, because I think we're talking about — pardon the pun — a

BCRIC wall invented by the Premier of this province, a person who,

despite himself, has been successful in turning everything he touches

into BCRIC. It is very appropriate for this whole concept of bringing

in Hollywood. That has even turned to BCRIC: it has backfired because

of short-sightedness. Unbelievable as it is. this Premier didn't even

recognize the risk he was taking when he was asked, "Do you have

seatbelts in your car?" with cameras right there before him.

Mr.

Chairman, you're suggesting — I can tell by your getting twitchy — that

I'm out of order, but I'm suggesting to you that I did not come up with

this idea of hiring Doug Heal and bringing him in for a subterfuge over

this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please, hon.

member. That is quite acceptable. We are discussing the administrative

actions of the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Government

Services, and we're discussing an amendment to the minister's vote. If

we could contain our comments to the administrative actions of that

minister then the committee will be well served.

MR. BARNES: Absolutely.

That minister has been

given a lot of responsibilities for things which I'm sure he does not

necessarily understand nor is in any position to take responsibility

for, although he does sit there and do his best to take the

responsibility. I don't believe he invented the ideas that are coming

forward with respect to that Hollywood team, but he is the sacrificial

lamb on behalf of the Social Credit administration and is quite

prepared to take his lumps like all the other ministers, because they

are all on a Titanic together.

The

decision to deceive the public has serious ramifications, because I

think it gives us an insight into this government's mentality. The

reason I say "canned mentality" is because I don't believe they look

within themselves. They believe they can go out and purchase a

mentality, purchase something that would be sellable. They do not have

faith in the public's ability to perceive and understand a genuine

human effort and the faults of being a hard-working MLA for better or

worse. They don't trust that. They believe they have to hide their

faults, hide the reality that we're all just people trying to do a job

on behalf of the public.

Interjections.

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

MR. BARNES:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's fine. Interjections are okay. We have a

lot of time. I'm not perturbed by the interjections from the member for

Omineca (Mr. Kempf), I don't blame him for being twitchy. He's never

sat happily or comfortably over there since he joined that group. Now

he wants to attack me because I'm suggesting....

[ Page 5300 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARNES:

I don't think you should throw him out. Leave him alone. He's making my

case better than I could ever make it every time be opens his mouth. He

doesn't even have the courtesy to sit quietly in this Legislature and

show the common courtesy that the Chairman has admonished us all to

observe in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The opinion of

the Chair is that the Chair must interrupt when other members are

interrupting the member who has his feet. If the member speaking now

will continue, and all other members will not interrupt, the committee

will be well served and we can do the business of the committee in the

vote that's before us.

MR. BARNES: The dilemma that

the government faces is one in which, inadvertently, they may still be

able to save themselves, as least as far as their credibility is

concerned, and try and do what, as decent human beings, I'm sure they

would aspire to do, notwithstanding the fact that they are running

rather rudderless right now and have no direction or focal point around

which to rally, no real leadership. As you know, Mr. Chairman, it's

very difficult to take a coalition of political expedients and

opportunists, pull them together and try and do the people's business.

I recognize that fault from the beginning, but notwithstanding any of

those things I would suggest that if the government were to hire their

political adviser at $62,000, and thank the Sedawie team but say no

thanks at the same time, and perhaps give them something for their

troubles and the embarrassment that you may have caused them and try to

have them sign a disclaimer so they don't sue you for this.... Although

it was great publicity, it may have detrimental effects on their

careers in the future. All of these things taken into consideration,

the government could turn around and begin for once to come clean, to

simply say: "Look, who are we kidding?" It's really ridiculous when

you've got your hand in the cookie jar and you're trying to tell people

you were putting something in rather than taking something out. Even

little kids learn that lesson.

Your only problem is that

you're so obsessed with trying to deceive that you don't realize that

you're on stage and everybody is laughing like you know what. This is

why I said I thought it was a joke when you came in with this idea. How

can you be serious? If you want the public to know what's going on and

you don't trust the media, don't trust the free press, then bring in

television: televise the debates. Let the people see and make up their

own minds. Why are you trying to create in the back room what people

should be able to do themselves in a free and democratic society?

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

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Minister of Housing, I'll be dealing with you later. I'm sure that

you will want to get up and explain why you knocked out the B.C.

Housing Corporation and all of its assets and paid off your friends.

HON. MR. CHABOT: How about now?

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

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

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

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. minister, please take your seat. There will be lots of time to

discuss other estimates during committee when the votes come before us.

However, we are on an amendment to vote 164.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. BARNES:

You've been here too long. You've got your pension; why don't you

split, Mr. Minister of Housing? You must be getting pretty bored with

this place by now. My goodness!

Mr. Chairman, when a body

gets the death wish, there's very little you can do for him. You'll

recall that great poet Dylan Thomas. He used to say: "Do not go gentle

into that good night." I believe that he was trying to give a message

to those of us who desire to live, but that group is going so gently

that it's unbelievable. They're just walking right into the trap. I

can't understand it. They're just dying to get hooked. In fact, we have

to get out of the way. I don't know why they hired somebody to do for

them what couldn't possibly be done any better than they're doing

themselves.

Let me just wrap up by saying that the people of

British Columbia are very angry at this government, for valid reasons.

In question period this afternoon we hoped to question the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing — who has been speaking from his seat — and

the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) with

respect to the punitive things that they're allowing to happen to the

people of British Columbia, such as removal of rent controls, no

construction of affordable housing and all of these realities.

Mr.

Chairman, don't call me to order, because if these things are not

relevant, how in heck can you talk about images? These are the kinds of

things that build your image. You're going to spend $60 million to

acquire land to put up a stadium, plus $126 million to construct this

thing. You indicate that you have top priority for what's best for

British Columbians, but you don't say a thing about the commitment to

housing that's supposed to go on the same property. How can you

convince people that you're committed to their best interests when

senior citizens are being pushed out of their homes in the West End and

all over this province by greedy, indifferent speculators? This

government says: "That's okay. It's a free marketplace. Let them do

their thing."

Now, we all know about how free the

marketplace is, but I'm not going to get into that. That's beside the

point, except that it helps to bring into perspective my next point:

that everything the Premier touches turns to BCRIC.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

[ Page 5301 ]

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

MR. CHAIRMAN:

What is correct is that we have an amendment before us to reduce the

Provincial Secretary's salary vote. That is what we should stick to.

MR. BARNES:

Okay. Here's an example of what I mean. A little while ago this

government attempted to infringe upon what has been an untouchable area

regarded by most freedom-loving people as the one place in which

politicians would not intrude: the letters to the editor section. Then

they did their number on the letters game, which backfired on them.

Zappo! They tried to do a number on the people and got caught. Then it

comes time for redistribution. They tried to play another little game

to get Gracie's Finger. Zappo, they got caught — another piece of

BCRIC. Northeast coal. It's not only hard, but it's now turning red.

That's BCRIC too.

Mr. Chairman, your coalition of Liberals,

Progressive Conservatives and whatever else you may have over there

agree, I'm sure, that they feel like they have a BCRIC wall around them

when it comes to their leader. Again the minister touched them and

said: "I promise you everything." They got over there and they found

that they too were faced with a BCRIC situation. The final straw is

when the Premier cannot even go to his own constituency — cannot even

go home — without the people yelling: "He has a BCRIC wall around him."

I'll

tell you, there's no end. It's doomsday for that government. There's

nothing I can do but to try to shake them up a little bit so that they

will cut the games and the manoeuvres, no more tactics and ploys and

just come clean. That really frightens me, because if they did that

they would start to behave like human beings. If they did that they

would begin to seriously rival us in the opposition. I don't think

there's any problem. They're so committed to the idea of deception and

image-making that we're on safe ground. Unfortunately the people of

British Columbia are on sad ground, because they are aiding and

abetting these people who already deceive the public too much. We're

already paying 200 and 300 percent more than we should for consumer

goods and for the ordinary amenities of life. It is a tragic situation,

Mr. Chairman. The people of British Columbia are seriously angry. It

wasn't anything that I did; I'm just observing. If they were wise, Mr.

Chairman, that government would observe as well, step back and take the

advice of Dylan Thomas: "Do not go gentle into that good night."

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I've listened very carefully without responding or trying to make

comment on a number of speakers. Over the past two days we've had a

continuous personal attack on Mr. Douglas Heal. After all, Mr.

Chairman, fair is fair. Mr. Heal is a public servant appointed under

the Public Service Act just like any other deputy minister. As a public

servant he is not able to defend himself from the innuendo bordering on

smear which has been mounted systematically by this opposition. There

is not a shred of evidence to support the opposition's accusations.

Look at their sources. What are they? They are newspaper clippings and

stories containing assertions from unknown sources and attributing

quotes to people who may or may not agree with the way the stories came

out. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, who in this House has not had comments

distorted by being taken out of context. Who in this House has not felt

the frustration and distaste that arises when sly writing is used to

indirectly ridicule, defame without being libelous and skate around the

truth while implying wrongdoing?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, fair is fair.

There has been a statement that Mr. Heal was not appointed under the

competitive process. The opposition knows well that deputy minister

positions are not filled by the usual competitive process. An

examination of their record when in office would show that they well

understand this fact. No, Mr. Heal was not appointed under the process

to which the opposition refers. He was chosen from a great many

applicants for the job. There may be a number of these applicants in

the press gallery today. Mr. Douglas Heal came to the service of the

government of British Columbia with fine qualifications in public

communications. He was hired to perform the very important job of

ensuring that the public's communication needs from government are met

effectively and efficiently. I might point out that there's nothing

unique in this. Mr. Heal's predecessors in the important work of

coordinating government information include not only Mr. David Brown,

his immediate predecessor, but individuals who carried similar

responsibility when the opposition held office as government.

don't remember this kind of protracted debate regarding his

predecessor, who was here for some four and a half years. Mr. Heal's

function is no different than his predecessor's. It's to coordinate the

activities of communications and to try to make them more effective.

That's within the interests of the people of British Columbia, not just

the government and the politicians. We would not be doing a proper

service if our communications were not efficient and effective. Once

again, fair is fair.

Having expressed my concern about this

ongoing attack against a public servant, may I suggest to all of those

here that the debate now move on to other areas of my ministry. I

believe that the debate of the last days has canvassed this matter

quite adequately, based on a lot of innuendo and ridicule of a reliable

and responsible individual who is not able to come here and defend

himself. There are a great many areas under the Ministry of the

Provincial Secretary — all the way from libraries to museums to

cultural grants — and I would look forward to having some matters dealt

with under those topics.

MRS. DAILLY: We, too, are

very interested in all the other aspects of the Provincial Secretary's

ministry. We certainly intend to canvass them. The very fact that the

minister says, "let's get off it; let's move on," proves that he still

does not understand the importance of the discussion that's taken place

here for the last two days.

I think if you went through Hansard

since we started this debate, you would find no personal attack on Mr.

Heal, The attack is based on what Mr. Heal has been assigned to do by

that minister and the Social Credit government. That's the basis of our

attack.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Manipulating the news'?

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Heal himself has been quoted as saying that he doesn't see it as

his responsibility to separate fact from politics. This is a quote of

Mr. Heal's views. All right, that's the way he sees his role. If you're

talking about us accusing anyone of manipulating the news, then we have

[ Page 5302 ]

put

the manipulation of the news where it belongs — if we follow what he

has said — at the doorstep of the minister and the Social Credit

government.

We have canvassed a number of areas of concern

not only with the appointment of Mr. Heal but with the whole idea of

building up a large public relations organization within the Social

Credit government. As a matter of fact, when the announcement first

came, it was not the NDP who mounted the first concerns and attacks. I

have a quote here from the Province

of February 17 in which, after the appointment of Heal, a government

source, who must have been asked about said: "They're looking" —

referring to the government — "for a more political, less bureaucratic

kind of organization. All they really want is an information service

that will wash away all their problems." That's what one government

source said. Another government source described the new department

that's being planned as "a propaganda arm." This is not the opposition

talking; this is a government source.

AN. HON. MEMBER: A public servant.

MRS. DAILLY:

They must have been concerned. All governments have information

officers and they have a job to do to get information out. Now we have

government civil servants who are saying themselves that they are

concerned. They have never seen this before in this province. They

sense something sinister. The public of B.C. finds this whole thing

sinister. Can you tell me why any opposition should sit quietly and

rush through a vote that is obviously asking us to approve the spending

of money. The basic intent of this vote and of the minister in hiring

Heal and the public relations machine is to manage the news. Worse than

that, it's not only to manage the news — not with Social Credit Party

funds. No one could knock them for that. They have a right, just as the

NDP does, to put out their own party literature.

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

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

MR. MUSSALLEM:

The point of order that I raised is that the hon. member from Burnaby

North who's just spoken stated that she is reading from a government

source, regarding certain remarks she made. Would she care to reveal

that source?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it's

difficult for the Chair at this particular time to entertain that as a

valid point of order. It could conceivably be brought up at the

conclusion of the member's address. The member, however, has heard the

point, and if the member cares to remark on it, so be it. But the Chair

has no way of instructing on that point of order.

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

I think this is really the essence of our whole discussion over the last two

days. It is not a facetious motion; it is a motion that we sincerely believe

has to be made. We cannot sit back and let news be managed by any government

in this province, and that is why I would now call for the question, so that

we can see how many people believe in political morality in government and who

doesn't.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lorimer

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

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

On vote 164.

MR. HANSON:

A couple of minutes ago in this House the Provincial Secretary

indicated that he wanted to deal with something other than Mr. Heal,

something related specifically to his vote. I want to outline for him a

particular series of events, and then have him give it to Mr. Heal to

see if he can correct the image that will be portrayed after this

information is laid out for us all.

Within the Provincial

Secretary's responsibilities he is in charge of the cultural affairs of

this province — the heritage resources. In the Fraser Valley there is

the oldest continuously occupied farm in British Columbia, the Edenbank

Farm. The Edenbank Farm story is very interesting, because it has

political connotations in the same way that the Spetifore land

decisions have political connotations. The Edenbank farm was

established about 1867 as a dairy farm by a Mr. Wells. Not only is this

farm of extreme importance, this family is a very notable British

Columbian family. They did a number of things which were very

significant in the history of British Columbia. Mr. A.C. Wells

established this farm in 1867, and for five generations that farm was

held in the Wells family. The grandson of Mr. A.C. Wells was a man by

the name of Oliver Wells, who came to a very untimely death a few years

ago. For five generations Mr. Wells and his entire family were

committed to developing the dairy and sheep industry within British

Columbia in a most innovative way that would benefit British Columbia.

That family was characterized by their commitment to the heritage

resources of British Columbia. They were committed to Indian people in

the Fraser Valley. On many occasions they worked closely with Indian

bands to develop the various cultural traditions that were dying out,

to have them perpetuated and maintained within the Fraser Valley.

few years ago the heritage conservation branch of the Provincial

Secretary's department initiated a study. They got a very

well-qualified man by the name of Jack Herbert, now deceased.... Around

1977, I believe, they contracted Mr.

[ Page 5303 ]

Herbert

to carry out a study of the Edenbank Farm. The object of the study was

to determine whether the Edenbank Farm should be designated as a

heritage site in the province of British Columbia, and should be

brought into the public domain, either purchased by the province,

designated and protected by the laws of the province or assigned in

conjunction with Fraser Valley College or some other educational

institution. Mr. Herbert completed his report and made a series of

recommendations. He indicated in his report that not only was the

Edenbank of local and provincial heritage significance, but according

to criteria which are utilized by the Historic Sites and Monuments

Board of Canada, of which Mr. Herbert was a secretary for six years,

the Edenbank Farm could be recognized as a national heritage site.

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

"...that

the Edenbank Farm be designated a provincial heritage site under

part 2

of the Heritage Conservation Act. It is considered to be an outstanding

example of the best in British Columbian agricultural tradition. It is

also felt that it could qualify under both genetical and unique

categories. The writer would go so far as to suggest, based on six

years' experience as secretary to the Historic Sites and Monuments

Board of Canada, that it would also stand up very well subjected to the

thematic approach that is sometimes used by that board to designate

sites of national importance."

What we have then is a farm

in the Fraser Valley near Chilliwack. A report was carried out. A first

recommendation is that the site be designated a heritage resource,

because for five generations it was the finest of agricultural

tradition of British Columbia, the very first dairy cooperative in

British Columbia and, I believe, the second dairy cooperative in all of

Canada.

The second recommendation was:

"...that

every effort be made to provide for the preservation and conservation

of the house and farm buildings together with sufficient land to

guarantee their setting, to protect around them enough of the

environmental landscape to create a buffer zone that would screen the

homesite from any further development or activity that would tend to be

detrimental to its function as a heritage site.

"Thirdly,

that Edenbank heritage site be used to interpret" — I would just like

to underline that point — "the evolution of the dairy industry in

British Columbia using the life of the Wells family, and reconstructed

for the growth in animal husbandry, farming technology and so on."

other words, Mr. Herbert, a very capable historian, had carried out the

study under contract and indicated that yes, it should be designated,

it should be protected, it should be in the public domain because it is

a living farm. For five generations the family had contributed to the

agricultural traditions and well-being in British Columbia, and

therefore it should have been designated. That, in a nutshell, is phase

one of the story.

Phase two of the story is that under the

Provincial Secretary there is a board that advises the minister on what

sorts of sites are of significance in the province and should be

designated. This board is called the Heritage Advisory Board. In

conjunction is a separate body referred to as the Heritage Trust, and

that body attempts to secure funds if funds are not available in the

province.

What did this board say about the Edenbank Farm?

Before I tell you I'd just like to tell you who is on this board. This

board is composed of academics and lay people of various types whose

judgment is authoritative and responsible, and presumably they should

have the confidence of the minister. The chairman of the board is Dr.

Donald Mitchell from the University of Victoria, and the members

include Dr. Roy Carlson of Simon Fraser. There are two Indian

representatives on the board for the Indian heritage matters, Ms.

Ardyth Cooper and Ms. Gloria Cranmer-Webster. Also members are Dr. Ed

Gibson at Simon Fraser: Dr. J.E. Hendrickson, Dr. Margaret Ormsby; Mr.

Martin Segger, who is from the Maltwood Museum here in Victoria; a lay

person, Mr. Ronald Sutherland Dr. Charles Humphries; Dr. R.W. Davidson;

and Mr. William Sloan.

MS. BROWN: That is hardly a frivolous board.

MR. HANSON:

That is not a frivolous board, a board that would make frivolous,

overly academic or arcane suggestions or recommendations to the

minister.

In their deliberations as a board on October 20,

1978.... This again is a matter that has taken a great period of time

and extends up to just recent times in its deliberations. They reviewed

Mr. Herbert's report and thought it was excellent. In fact, their

minutes state: "that their committee accept and appreciate the

excellent report on Edenbank Farm and refer its first part, the

research guidelines, to the guidelines committee for consideration and

study." They didn't make a snap decision. They referred it to a

committee of their board for full review and by the staff of the

branch. They then went on to deliberate on the recommendations, and the

board dealt with recommendation (a), which was for the designation of

the Edenbank Farm as a provincial heritage site under this minister's

responsibility the minister that now directs Mr. Heal's activities.

While

I'm giving you my comments, I would like you to think about the image

challenge of Mr. Heal on a particular case like this, which is

extremely well-documented. Here we have the board dealing with the

recommendation. This is what they say in their minutes: "that Edenbank

be designated a provincial heritage site under part two of the Heritage

Conservation Act. It is considered to be an outstanding example of the

best in British Columbia in our agricultural condition. It is also felt

that it could qualify under both general and unique categories." The

board unanimously endorsed the proposal to designate this farm and to

forward that recommendation to the minister.

The

deliberations then go on. Mr. Herbert's recommendation (

b) states:

"Every effort be made to provide for the preservation and conservation

of the house and the farm buildings, together with sufficient land to

ensure its preservation for subsequent generations." The board

unanimously endorsed Mr. Herbert's recommendation that the Edenbank

heritage site be used to interpret the evolution and growth of the

dairy industry in the Fraser Valley, using the life of the Wells family

to trace the growth in technology, farming, animal husbandry, product

utilization and marketing within the context of Fraser Valley society.

Let me remind you, Mr. Chairman, that there is only a very small amount

of farmland in British Columbia. The agricultural community is fighting

for its life under this government, and such a designation for a living

museum — not a cobweb one, ignored and out of the mainstream of British

Columbian society — would help

[ Page 5304 ]

British

Columbians not acquainted with farming and the history of farming in

the province to become acquainted, to appreciate it and to fight for

the preservation of farmland, which is coming under such intense

pressure as a result of the speculative friends of this government, Mr.

Chairman.

That in a nutshell is phase two. Phase one was Mr.

Herbert's report. Phase two was the board bringing it to the attention

of the government and the minister for his action. Were they asking for

a lot of money? No, they were not. The family — the recent occupants of

the farm — were very generous in their contribution to the province