1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1025 ]

CONTENTS

Fair Sales Practices Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 10). Hon. Mr. Cocke. Introduction

and first reading — 1025

An Act for the Restriction of the Use of Spring Traps (Bill 41). Mr. Gardom,

Introduction and first reading — 1025

Senior Citizens' Home Repair Assistance Act (Bill 42). Mrs. Jordan. Introduction

and first reading — 1025

Home Buyers' Protection Act (Bill 43). Mrs. Jordan. Introduction and first

reading — 1025

An Act to Amend the Public Bodies Information Act (Bill 44). Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading — 1025

Oral Questions

Casa Loma project. Mr. Bennett — 1025

Casa Loma lien settlement. Mr. Bennett — 1026

Casa Loma appraisal. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1026

Payment of interest on prior mortgage. Mr. Phillips — 1027

Casa Loma appraisal. Mr. L.A. Williams — 1027

Land purchase planning in Langley area. Hon. Mr. Stupich answers —

VGH abortion study. Mr. Wallace — 1028

Vanderhoof land purchase. Hon. Mr. Nicolson answers — 1028

Correction re Kamloops duplexes. Mr. Morrison — 1028

Division on motion that Mr. Chairman leave the chair — 1038

Committee of Ways and Means Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1050

Supply Act, No. 1, 1975 (Bill 11). Introduction and first, second and third

readings — 1050

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. D.F. Lockstead (Mackenzie): I ask the House to

join me in welcoming 35 students from my home community on

beautiful Texada Island, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Ted

Ross, Mr. Ron Arnold, Mrs. Downing and Mrs. Wilson.

Also, Mr. Speaker, among the students is my daughter Sylvia.

Thank you.

Mrs. D. Webster (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, it

gives me great pleasure to introduce to this assembly today two

distinguished members of the Canadian Armed Services, Major

Anderson and Major Thorns, who are here to see our Legislature

in action. I would ask this assembly to give them a warm

welcome.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker,

I would very much like to introduce to the Members on the floor

Mr. Sankey and Mr. Davies and 100 Lord Byng students and bid

them a very, very warm welcome and wish them all a happy

Easter.

Ms. R. Brown (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker,

sitting in the gallery are some visitors from Toronto, Bob and

Barbara Beardsley and their daughter. I would specially like

the House to welcome Barbara because she's going to be our NDP

candidate in the provincial election in Ontario when it gets

called.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): A lost cause.

Presenting reports.

Hon. A.B. MacDonald (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker,

under

section 178(22)(

v) of the Protection of Privacy Act, as

required by federal law, I file the annual report for the

period July 1, 1974, to December 31, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: Is that under provincial law that it is

required?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: No, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I should

ask leave because this is a federal statute that requires me to

file this in this House.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: I don't like federal law telling

us to file something in this House. That's up to us.

Introduction of bills.

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Cocke, on behalf of the Minister of

Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young), Bill 10, Fair Sales

Practices Amendment Act, 1975, introduced, read a first time

and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT FOR THE RESTRICTION

OF THE USE OF SPRING TRAPS

On a motion by Mr. Gardom, Bill 41,

An Act for the

Restriction of the Use of Spring Traps, introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

SENIOR CITIZENS' HOME REPAIR ASSISTANCE ACT

On a motion by Mrs. Jordan, Bill 42, Senior Citizens' Home

Repair Assistance Act, introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at

the next sitting of the House after today.

HOME BUYERS' PROTECTION ACT

On a motion by Mrs. Jordan, Bill 43, Home Buyers' Protection

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

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

House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

PUBLIC BODIES INFORMATION ACT

On a motion by Mr. McClelland, Bill 44,

An Act to Amend the

Public Bodies Information Act, introduced, read a first time

and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

CASA LOMA PROJECT

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, to the Minister of Housing. In view of the fact that

the Minister has taken nine important questions on the Casa

Loma affair as notice and has, as yet, not given any answer to

any of them, I would like to ask the Minister if the Casa Loma

that

[ Page

1026 ]

he presented to the House.

Hon. L. Nicolson (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker,

I don't believe it is true that I've not answered any of the

questions pertaining to the Casa Loma...

Mr. Bennett: It's nine.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: ...senior citizens' housing

project.

Mr. Bennett: I'll give you the dates.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: We are planning to proceed with

the project. While I am on my feet I'd like to bring out that

this thing began in some measure when I was asked to respond to

an allegation made by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A.

Anderson) on February 20, when he asked me: "Has the Minister

commenced an inquiry into the fact" — fact, Mr. Speaker — "that

the price Dunhill Development negotiated for the purchase of

this property on Kingsway, owned by Casa Loma Motels Ltd., is

substantially above, approximate $1 million above, the price

asked for the same property a few months before the

negotiations with Dunhill commenced?".

The provincial government agreed to purchase the completed

project, and I would like leave to table now an affidavit,

signed by Mr. Gangji, president of Casa Loma Motels Ltd., which

states that at no time has Casa Loma Motels offered the

completed project for sale for a purchase price less than that

agreed to by the Crown.

I'd be interested to know whether the Member can furnish me

with any evidence that contradicts the statement.

Leave granted.

CASA LOMA LIEN SETTLEMENT

Mr. Bennett: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm wondering if the

answer to the question was: yes, the project is proceeding

Minister. Then could the Minister advise the House, with

respect to the purchase agreement between Casa Loma and Dunhill

Development tabled in the House, if negotiations leading

towards the purchase were begun prior to the settlement of all

liens and claims against Casa Loma by the vendor?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Speaker, I've said that I believe we were first

contacted quite some time ago. I don't know what the Member means by negotiations.

Certainly nothing was agreed to nor could be agreed to until we had a commitment

from Central Mortgage and Housing, which came in late December, and nothing

could be done without my approval and my signature.

Mr. Bennett: The question, Mr. Speaker, was: were

negotiations leading towards the purchase begun prior to the

settlement of all liens and claims?

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): It's a very

simple question.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: It's a simple question — no reason

to avoid it.

Mr. Bennett: So, what is the answer?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: I have said that we had been in

contact with them....

Mr. Bennett: Would you explain it to him, Mr.

Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member, if

he intends to address the House, please stand?

CASA LOMA APPRAISAL

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, as the

Minister at least initially appeared willing to answer

something, may I ask him whether the government has got a

market value appraisal prior to any offer from Mr. Gangji or

anyone else?

May I also ask him — and I repeat the question — on what date

did the department's proposal-call screening committee consider

the purchase of the Casa Loma property and make recommendations

to the government?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: As the Member seems to know

something about this, I would ask that he share it with the

House. Do you know what date they were talking with them about

this? They were talking about it some time ago, I believe, Mr.

Member.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: This is a novel experience of

Ministers offering to give up their departments to Members of

the opposition. I would like to know exactly when the

government's proposal-call screening committee started the

negotiations, looked at the thing and made the recommendation

to the government, and whether or not this was on the basis of

an independent market-value appraisal.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: You'll find it out.

An Hon. Member: When?

[ Page 1027 ]

Interjections.

PAYMENT OF INTEREST

ON PRIOR MORTGAGE

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Would the

Minister advise the House if any of the $565,000 advanced to

Casa Loma is being used to pay interest on a prior mortgage on

the property by Coronation Credit Corp. Ltd. In the amount of

$1.3 million, the interest of which is to be paid monthly on the first day of

each month?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: There has been an advance made,

work is proceeding, and the work is being supervised by three

different agencies. When a substantial amount of progress has

been made, other advances will be made in accordance with the

agreement. They're taking this money; they're spending it in

various ways, I would imagine.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: They have continuing commitments....

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Read the contract.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: This is like trying to determine.... Read the contract. Really, it's quite clear. I'll tell you

this: if they don't satisfy the terms of that agreement, we

could end up getting this for $2.5 million. That's how much

risk we're taking.

Mr. Phillips: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Is the Minister of the opinion that the mortgage in the right

of the Crown in the amount of $3,177,500 is fully secured when

it stands second to a first mortgage on the Casa Loma property

held by Coronation Credit Corp. Ltd., in the amount of

$1,300,000, or an equal amount more than the purchase price of

$3,177,500? More than the chattel, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: If the Member would read the

agreement, he would see that the Crown would come out of this,

if we had to pay off the first mortgage, getting the entire

project for approximately $2.5 million if they were to default.

That's the risk the Crown is taking. We might even save more

money than that.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Is the Minister aware that the government lent money at

10 per cent when Coronation Credit is receiving 12 per cent or 4 per cent over

prime, whichever is greater, when the government mortgage is subject to a first

mortgage? With leave of the House, I would like to table with the House a copy

of the mortgage between Casa Loma and Her Majesty in right of the Queen which

states....

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows

that you must not seek information set forth in documents

equally accessible to the questioner, such as public documents

registered in land registry or in this House.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, I am asking leave of the

House to table both of the mortgages....

Mr. Speaker: All these documents are either tabled or

public record.

Mr. Phillips: The mortgage between the Crown and Casa

Loma has not been tabled in this House.

Mr. Speaker: It is a matter of public record.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, what was tabled in this

House was a memorandum of agreement and not the original

mortgage, which states very clearly that the mortgage in right

of the Queen is subject to the first mortgage in favour of

Coronation Credit Corp. Ltd. registered under No. 1114620. Both

of these mortgages....

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Hon. Member has

cleared up the matter entirely. It is registered in the land

registry office and therefore is a public document and should

not really be in question period.

Mr. Phillips: I asked leave of the House to table

these mortgages.

Mr. Speaker: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: It's redundant. That document has

already been filed as an appendix to the memorandum of

agreement.

CASA LOMA APPRAISAL

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): On the

same subject to the Hon. Minister of Housing. Two weeks ago I

asked him, and he took it as notice, whether or not the

government or Dunhill had obtained a market-value appraisal of

the property before entering into the agreement for purchase. I

wonder if the Minister could indicate when he could answer.

[ Page 1028 ]

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Well, I will attempt to answer

that in due course.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Oh, come on, you've had weeks.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. D.A. Stupich (Minister of Agriculture): Is it

out of order to change the subject? (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker: Answers are always in order.

LAND PURCHASE PLANNING

IN LANGLEY AREA

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Yesterday I took as notice a

question about who was doing the planning for the land purchase

in the Langley area. The planning is being done in the house by

the Land Commission staff.

The first report I have from them is with respect to the

farms in that area which have been used for growing

strawberries. The report is to the effect that those should be

retained for strawberry production. They're looking now at the

rest of the farms.

Mr. R. H. McClelland (Langley): It was the

understanding of the strawberry growers in the area that they

would have first option to purchase on that land. Would the

Land Commission consider selling to those strawberry growers in

the area if they wish to buy?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Speaker, the Land Commission

will consider anything.

VGH ABORTION STUDY

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a question

of the Minister of Health. I think it was November of last year

that the Minister made a statement that he would initiate a

study at the Vancouver General Hospital in regard to the

practice of abortion and the question that had been raised

about abortions being carried on in the later weeks, or as late

as 24 weeks of pregnancy. Has the Minister carried out such a

study, and could he tell the House when the results will be

available to the public?

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister of Health): We have had ongoing studies of

this particular situation, monitoring it across the province, since the time

that the Member outlines. I have a good body of opinion that feels that the

kind of work being done in the province is highly responsible. I don't feel

that it would serve the public interest to debate the question publicly because

of the fact that there are so many biases in this regard. But the law of Canada

is being conformed with in every way in the hospitals in B.C., as far as I can

see.

Mr. Wallace: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. From the

studies has the Minister a position or made any decision to

make recommendations for presentation at the next meeting of

the provincial Ministers of Health on the subject of

abortion?

Hon. Mr. Cocke: Mr. Speaker, I asked that the subject

be put on the agenda at the last Ministers' meeting. The

subject was on the agenda, unfortunately rather late on the

agenda, and was discussed in part. There were no particular

decisions definitively made at that time. However, I'm sure

that it will be on future agendas. We will be meeting as early

as, likely, September this year and I'm quite sure that the

question will be discussed again at that time.

Mr. Wallace: A final, quick supplementary, Mr.

Speaker. Could I ask if the Ministers at any time have

discussed the request to the federal government to rewrite the

federal legislation? Was that ever discussed at a former

provincial Ministers' meeting?

Hon. Mr. Cocke: That was discussed. It was not

totally supported at the Ministers of Health level. I'm on

record as having asked that the federal Act be changed to omit

abortion from the Criminal Code of Canada. But it has not had

full enough discussion yet, nor has it had full enough support

from the remainder of the provinces.

VANDERHOOF LAND PURCHASE

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: The other day I took as notice a

question from the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips)

concerning Vanderhoof. He suggested that we were purchasing 30

acres of land at the price of approximately $35,000 an acre.

This was an error in the press release, which should have

pointed out that this covered both acquisition and servicing.

So for a potential 125 lots the actual acquisition cost for the

30 acres is $447,000. Interest costs were estimated at $50,000

and servicing at $962,000. The total cost per serviced lot

would be estimated at $8,472.

Mr. Phillips: I'd like to ask the Minister of Housing

if he's having trouble with his research staff and with his

public relations men who are putting out these false press

releases?

CORRECTION RE KAMLOOPS DUPLEXES

Mr. N.R. Morrison (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd

[ Page 1029 ]

like to also ask the Minister of Housing if he would also

correct the other notice that came out in the housing news

concerning 12 side-by-side duplexes being produced in Kamloops.

I understand that there are only 12 units, not 24 as the

release states.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as the Hon.

Member did discuss with me outside of the House, I have had a

chance to check and verify that, as the Member says.

Mr. Gardom: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, in

question period today a number of Members stood in their

places, used their microphones and asked a number of questions

of the Minister of Housing. The Minister, in certain instances,

was sitting in his seat and answered a number of questions from

his seat without his microphone being raised. My question to

you, Mr. Speaker, is: under these circumstances, are all the

remarks of the Hon. Minister recorded fully in Hansard ,

or are they not?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, the microphone of the Hon. Minister

would be on at that time, as I am informed.

Mr. Smith: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, it would

seem to me that in question period the order is that the

Minister either answer the question or take it as notice. I

don't believe it's really fair to the House for the Minister of

Housing or any other Minister to sit and neither answer the

question nor take it as notice. They should do one or the

other.

Mr. Speaker: I think that each person in the House

has to govern their behaviour by the rules. There's no rule

requiring an answer in question period and there's no rule

requiring the taking of notice. However, I would think that as

a courtesy to the House it would be recognized procedure that

Members who are addressing the House stand in their place,

which is a rule of the House.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): On a point of order,

Mr. Speaker. In view of these questions about the question

period, can we be assured by yourself or by Hansard that

there'll be a special

section in Hansard in the index

entitled "Apologies" so we can cover some of the questions

from the other side of the House? (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Would everybody line up

for points of order?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Not a point of order, Mr. Speaker,

but a request to table documents.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! What is your point of

order?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: It is not a point of order; it's a

request to table documents prior to going into committee.

Mr. Speaker: On what subject, please?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table

extracts from proceedings at trial of British Columbia Egg

Marketing Board v. Veeken's Poultry Farm Ltd. et al, dated

December 16, 1974. I wish to file a document giving the

cross-examination testimony of one Mr. Savo Kovachich at the

same trial.

Mr. Speaker: Is this relating to some matter raised

in committee?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, it's related to your

statement earlier that documents which are the public record we

don't need to table, but documents which are not should be

tabled. It was in response to your own ruling earlier today

that I wish to table these documents.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! The Hon. Member surely

knows that all trials and proceedings and transcripts are a

matter of public record. Therefore they do not require to be

tabled in this House.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to hear

it as I had to pay some $35 to have them transcribed...

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, oh! Pass the hat!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: ...and I understand I have the

only copies of it transcribed. I thought other Members might

like to have copies. If it's necessary to table it, I'll be

happy to take it as a matter of public record.

Mr. Speaker: May I point out to the Hon. Member that

matters that occur in committee are not known to the House

unless they're reported to the House by the Chairman?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Oh, no, you've changed that.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Speaker: I think you'd better listen to what I

just said. Matters that are in Committee of the

[ Page 1030 ]

Whole House are only known to the House by report from the

Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House. If the Committee

of the Whole House decide they wish to table documents, they

must ask leave of the House to do so, through the Chairman. But

no Member could do it otherwise.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, it's a question of

the committee itself not coming out of committee to table

documents. It's a request of a Member wishing to table

documents so that the matter can be fully appreciated by all

Members of the House when the committee, indeed, comes to

discuss it. So I request leave to table documents.

Leave granted.

Orders of the day.

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

On motion 1.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Mr. Chairman, because the

House will meet to consider interim supply due to an agreed-upon recess, I now move that from out of the

consolidated revenue fund there be paid and applied, in such

manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

may determine, a sum not exceeding in the whole $537 million

towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the

public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March

31, 1976, not otherwise provided for and being substantially

one-sixth of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending

March 31, 1976, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the

Province of British Columbia at the present session.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that

this is a debatable motion. We'd just like to point out that

while we have no wish to delay the payment of salaries to civil

servants and others, to put these emergency measures down to

the Easter recess is to confuse the issue totally.

The fact is that we meet later. The fact is that the

government has not provided for having the estimates through in

an adequate manner prior to running out of money. The fact is

that we started much later than normal and there was no

provision made for this by the government. It's only now that

they discover that they've made a mistake. It's now March 26

and the Minister of Finance brings in supply until the 31st. As

I said, we are willing to agree that this pass through, but in

future we want to have supply come and estimates be debated in

a realistic manner, which it cannot be once you've already

started.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You've wasted a whole week.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Vote against the bill. Don't talk

one way and do the other. Vote against it.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, if order will be

restored, the fact is that we are not having estimates brought

forward in the proper manner so that we can indeed debate

programmes under those estimates without having to find that

interim supply comes in to start these programmes going before

even this House gives its approval to the programmes

themselves. We, as I said, realize what the stake is. We

realize where the fault lies. We understand that we are going

to have to do this to pay salaries of civil servants and keep

essential programmes going, but we trust that in time we won't

have more of this financial bungling of this nature and we

will not get feeble excuses that this is in any way related to

an Easter recess, which it of course is not.

Mr. W.R. Bennett (South Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, I

join with the Second Member for Victoria in questioning the

reason for this measure being brought before the House at this

time, particularly now as the government passed last year

regulations that would bring predictable closure to the

estimates and debate, where we only have a limited number of

hours, and the fact that the session was called later this

year, called in February rather than at the end of January. The

reason we are passing this supply has nothing to do with the

recess. We would be voting temporary supply whether this recess

took place or not, but we, too, do not want to stand in the way

of the payment of wages for the civil service or the

continuation of government services. In no way does this commit

us in any way to endorsing a budget which we are opposed to in

this province.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): I just want to say that I

feel that the calling of the session in February made a lot of

sense to me, since we had just left this place in November,

unless the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) wants to sit

here 12 months of the year. I think as long as it is clearly

understood that in approving and supporting this measure we are

in fact simply making it possible for the wheels of government

to turn within the law of the province, but making no

commitment on my part necessarily to approve the budgets of

specific Ministers, such as the one we are debating right now,

with that clear understanding — and that is the understanding I

have — I feel that this is a reasonable measure.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I find that the remarks

[ Page 1031 ]

made by the official Leader of the Opposition just parrot a

wrong opinion held by the leader of the Liberal Party. I would

advise the Leader of the Opposition, if he is looking for

counsel, not to go to that source. The federal government has

interim supply practically every two months in Ottawa. In one

instance, they were almost a year behind in their estimates.

This is simply a matter of....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, you want to interrupt.

This is simply a matter of keeping the business of

government running while we have a recess. If you care to

debate that, vote against the bill but don't play cheap

politics with what is nothing more than a normal housekeeping

method of keeping the wheels of government going. If you really

feel hat strongly, Mr. Member, vote against it, but,

don't talk both ways.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: We are accused of cheap politics,

but we point out that this bill is here as a result of

mismanagement of the House and the scheduling of the House.

What we have stressed to the Premier and Minister of Finance,

who perhaps didn't hear, is that we realize the pay of civil

servants must be given to them. We realize that certain

programmes must continue, but the fact is by putting in two

months' supply this way, we are launching programmes, we are

undertaking expenditures under the budget when we have not,

indeed, approved the estimates of the various Ministers.

For example, under this we have two months' supply for the

Minister of Housing's (Hon. Mr. Nicolson'

s) activities and we

really question whether we should give one day's supply in view

of his incompetent performance here.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Vote against it. If you feel that

way, vote against it.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I stress to you, which you

continue to misunderstand, Mr. Minister of Finance, what our

policy is on this.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Vote against it.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: It is for you. If you wish, you

can vote against it. You may have proposed it, but if you want

to vote against it, you can.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: We have made our decision as to what we intend to

do, and in terms of bad advice being offered across the floor, yours is generally

the worst. We feel that in this area there are a number of questions which might

be put to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and to the Minister of Housing,

all about programmes which are in their responsibility and all of which will

be current in the next two months and all of which will be effected by the interim

supply we grant.

As I mentioned, the proposal is that we launch a whole

series of government programmes before the people's

representatives have approved the money for them. We don't like

that in principle. We don't think it should be done. In

particular, we find your excuses extremely feeble. The excuse

is that we have got an Easter recess of a little over a week

coming up, and that is the reason for a two-month interim

supply period.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): It's a

$500 million Easter egg.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: It's a $500 million Easter egg, as

my colleague from North Vancouver pointed out. It just doesn't

make sense for the Minister of Finance to get up and make the

pious statements that he did.

We are not here debating federal expenditure. The Premier

spent most of the last two weeks debating federal issues. He

spent much of the last few weeks denouncing Ottawa for things

going back as far as the Bonaventure, ignoring totally the $103

million overrun of his own Minister sitting only 10 feet from

him. He goes back 10 years to get hold of an issue which I

think was only about a third the amount of the overrun of the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi).

I think it's about time he concentrated his mind on problems

that we have in British Columbia and on some of the problems

within his own government and leave it to the 23 elected

British Columbia politicians who represent the province

federally to discuss issues there. Heaven knows, there are

plenty of opposition Members who are quite capable of doing

that from British Columbia in Ottawa at the present time.

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): Well, Mr.

Chairman, for the Premier to get up and introduce this bill and

then say, "Vote against it, vote against it," is a cheap

political manoeuvre by the Premier of the province. Cheap

politics.

It's a fact that you incited rebuttal when you got up with a

highly political statement that somehow the need for this bill

was the Easter recess that we're about to engage upon. That has

nothing to do with it at all. It's just a cheap political

manoeuvre.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Cheap

politics.

Mr. Smith: For you to suggest that the

[ Page 1032 ]

opposition then has no right to reply, when you use those

sort of tactics yourself, is beneath the position of your

office. It certainly is.

We have had ample opportunity to discuss estimates to a

certain degree, but if we had come into session earlier perhaps

we would have been all the way through estimates by this time.

We've got predictable closure involved in the House now at a

total of 135 hours for all the estimates. But for goodness'

sake, when we get into a situation where interim supply is a

necessity because of the fact that the civil service

organization must be paid and accounts should be paid by the

government on time if possible, don't tie it to a recess and

use that as the excuse for introducing the bill.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman,

I guess debate on this interim supply bill is indeed in order,

despite the Premier's challenge to us to vote against it. I

don't think any Members of this House would want to vote

against interim supply. I certainly wouldn't.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, just talk against it but vote

for it.

Mr. McGeer: I think that....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Just filibuster it but vote for

it.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. First Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey has the floor.

Mr. McGeer: I don't know how long we've been debating

this bill, but if we're into a filibuster after the first 10

minutes I think we've got a peculiar definition of a

filibuster.

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: The Premier conducted a filibuster all

last week.

An Hon. Member: Right on!

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: He couldn't answer any questions; all he

could do was give speeches. If the Members of the opposition

ask questions again today it's only because we've fallen into

the habit of that. It's because there are so few answers given

by the Members of the Treasury benches.

I remember only a few months ago coming over to Victoria to

attend a press conference given by the Minister of Human Resources who was looking for interim

supply of $100 million. (Laughter.) He had run out of his

budget in a matter of three or four months.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member

confine his remarks to motion 1 before us, please?

Mr. McGeer: Yes, indeed. I want to know whether there

are any clerical errors in this $500 million that we're

passing, because clerical errors reach astronomical proportions

in British Columbia. I can't think of anything which more

characterizes the NDP government in office than the $100

million clerical error. It's an accumulation of little slips of

this kind that is adding up to billions of dollars in our

budget. This year's expenditures, incurred by the government,

are $1.1 billion over those introduced a year ago.

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: A 50 per cent increase in one year.

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: Three times as great an increase as

introduced by any other province in Canada. That's the measure

of NDP fiscal restraint; that's a measure of the care which the

NDP government takes of the taxpayers' dollars. The $100

million that the Minister of Human Resources needed as interim

supply, Mr. Chairman, turned out to be a drop in the

bucket.

We want to ask just a few questions about the next two

months. One of them I would like to ask specifically of the

Minister of Human Resources. Has he double-checked his figures

this year? Can he assure us that there will be no $100 million

clerical errors — or any clerical errors at all?

Will the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) give to

the House today, and to that people of British Columbia, a firm

commitment that he will stay within his budget? That's an

important question, I think, for all the people of British

Columbia because we can't have $100 million here and $100

million there.

Mr. Chairman, would the Minister of Human Resources respond,

please?

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that we

have to have this debate today, but the debate that is taking

place is due strictly to the incompetence of the Minister of

Finance and Premier of this province — incompetence in not

being able to properly budget his expenditures, in not being

able to

[ Page 1033 ]

properly budget the money he is going to take in. If this

Premier and Minister of Finance had any competence whatsoever

as a leader and as an organizer, we wouldn't have to have this

measure here today.

Now for the Premier to come out and say that Ottawa does

this all the time is just not good enough. That's not good

enough. Two wrongs don't make a right, Mr. Chairman. The people

of this province are getting sick and tired of having budgets

presented to them which mean absolutely nothing, budgets which

are brought down and are not even a reasonable guide.

Now it was the Premier and Minister of Finance who brought

in closure on this House, who has given us the time periods in

which we can properly discuss the very, very important

portfolios of the Ministers and their spending.

You know, the Minister can't resist an opportunity to play

the clown. He tried it here this afternoon — tried to play the

clown, put on

an act to tell us that the reason for this

interim measure was because we were going for a holiday recess.

Every time somebody tries to point out to the Premier the error

of his ways, he says that we're against him.

I think before we pass this bill it is reasonable that we

should have before us in statute form all the additional

spending ideas of the government because we know they're

coming. I think, before we pass this interim measure, that if

the Premier were responsible to this Legislature, he would

bring in all of the statutes he is going to ask us to debate

and which will be spending more money on behalf of the

taxpayers of this province.

So far, Mr. Chairman, we have only two bills tabled in this

Legislature to raise taxes on people. We have bills to borrow

money from secret sources. We have other bills by the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) which seek to clamp down

on everybody's insider trading, except the government's trading

in the money markets of the world.

I'd like the Premier to explain this to me this afternoon:

what other bills are to be brought into this Legislature which

will mean additional spending or borrowing by this government?

This is an interim measure, and before we pass this $537

million spending this Legislature should be told. The Premier

should table in this House all of the bills that mean

additional borrowing or additional spending on behalf of the

people of the province brought down by that imp competent

Minister of Finance. I think he should stand and tell us

exactly where it stands.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Here is the

Minister of defence.

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister of Health): I'd like to just say a word or

two, since the opposition has taken this opportunity to play politics with a

very important bill.

Mr. Phillips: We want to know where you're spending

$500 million.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: Since the opposition has taken this

opportunity to play politics with a very important bill...I

have seen the Social Credit government in the past introduce

the same interim supply bill, which also goes through the

federal House on practically a month-to-month basis.

But you know, Mr. Chairman, it just annoys me a little bit

when I hear the Premier of this province insulted by the Member

for North Peace River or the Member for South Peace River, who

is probably a person who is thought of as the least responsible

person in the House. Mr. Chairman, I think that it is just

absolutely unacceptable from out standpoint.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I think before we

proceed any further, in order to rectify this matter, I would

ask both the Hon. Member for South Peace River to withdraw the

imputation that he made, a personal attack against the Minister

of Finance, and also a similar imputation by the Minister of

Health.

I will ask the Hon. Member for South Peace River to make his

withdrawal first.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, will you advise me of

what...? I was referring to incompetent government.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Your remark was

specifically directed to the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Phillips: If I imputed any assassination of the

character of the Premier, I'll certainly withdraw. But I was

referring to the incompetence of the government, the

incompetence of the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Member did

withdraw.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to go on

to say one other thing. That is just to repeat what I had

suggested during the budget debate, and that seems to be the

matter in question right now.

I smile inwardly when I hear the opposition and all their

criticisms of a larger budget. I smile when I think in terms of

the fact that the Health budget has gone from $290 million up

to $712 million. I asked the opposition if there was anywhere

they liked to cut in Health or, for that matter, in any other

area. They would not cut. They wouldn't dare cut! The fact of

the matter is that the money is needed for the people in this

province, the important people. All

[ Page 1034 ]

that opposition can do is carp and snipe and, Mr. Chairman,

I think it's just ridiculous.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I want to follow up some of

the excellent questions of the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) to the Minister of Human

Resources. I hope he'll see fit to listen to them and answer

them, because there's a bit of an emergency going on in one of

the responsibilities under his purview at the moment. I refer

to the question of Indian cut-off lands and the ultimatum which

he and the government have received for blockades and other

manifestations throughout this province if there's not some

kind of a meeting by April 1 with the Indian bands

concerned.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would draw to the

attention of the Hon. Member that we are debating the

advisability of approving this amount of money on the interim

supply. It must be strictly relevant to this motion. I think it

would be improper to get into the questioning of the Ministers

on their estimates.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, on that point of order, I

had assumed that certain of the moneys coming from this interim

supply vote were being asked to approve payment for....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There's no indication in

this motion where the money will be used.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, if you're willing to give

me an undertaking that the salary of that Minister won't be

paid for the next two months out of this estimate, that's just

fine. I'll sit down if you give me that undertaking. But I'm

suggesting to you that that Minister will be paid out of this

estimate and therefore it is my right to question it.

Mr. D.E. Lewis (Shuswap): Irresponsible opposition.

Irresponsible.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The only power of the

committee is either to defeat the resolution or to reduce it.

But I think it would....

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, that's the only power this

committee of supply has on any estimate. Obviously we are

allowed to discuss all the purposes for which these moneys are

to be expended.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Members must

surely know that you must stick to the words of the motion and

not get into questioning of the Minister's estimates.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, may I read you the motion?

I believe that's always in order: "... that from and out of

the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied, in

such manner and at such times as the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine, a sum not

exceeding in the whole $537 million towards defraying the

several charges and expenses of the public service of the

province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976...." Now

surely, Mr. Chairman, one of the several charges...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gibson: ...of the Province of British Columbia

is the salary of the Minister of Human Resources who is charged

with the co-ordination of the business of Indian affairs.

Mr. Chairman: Order! The Chair would rule that the

Hon. Member may debate the appropriateness of approving this

sum of money or, if necessary, reducing it. However, you may

not question individual Ministers on their estimates. This

should be done when the vote is called for that particular

vote. Otherwise, obviously we could debate every Minister's

estimates and we could go on for weeks. I would ask the Hon.

Member if he would confine his remarks to the advisability of

approving this sum of money.

Mr. Gibson: I think, as a matter of fact, Mr.

Chairman, if you will check into the practice on interim supply

in other Houses, you will find that, in fact, any subject may

be discussed. That is exactly the practice.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Chair is obliged to

follow the rules of this House, and the Chair is so ruling.

Mr. Gibson: I would be very glad if the Chair would

cite to me the rule of this House — any rule, any precedent —

which makes it clear that we are unable to debate the estimates

of various parts of the public service under this interim

supply which, as I say, covers every department of the public

service.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair will gladly oblige. First of

all, standing order 61(2): "Speeches in Committee of the Whole

House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under

consideration."

Mr. Gibson: That's right.

Mr. Chairman: Secondly, it has been the precedent of

this House for the previous 100 years that the interim supply

pass virtually without debate, and that any debate should be

confined to this

[ Page

1035 ]

particular motion, not to questioning the individual

Ministers on their estimates.

Mr. Gibson: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to

you that the fact that there hasn't been debate on this motion

in the past is essentially a negative piece of evidence. It

isn't positive evidence that proves anything. All it says is

that in the past it hasn't been debated, but I think that the

Chair is under no illusions that this motion is in fact

debatable. The fact that it is debatable, it seems to me,

allows us to inquire closely into the several purposes of the

disposition of the funds to be here provided.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Chair must rule on

the scope of debate, not on the debatability of something.

Therefore, the Chair is making a ruling that the scope of

debate must confine itself to this motion and not to

questioning individual Ministers on their estimates or on their

expenditures.

Mr. Gibson: But, Mr. Chairman, this motion does

provide for the salaries of individual Ministers.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The motion does not

indicate this. However, the Chair is making a ruling and I

would ask the Member to desist from questioning individual

Ministers on their estimates or on their administrative

responsibilities when, clearly, this will be provided for by

the votes when they are called for these departments.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I just want to talk about

the next two months strictly within the terms of this motion,

and I want to talk about an emergency that's coming up in this

province next week. This is an opportunity to debate it and to

get a statement from that Minister.

What I want is a very simple thing: I just want him to

assure this House that he's not going to take the hard line he

took yesterday, but that he is going to gently and wisely agree

that he will meet with the Indian bands concerned sometime

within the next few weeks.

That's an easy enough question. That's an important

question, and it could avoid a lot of trouble for this province

and that Minister next week.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would rule that

discussion out of order under this particular motion, I've

stated the reasons again: the debate must be within the scope

and intent of this motion, which is to provide money on a

short-term basis in order to carry on the business of the

various government departments.

However, there is provision for consideration of the administrative responsibilities

of each Minister in each department when the votes are called for that area.

Mr. Gibson: Well, if that last phrase is in

exculpation of the rules that we now have in this House, you

know very well, Mr. Chairman, that there may never be a chance

to debate the salaries of some of these Ministers, because

there may not be enough time, Mr. Chairman: Order! I was making a ruling. The Hon.

Member may now do one of two things: either accept the ruling

of the Chair or challenge the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Gibson: I am asking the Chair if the several

charges and expenses of the public service of the Province of

British Columbia do not include the salary of the Hon. Minister

of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi).

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. This was not indicated

in the motion, and I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his

remarks to this motion.

Mr. Gibson: Well, it does include: "... the

several charges and expenses of the public service of the

Province of British Columbia not otherwise provided for" — and

listen to this, Mr. Chairman — "and being substantially

one-sixth of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending

March 31, 1975, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the

Province of British Columbia."

Now being substantially....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please, Is the Hon. Member

intending to challenge the ruling of the Chair or is he ...

Mr. Gibson: No, I'm seeking the guidance of the

Chair, Mr. Chairman, because I'm suggesting to you....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Chair has made a

ruling. I would ask the Hon. Member to either move to the

consideration of this motion in the general sense or to take

his place.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, clearly I'm discussing the

terms of the motion when I'm discussing the main estimates,

because the main estimates are referred to in the motion. I'm

just going on to point out to the Chair that the main estimates

of the Province of British Columbia referred to in this motion

makes provision in vote 109....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Chair has made a

ruling. Now is the Hon. Member going to

[ Page 1036 ]

obey the Chair or not?

Mr. Gibson: Well, Mr. Chairman, clearly I'm obeying

the Chair. I'm discussing this motion.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I have ruled that you

may not question the individual Ministers or deal with the

estimates of the individual departments, which will be dealt

with under the various votes of these departments. We are

dealing with the advisability of approving interim supply.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I'm discussing this motion,

and this motion provides for: "...this chamber now to be

asked to approve substantially one-sixth of the main estimates

for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976." That is a quote

from the motion, Mr. Chairman. Am I correct? That is a quote

from the motion.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Yes. Now I would ask the

Hon. Member to continue his speech but to continue within the

scope of this motion.

Mr. Gibson: The scope of this motion, of course,

provides for substantially one-sixth of the main estimates, and

the main estimates include the salary of the Minister of Human

Resources, who, I note with some dismay, has left this chamber.

I note also that the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson)

has left this chamber, and I note that all of the Ministers

that the opposition might want to question under this vote have

left this chamber. I say it is just a shocking...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gibson: ...evasion of duty.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Before the Hon. Member

proceeds, apparently he is not accepting the ruling of the

Chair. Therefore I will clarify it once more before I ask him

to take his place if he isn't going to speak relevant to the

motion. I would again refer you to standing order 61(2):

"Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly

relevant to the item or clause under consideration."

The Hon. Member is enlarging the scope of the motion in

order to enable him to debate the estimates of every Minister

in this House on a short-term basis for a two-month period.

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): It's one-sixth....

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. That means one-sixth of every Minister's

estimates for the....

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: I am ruling that out of order.

Interjections.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gibson: Without placing a complete gag on this

House you can't rule out of order the plain language of

emotion. That's just not possible.

An Hon. Member: You can't rule that out of order.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The discussion must be

in a general sense, confined to the advisability of approving

the interim supply and the amount that is indicated.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman do now

leave the chair so he can consult his legal advisers.

An Hon. Member: Count the House right now!

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. That is not a proper

motion.

Mr. Gibson: It is a proper motion. It's always in

order.

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Member state his motion

again?

Mr. Gibson: I move the Chairman do now leave the

chair.

Mr. Chairman: The motion is that the Chairman do now

leave the chair.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. On a voice vote the

Chair says that the no's have it.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the motion pass?

Interjections.

An Hon. Member: Consult the House, Mr. Chairman. That's your responsibility.

[ Page

1037 ]

Interjections.

An Hon. Member: Division, division!

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There is someone calling

for a division.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member

calling for a division?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I'm asking if the motion

shall pass.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: I think the ayes have it. The motion....

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: The motion No. 1 is passed.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Motion No. 1 is now passed.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: The Hon. Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: There is a point of order.

Mr. McGeer: I suggest that a majority of the Members

in the House were under the impression, as I was, that the

motion we were voting on was that you leave the chair. Now, Mr.

Chairman, if there was some other motion, then the....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. On the point of order I

took a voice vote and I called the vote "no" and therefore

defeated. Then I put the motion — there was no division called,

as no one was on their feet — I put motion 1 and it was

carried.

Mr. McGeer: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, did you read the

motion that you were putting?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. In answer, to verify

this, I said: "Shall motion No. 1 pass?"

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid you never said

that. Mr. Chairman, I think what we would like to do is to call

for a division on the question of whether you should leave the

chair. It's all right to call for that division.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: We did ask for it before.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The only way that the

Chair can reverse itself is....

Mr. D.A. Anderson: By admitting error. Admit it.

Mr. McGeer: By making it quite clear, Mr. Chairman,

that you didn't correctly state the motion you were calling.

Mr. Chairman, we want a division on the previous motion that

you leave the chair. Mr. Chairman, we have called for a

division on that motion.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There's no confusion in

the Chair's mind as to what the Chair was doing.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, there was confusion in the

minds of the House, and we wish to call for a division.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. McGeer: You said the nays had it when the ayes

had more people in the House, Mr. Chairman. We want a division

on that motion.

Mr. Chairman: If the Hon. Member is calling for a

division, it's on motion 1.

Mr. Bennett: The Chairman has said that he distinctly

named the vote and it's questioned by the Members in this House

whether he did. I would suggest a short recess while we check

the tape.

An Hon. Member: Sure, let's be fair.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Premier on a

point of order.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: On a point of order, if there is

genuine confusion, as there appears to be, I see no reason why

the Chair can't rule, as was requested by the Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), for a division on the

motion. Will you repeat the motion again so we know what we're

voting on?

Interjection.

[ Page 1038 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It's not your motion.

Mr. McGeer: The motion was that the Chairman leave

the chair.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, it was that the committee

rise.

Mr. McGeer: No, the motion was put by the Member for

North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson). There was a voice vote

and while the Chairman said the nays had it the Members on this

side of the House were under the impression that the ayes had

it because there were more ayes in the House than there were

nays.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, let's have a division on that

then.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would like to repeat

the sequence of events before I ask for leave. First there was

a motion made by the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano

that the Chairman do now leave the chair. The Chair, responding

to this motion, put the motion to a vote. There were ayes and

nays and the Chairman said: "Did the nays have it?" There was

some dispute about this but no division was called. No one was

on their feet so the Chair then put motion 1. However, it

appears there seems to be a desire on both sides of the House

to return to the point where the vote was taken on the motion

that the Chairman do now leave the chair. Shall leave be

granted to have a division on this matter?

Mr. Smith: On a point of order, just prior to taking

a vote by a division, could I ask the Chairman for

clarification on how he determines whether the ayes or the nays

have a vote, when it was clearly evident to those of us sitting

here that there were more of us that said "aye" in the House at

that particular time?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. On the point of order, I

think it's important to point out to the Hon. Member that on a

voice vote the Chairman doesn't count everybody to see how many

there are. He simply listens to the response on either side and

makes a subjective judgment. Then it's up to the individual

Members, if they wish to have a standing vote, to call a

division.

Shall leave be granted to have a division?

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, I think it should be

clearly placed on the record that the ethical procedure for a

Chairman in this House is to count the Members in the House if

there's a question....

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet doing what

the Chairman should ethically have done....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. If any Hon. Member

wishes to attack the Chair, the proper method is by a

substantive motion. Now I am asking if leave shall be granted

to return to call a division on the procedural motion. Shall

leave be granted?

Leave granted.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

NAYS — 32

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Cocke

King

Lea

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Skelly

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that when you

report to the Speaker you mention to him that there was a vote

held in committee and ask for leave to have it recorded.

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I have now to ask you for a

point of clarification. As I mentioned, this motion provides

for a sum not exceeding in the whole $537 million towards

defraying the several charges and expenses of the public

service of the province. I would like to discuss some of the

important things

[ Page

1039 ]

that this $500 million Easter egg is going to be expended

on, and I would like to ask you what subject it covers that I

might discuss.

Mr. Chairman: There are two things that the Hon.

Member may address himself to. One is: should an interim supply

bill be passed at this time? — the desirability of passing it

or not passing it. Secondly, is the amount adequate or should

it be reduced? The Member may not suggest that it be increased

but, rather, he could move an amendment that it be

decreased.

Mr. Gibson: We don't have any information as to its

adequacy or not. We simply have a motion by the government, Mr.

Chairman. I'll address myself, for a moment, as to whether or

not it should be passed.

I would suggest to you, Sir, that as long as the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) is not in this House to tell us

that he is going to agree to meet with the Indian people of

British Columbia on the subject of cut-off lands sometime...

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The Chairman has ruled....

Mr. Gibson: ...this bill should not be passed!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, in deference to your

ruling that we should only discuss the two aspects — (1) is it

enough? and (2) should it be passed? — I will devote myself to

"should it be passed?" To do that, I will have to, of course,

indicate how the money is being expended. Obviously, that's

very material to whether or not it should be passed.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! As long as the Hon.

Member relates his remarks in general terms to the advisability

of passing it or not passing it, that's correct.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Right! Well, Mr. Chairman, in the

next two months what has become known as the Casa Loma project

will be substantially proceeded with. It will not be terminated

in the next two months, but much of the work will be done in

that period and it will be essentially completed in that

period, if all goes in accordance with what we've been

informed. I wonder whether it would be in order to discuss

whether or not this money should be passed, if part of it is

used for that particular purpose.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The same principle

applies and I would rule, no. The Hon. Member must make the emphasis of his remarks the

desirability of passing it or not passing it, and whether or

not the amount is adequate. To get into a discussion on

something pertaining to the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr.

Nicolson) or something to Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) is

moving away from the main point of the motion.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, it may be moving directly to

the main point of the motion, in my view, with respect, Mr.

Chairman, because to rationally discuss how half-a-billion

dollars worth of the public's money should be spent and whether

it should be spent requires us to examine some of the proposals

and projects on which the money is spent. It would seem to me

that this is a....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! There's no indication in

the scope of the motion as to what the money will be used for,

other than the indication that it will be used to defray

expenses for a period of two months.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Oh, yes, absolutely, Mr. Chairman.

There's nothing indicating Ministry by Ministry what will be

spent. You're certainly right there. What it does say, and

I'll quote from the motion:

"That from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there

may be paid and applied, in such manner and at such times as

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine, a sum not

exceeding the whole $537 million towards defraying the several

charges and expenses of the public service of the province for

the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1976, not

otherwise provided for, and being substantially one-sixth of

the main estimates for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of

March, 1976, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the

Province of British Columbia at the present session."

A direct reference to the main estimates which we have, the

main estimates book.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The Hon. Member may

recall that the Chair has already made a ruling on this matter,

and if the Member wishes to challenge the ruling of the Chair....

Mr. D.A. Anderson: No, no.

Mr. Chairman: I'll repeat the ruling, if you like. It

is that the Chair rules you should not get into a detailed

discussion about any of the Ministers' administrative

responsibilities directly, but rather the advisability of

approving this money for distribution by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

[ Page 1040 ]

Mr. D.A. Anderson: My fear is, Mr. Chairman, that

your narrow

interpretation might lead you to rule this motion

out of order — which would indeed be distressing for the

government — because there it does talk about: "...

substantially one-sixth of the main estimates for the fiscal

year ending the 31st day of March, 1976, as laid before the

Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia at the

present session." Once more, a direct quote from the last three

lines of the motion, which I see you are perusing, Mr.

Chairman.

Therefore, as it is clearly indicated in the motion itself,

in this piece of paper which I have been presented with, that

the money will be spent by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council,

as they determine, and "to defray the several charges and

expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal

year," and as it is going to take one-sixth of the main

estimates which are put before us, it would seem to me

appropriate for us to discuss, in the light of your ruling, in

the light of your instructions, the immediate expenses of the

various government departments which will be met from this

money.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would draw your

attention to the line where it says: "applied in such a manner

and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may

determine." Now obviously the motion is concerned with that

fact, and this is not within the scope of the motion to discuss

departmental activities.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Right, but it does appear from the

motion that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is going to

determine it generally in accordance with the estimates for the

fiscal year ending March 31, 1976, and this is what they are

suggesting. They have said nothing else to this Legislature.

The presumption must be that they are not asking us to buy a

pig in a poke. They are not intending to use $537 million in a

manner other than they have indicated to us up to now and,

therefore, they intend to use it much as indicated. Fair

enough?

In which case, we come to the question as to whether or not

the money is well spent for the purchase of the Casa Loma

project. It's a pity that the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr.

Nicolson) is not with us, because much of the expenditure on

Casa Loma will occur in the next couple of months.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Again, I would mention

once more that any consideration of any specific matter dealing

with a specific department should not be debated at this time,

but rather the advisability of approving this money for

distribution by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council on an

interim basis.

Mr. Gibson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'd

like to read to the Chairman a citation from May, 18th

edition, page 724. As you know, Mr. Chairman, our usages, where

not specifically specified in our standing orders or in

specific Speaker's rulings or precedents of this House, come

from May. This is titled: "Debate on a vote on account," which apparently is the British usage for what we term

interim supply. I'll just quote this:

"Matters which can be discussed upon the grant on which an

advance is sought, may be discussed in anticipation, upon the

motion for the grant on account...."

And I read this as well:

"... though the proper occasion to examine the grants in

detail is when the final grant to complete the sum demanded is

proposed to the House. A general debate on the vote on account

for civil estimates and the Defence (central) estimate,

1968-69, took place on 18 March, 1968."

I think that provides ample precedent, Mr. Chairman, for the

suggestion that this could and should be a fairly wide-ranging

debate.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There is a distinction

that has to be made between what the Chair has ruled and what

the Hon. Member has drawn the Chair's attention to. The motion

that is before us is concerned with the interim supply of money

for distribution by the executive council to all the

departments of the government,

whereas, clearly, the interim

supply he is referring to is for a specific department.

Mr. Gibson: Oh, no, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member

read these words.... At least, I'll read this

section which is

from the same section:

"Matters which can be discussed upon the grant on which an

advance is sought, may be discussed, in anticipation, upon the

motion for the grant on account; though the proper occasion to

examine the grants in detail is when the final grant to

complete the sum demanded is proposed to the House."

The Chair is ruling that general remarks may be made.

However, getting into a specific discussion, such as the matter

of Casa Loma or anything else, should be brought up properly

when the estimates of the Minister of Housing are before

us.

Mr. Gibson: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman,

the question, of course, is what is meant by discussing things

generally and in detail. I would suggest to you that, first of

all, this interim supply and a vote on account are

substantially the same

[ Page 1041 ]

thing. The vote on account contemplates all of the

departments of government as well. Indeed, I'll read from May,

page 703, if further clarification is wanted on that.

The question of having a general debate — and you saw the

reference there to a general debate which took place in 1968 in

the British House of Commons — clearly calls for the giving of

examples and the making of allusions, however slight or

possibly deeper into this aspect and that of the public service

over the next couple of months. That is the simple case I put,

and it seems to me that, within that case, the propriety of

discussing briefly and in general such things as the competence

of the government in the administration of housing, in the

discussions with the Indian bands of....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I believe the Hon.

Member is sliding away from the point made by May, and

that is that general discussion can take place on a motion of

this nature but it must be relevant to the advisability of

whether or not the money should be approved or not approved.

However, any detailed account, as May points out, should

take place at the time that the estimates of that Minister and

the completion of the amount to be approved is being

considered.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, I intend to keep my remarks

very general. But if the amount of money which we're asked to

supply this afternoon is granted, then this covers one-sixth of

the total year.

It will be necessary for the government to be able to raise

the full amount of money to cover these costs. It will be

necessary as well for each department to stay within its

spending estimates.

All last week I asked the Premier a fairly simple question

with regard to income listed in total revenue. That was: what

was the price of natural gas that he was estimating to give us

revenue of $230 million? Clearly, if the gas price he actually

gets is below what he estimates to get $230 million, he is not

going to have sufficient funds available to cover one-sixth of

the cost.

I asked that question all last week. I noticed that the

leader of the Conservative Party accused me of making the

speech three times. I asked the question three times. The

Premier gave speeches for a full week without giving the answer

once.

Earlier this afternoon I asked a question of the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi). That question was: will the

Minister of Human Resources give an undertaking to the House

and to the people of British Columbia that he will stay within

his spending estimates? Clearly, if the Minister of Human

Resources exceeds those estimates, there won't be enough money

available for the other Ministers under this particular

vote.

Last year in all good faith the Members of this House passed

estimates for the Minister of Human Resources, including a very

generous increase to that department, and we had barely gone

when the Minister had run out and needed $100 million more

because he had made a clerical error.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member

relate his remarks to the advisability of approving interim

supply?

Mr. McGeer: Yes. I don't think, looking at the budget

this year, looking at this $500 million — plus a few million —

that constitutes interim supply, there is room for slack or

carelessness. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) got up

and made a very fine speech; he answered questions he wasn't

asked. Had we had a similar kind of speech from the Minister of

Human Resources, I am certain this bill would have passed. But

the fact remains that the wrong Minister answered questions

that weren't put to him. The Ministers who should be answering

questions...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member...?

Mr. McGeer: ...for the people, who should be giving

reassurance to the people of British Columbia...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. McGeer: ...are silent.

Mr. Chairman: Order! The Hon. Member is clearly not

relating his remarks to the matter before us. I would ask him

again to relate his remarks to the interim supply before

us.

Mr. McGeer: I don't see what is more relevant in this

particular debate than trying to judge on the one hand whether

money is available and, on the other hand, whether the money

that is available is going to be properly apportioned. If one

Minister overspends, there won't be money for the others.

It's clear, Mr. Chairman, in looking at the estimates from

last year, that a lot of Ministers overspent by a great deal.

When we got the interim estimates of expenditures, do you know

they were nearly $500 million more than what the Premier

presented in the House? $500 million. If that hadn't happened

last year, I am sure it wouldn't be necessary for us to stand

up during this debate and ask these questions. It used to be in

the House when you got spending estimates placed before you,

they had some meaning. The government stuck to spending

estimates. Then when it came to adding up the special warrants

at the end of the year and passing them, the

[ Page 1042 ]

amounts of money were really quite reasonable in comparison

with the total budget.

This past year we were given something which is ridiculous

and absurd. What it indicates is that the government has no

common sense at all about money. It has no regard for what

figures it presents in this House. It has no intention of

sticking by them. More than that, we have Ministers of the

Crown who have absolutely no ability or experience in an

administrative sense, who have no regard for the taxpayers'

dollar, who come in and admit to things like $100 million

clerical errors, and who give a demonstration of carelessness

in the Treasury benches like we have never had before in

British Columbia. If there is one thing that can be

characteristic of this New Democratic Party government, it is

disrespect for the taxpayers' dollars.

Our job here in the opposition is to ask questions — perhaps

not penetrating ones, because we are not permitted to do that.

We've got to keep it vague and general, But I find it rather

interesting that when this huge interim supply bill is before

the House we have exactly three Members of the Treasury benches

here to pay attention to the spending estimates that apply

directly to them. They are not here to answer questions.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. McGeer: They are not here to listen to the

debate. They are showing the same kind of contempt to this

House that they show to the general public.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Member be seated?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! I've been listening to

the Hon. Member carefully but I fail to see the relevance of

what he's been saying to the points that I've mentioned from

the chair, and that is the advisability of approving the

interim supply and the amount contained therein.

I would repeat again the fact that in May it says: "Though

the proper occasion to examine the grants in detail is when the

final grant to complete the sum demanded is proposed in the

House...." Now that's the time to debate the administrative aspects

of what's happening in the various departments and also the

budget as it applies to the various departments. We're

considering the advisability of approving this sum of money on

an interim basis.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, I have already heard,

unless there is a decision by the Members to change their

minds, that they will be voting for this interim measure and

for the supply bill. After having heard that, I've taken some

notes about some of the things that they claim they will be

voting for.

They have said that there is a "shocking dereliction of

duty" by the Ministers — that was said by one Member of the

opposition. That is an opinion that you share, obviously. There

is incompetence, there are errors, they should have all the

legislation in front of them before they pass this, the bill

shouldn't be passed because all of the estimates or all of the

Ministers that they want to ask questions of aren't here,

there's no common sense on money, no ability in administration,

no regard for the taxpayers and various other sundry

accusations against the government and the Ministers — saying

all of these things and at the same time saying that they're

going to vote for the bill.

I find it puzzling that such statements can be made for

whatever reason, of course, they wish to make them. Certainly

it's a matter of deep principle with the opposition Members to

make statements. I don't think that they would make statements

making all of these accusations as bona fide opinions and then

still say that they will vote for this bill.

Certainly that's a matter of reflection for them to make.

This bill deals with the interim funds to carry on with all the

necessary work of government. It is not unusual in the British

parliamentary system. It deals with money to carry on the work

of hospitals, schools, highways and every other commitment we

have as government. If they care to vote against it, certainly

no one will reflect upon the vote here in the House, but we'll

have to discuss it outside. If they care to vote for it, then

they become subject to the question: what are they doing? What

are they doing today? They're prepared to make all of these

statements — all of these accusations — but they're already on

record saying that they're going to vote for the bill in any

event, Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: If you believe all of these things

that you said, then you must vote against this bill. you cannot....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, they don't like to

listen, they just like to make attacks on individual Ministers

and on the government. But when their own lack of logic comes

back to haunt them, then they get huffy, then they get touchy,

then they get upset. The arrogance in opposition begins to

[ Page 1043 ]

appear because the logic of their argument disappears. If

you don't want work to go ahead, if you hate us politically so

much, and if it is a matter of great principle with you, don't

vote for the bill. But by all British parliamentary tradition,

whether you hate or love a government, interim supply is just

exactly that — funds to carry on with the work of any

government in any period of time.

If you do not wish to be objective, so be it. But don't play

with this House or don't play with the idea that somehow you

are attaching your opinion of government to the performance of

work that must be done by civil servants. You cannot have it

both ways.

The question is this: if you don't want interim supply, say

so. If that's what you want, stand up and say: "We don't wish

to approve interim supply." Say so. But don't give a list of

all the accusations that you care to make about the government

with the caveat, as I understand you lawyers use, that you can

vote for it in any event. Don't talk both ways.

I understand that you people are very knowledgeable in the

works of parliament, that you know that this is not an unusual

bill and know that this is standard practice in every

jurisdiction in the Commonwealth. If you don't care to vote for

it, say so. But I find it not only wasteful of time but

somewhat hypocritical to sit here and listen to attacks against

Ministers and attacks against the government all predicated on

the argument that you're going to vote for the bill anyway.

Now if you really believe this, stand up and tell us that

you are going to vote against the bill. Stand up and say that

you really believe every accusation you have made and you are

not going to vote for the bill and you won't go for interim

supply. You cannot have two positions.

You can argue any way you want. You can fancy-dance and skin

around and play all over the Ministers and the departments, but

the ultimate analysis will be whether or not you support

interim supply. If you don't, say so. If you do, say so, But

don't try and leave the impression that you have some kind of

deep, overriding concern about the government, but you are

going to vote for the bill anyway. It is a phony argument.

Mr. Gardom: Shame on you! Shame on you!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh! Shame on me! I've listened to

an hour and a half of nonsense, and now....

Mr. Gardom: A vicious attack.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: A vicious attack? I certainly hope

so. I certainly hope so.

Mr. Chairman, I sat through it all quietly. When I try and give them something

back, they are all jumping and screaming, yelling: "Shame! It's not so. We don't

mean this. It's not this." Then vote against the bill! If you believe what you

are saying, vote against the bill. I challenge you to vote against the bill!

Mr. Chairman: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria, but before the Member proceeds, I just want to make a

point again: this resolution has not requested supply for a

particular service. It has been requested for the entire

government. Therefore, the remarks must be relevant to the

motion. Would the Hon. Member proceed?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: That's a pretty interesting

observation.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier has given us one of his speeches

whereby if you are not in favour of trains running on time,

well then, vote against Mussolini, but if you are in favour of

trains running on time, obviously Mussolini is your man. That's

the way he's rapped up the whole of this argument, and that's

about how stupidly he's done it.

The fact is, we have said right from the outset, and I

happen to have been the first speaker speaking for our party,

that we would support this because it is necessary for the work

of government to continue and we understand it is necessary for

hospital salaries to be paid, school salaries to be paid,

highways to be constructed, civil servants to be paid, and the

general work of government to continue. We have no wish

whatsoever to be obstructionists...

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: ....and simply adopt the

obstructionist tactics of the Premier who says that if you are

not in favour of any aspect of our government, any aspect of

the way this money will be spent in the next two months, vote

against it and vote against everything else as well.

We have stated our policy right from the beginning. If

anyone is attempting to simplify this argument and put it in

the most stupid terms, it has to be the Premier himself.

There are Ministers who will be spending money under this

motion we have whom we think we should question. There are

departments which we think we should question. There are

departments which we feel don't have proper financial control,

and the Department of Human Resources is one which we feel we

should question at this time.

So far we have spent approximately $7 million a minute, and

we haven't spent much time on this. For every minute spent so

far it works out to about $7 million. We are asking for

half-a-billion dollars, and the Premier would have us pass this

without a murmur, without any reference to the way some of

[ Page 1044 ]

this money will be spent, or indeed how similar sums in the

past have been mis-spent.

We feel that the people of British Columbia sent us here in

opposition to ask questions of him, to point out that there are

areas where we feel there should be more careful control. We

feel there are areas where the money could be better spent, and

on interim supply we have every right to do so.

It's fine to reduce this to the Premier's simplistic formula

whereby if you favour trains running on time you must vote for

Mussolini, but if you don't, obviously you don't favour trains

running on time. This simplistic approach of his is simply

unacceptable.

May makes it perfectly clear that we can discuss a

number of subjects under this general heading. It is fine to

make the distinction that this money is for general purposes,

as you do, Mr. Chairman. You have rightly said that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine how the money is

going to be spent, but all the more reason for questioning

members of the executive council who instruct the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council as to how the money should be

spent, because we have no documents before us....

Mr. Chairman: Order! The Hon. Member is clearly out

of order on the last point — that is that you may not question

the Ministers on specifics. There is no indication of specifics

in this motion. The motion is general supply.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well then, we'll have to go after

the Minister of Finance, who is generally in charge.

May is perfectly clear, Mr. Chairman. You've read one

or two little excerpts. I want to read a longer one so that we

deal with these quotations at some length. Page 723; you'll

find it at the bottom of the page. I believe someone is putting

a finger on the words — yes, and not moving his lips. Anyway,

"On Supplementary Estimates and Excess Votes" is the heading:

"Debate on supplementary and excess votes is restricted to the

particulars contained in the estimates on which those grants

are sought." And here we have a general request.

Clearly, if it was for one Ministry, we would discuss that

Ministry, but here we have every single Ministry — a general

request for one-sixth of the total amount of money which is

asked for in this document, in this book, which goes on page

after page after page.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Just to supplement the Hon. Member's point

and to make a point from the Chair, I'll repeat this line on the bottom of page

724, May, 18th edition: "The proper occasion to examine the grants in detail

is when the final grant to complete the sum demanded is proposed to the House."

That is the time to question the Ministers on the specifics of their estimates,

not during an interim supply bill.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: But, Mr. Chairman, you've ignored

the whole page of material before, which, if you allow me to

continue, talks about: "The debate cannot touch upon policy of...."

Mr. Chairman: Order, please; The Chair has made a

ruling.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: You can't quote, selectively,

certain sentences and certain paragraphs.

Mr. Chairman: Order! If the Hon. Member wishes to

challenge the Chair he may do so, but I rule any remarks on

specifics of the individual Ministers out of order.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, you allow the

Premier to instruct you, you read a note which apparently came

from the Speaker, you're able to take instruction, but when we

try and quote May to you, you say you'll only accept

selective quotes, and you will not take the whole statement in

the whole context. Why not?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! First of all, the Chair

makes a ruling and the Member has the recourse of either

challenging the ruling or desisting from disobeying the Chair.

The Chair has ruled on the basis of the information contained

in May and advice from counsel, and the ruling stands. I

would ask the Hon. Member to confine himself to a general

discussion of this motion or to take his place.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, in the normal

legislative process we are allowed to bring to the attention of

the Chair and to their counsel quotations which apparently have

escaped them, because they've not yet been made. I refer to

page 724 of May where it talks about the practice and it

talks about the certain limitation which has been enforced in

the case of supplementary estimates. It says: "As a general

rule, on the supplementary estimates it is in order to discuss

only the particular items which constitute the supplementary

estimates."

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! First of all, the Hon.

Member was in the House of Commons in Ottawa and I think he's

familiar with standing order 18 in the House of Commons. This

particular standing order, of course, varies somewhat from the

practice and advice in the British House of Commons, and also

from the practice that's been followed in this House. The Chair

is making a ruling applying to this

[ Page 1045 ]

House.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: That's right. We follow May

where there's variation.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Member doesn't

seem to understand that the Chair makes a ruling and that's the

ruling of this House. Now the Hon. Member may challenge the

ruling if he wishes or he may obey it.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, the whole purpose of

having references and the whole purpose of quoting May

is to prevent arbitrary rulings, which of course will

become contradictory to one another as time goes on and the

winds of government interests blow stronger or weaker. We want

to make sure that there's consistent policy and that all future

generations looking back upon your judgment say: "My goodness,

that was a sound, sensible judgment based upon the best

evidence possible at the time and on the best authority."

Therefore I just wish to quote to you May,

chapter 18....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Again, I would like to

remind the Hon. Member that the Chair has made a ruling and I

would ask the Hon. Member either to follow it or to desist. By

way of clarification, the Chair is ruling on the basis of the

fact that this is a general interim supply bill and it does not

deal specifically with any department. Therefore under the

strict rules of the House — standing order 61(2) — your speech

must be relevant to the words of this motion.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, we've always assumed, Mr.

Chairman, what is relevant to the particulars is relevant to

the general. It makes sense that....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Oh, he's getting a note from the

Speaker. Right — we'll wait. Could we table these notes from

the Speaker?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. First Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, certainly it's our

intention, in debating this motion, to keep the remarks

appropriately general, and the Members in our party are

endeavouring to do that. It's not our intention, Mr. Chairman,

to vote against supply — we made that clear. Nor is it our

intention to filibuster for several days, as frequently is done

in the House of Commons in Ottawa and the House of Commons in Britain. The

New Democratic Party understands very well the device of

filibuster in the House of Commons because that's one of the

very best plays that the NDP has federally — filibustering

interim supply.

Hon. A.B. MacDonald (Attorney-General): Is that where

you learned it?

Mr. McGeer: It's where the precedent was set, Mr.

Chairman. The Attorney-General asked if we learned it there,

and we said that wasn't our intention, But that's where the

precedent was set.

The Premier entered into one of his tirades against the

opposition in which he threatened the opposition, accused the

opposition of cheap politics, insisted that we not debate, that

we not ask questions, but that we vote for or against it.

Mr. Lewis: Right on! Show us some responsibility.

Mr. McGeer: That's the style of the Member for

Shuswap: never ask any questions, at least not in the House,

Mr. Chairman. But there's a different responsibility of an

elected Member and that's to be certain that public business is

indeed public. I think if the Premier reflects just a little

bit, he'll decide that maybe it's just a wee bit on the

arrogant side to suggest that it's improper for Members in this

House to ask questions or to suggest that it's improper that

public business be public.

If $516 million, or whatever this sum is, is to be spent —

and it's the public's money; the government doesn't have any

money of its own — then questions as to how that money is going

to be spent are appropriate.

We are only asking general questions about how the public's

money is to be spent. We don't want to be accused of cheap

politics; we don't want to be accused of disliking the Members

of the Treasury benches. I have no dislike for them. Like the

Premier, I have nothing but love in my heart for those Members

of the Treasury benches. I don't think they're going to set any

records for competency; they'll certainly set no records for

restraint, none at all. But, Mr. Chairman, before we give them

this record amount of money for a two-month supply period, I

think it only appropriate — in fact, only a minimum

requirement, really, of people elected to this House — to ask

the big spenders....

Mr. Chairman: The Hon. Member knows that the Chair

has ruled that particular matter out of order, and I would ask

him to....

Mr. McGeer: What matter is that?

[ Page 1046 ]

Mr. Chairman: He's indicating that he would like to

question the individual cabinet Ministers, the big spenders, on

how they intend to spend the money, when that is not part of

this motion.

Mr. McGeer: No, no, no, no. No, Mr. Chairman, I am

not going to ask him how he is going to spend the money and I

am not going to ask every Minister — just one Minister, Mr.

Chairman, who is a notorious spender.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member get

on with the discussion of this motion and make his remarks

relevant to this motion, which is the advisability of approving

an interim supply?

Mr. McGeer: The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke)

is the big spender. We didn't ask the Minister of Health any

questions at all but he's got EPS. He got up and answered

questions that he wasn't even asked. You didn't rule him out of

order for answering questions he wasn't asked. (Laughter.) You

only ruled me out of order.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The Member is a scientist. I think

it's ESP, but I hate to correct a university graduate like

yourself.

Mr. McGeer: No, no. Extra Perception Sensory — EPS.

(Laughter.)

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: If it's appropriate for the Minister of

Health to answer those questions without being ruled out of

order....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Member is

totally out of order. The Chair has ruled, and continues to

rule, that discussion must be confined to this motion. I would

ask the Hon. Member to discuss the motion and not discuss what

the Minister of Health said or anyone else. Just discuss the

motion.

Mr. McGeer: I just want to know whether the Minister

in question has enough. Maybe if he's going....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would point out to the

Hon. Member that he may move an amendment to reduce the amount

but he cannot move an amendment to increase it. Therefore, he

should discuss the advisability of having this amount.

Mr. McGeer: But the Treasury benches could. If the

Minister were to insist that he couldn't stay within that

spending and it wouldn't be enough....

After all, Mr. Chairman, that was the case a year ago. We

never asked him that question last year. We should have,

because he couldn't stay within that amount. He went to

Treasury Board and had to confess he had spent all the money

and he needed $100 million more.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There is nothing in this

motion....

Mr. McGeer: If we'd only asked that question....

Mr. Chairman: Order! The Hon. Member is totally out

of order again. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his

remarks to the advisability of approving interim supply. The

motion states that the money is to be given to the executive

council to be applied in such a manner and at such times as

they shall decide. There's nothing to indicate which department

and how much is going to it. There is to be no consideration of

that because the motion doesn't state it.

Mr. McGeer: You said that we could put in a motion to

reduce the amount, and you agreed with me that the Treasury

benches, if necessary, could bring in an amendment to increase

the amount. They might have to do it by....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. If the Hon. Member is

intending to propose an amendment, would he propose the

amendment? Otherwise, would he confine his remarks to the main

motion?

Mr. McGeer: I am not absolutely certain yet. That's

why I was asking a question or two, through you, Sir, because

if the amount provided for in this motion.... If the Minister

of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) for example, were not to be

able to stay within his spending estimates, then we would have

to recommend — though we wouldn't actually be able to make the

amendment ourselves — to the Minister of Finance to increase

it. If, on the other hand....

Mr. Chairman: Order! The Hon. Member is irrelevant.

Under standing order 43, I just caution the Hon. Member that he

is persisting in irrelevance. I would ask him to try to relate

his remarks to the same motion.

Mr. McGeer: I think it's very important to know

whether this is the correct amount.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The amount that's in the

motion is what we are discussing. Any proposals to increase the

amount of money is out of

[ Page 1047 ]

order. Any suggestion of recommending an increase is out of

order. If he wishes to reduce it, he can do it by moving an

amendment. But otherwise he is to discuss the advisability of

this amount.

Mr. McGeer: That's quite correct, Mr. Chairman, and

that's what I'm trying to determine — whether it's advisable and

whether the amount is correct.

One of the ways of determining that is to ask: is the amount

correct? Is it fair to ask whether this amount is correct, Mr.

Chairman, or is that out of order, too?

Mr. Chairman: Responding to the Hon. Member, yes, it

is out of order to ask if the amount is correct. The amount is

stated in the motion. What you are to decide is whether you

support the motion or do not support the motion. If you do not

support the motion, perhaps you could support a lesser amount,

in which case you can move an amendment. But the thing is that

you cannot ask if they should have more or recommend that they

should have more.

Mr. McGeer: What we're trying to determine is what

would be the best amount. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Cocke) feels that...and I agree, he's probably got the right

amount. He stood right up and declared that that was what he

needed — no more, no less. (Laughter.) We've asked for a

similar declaration from the Minister of Human Resources (Hon.

Mr. Levi) because he's....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. If the Hon. Member

insists on persisting in irrelevance, I'll ask the Hon. Member

to take his seat.

Mr. McGeer: I don't think it is irrelevant, Mr.

Chairman. I thought that it was right on.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The motion before us is

for a specific amount. The Hon. Member must decide whether he's

recommending the approval of this amount or whether he opposes

this amount.

Mr. McGeer: I'm trying to learn. I don't know how I

can do that, Mr. Chairman, except by asking questions.

Mr. C. Liden (Delta): You're a slow learner.

Mr. McGeer: I can't ask questions of you, but I

surely can ask questions of people who know. They're all

entitled to take

part in the debate. They're certainly entitled

to answer questions — they've already established that. You've

established it — you didn't prevent them from answering

questions.

Mr. Chairman, I really wish, before this vote were passed —

or if we even decided that this was the appropriate amount —

that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) could give

us his reassurance....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't going to say any

more in this debate, but then when that Premier over there

stood up and gave the opposition a lecture on what the rights

of the opposition are in this debate, it just occurred to me

that he's been president of the BCR too long. He's trying to

railroad this House, too.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member

confine his remarks to the motion?

Interjections.

Mr. Gibson: I'm replying to what the Premier said,

Mr. Chairman. What he was asking for was a 10-second rubber

stamp in this House on a $500 million blank cheque. We're not

talking now about the $500 million that's blank — what's blank

is the payee. What's blank is who this money's going to. You're

suggesting, and I gather the Premier's suggesting, that we're

not allowed to ask why that cheque is blank.

The Premier said: "What are you doing today?" He asked us

what we were doing today as if there is something wrong with

us. He talked about the tradition of parliament. The tradition

of parliament has been that Members have the right to bring the

grievances of the people before the executive in parliament

before they grant that executive supply — that's the tradition

of parliament.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. Gibson: That's a tradition that he should know as

well as any man in this House.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. Gibson: He sought to deny that today.

An Hon. Member: Shame!

Mr. Gibson: I brought a grievance before the

executive today. I said that the rights of the Indian people in

this province are being trampled on.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gibson: I demanded that the executive meet with them....

[ Page

1048 ]

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Chairman rose

because the Hon. Member refused to obey the Chair. I ruled

discussion of any administrative responsibility of any of the

specific Ministers out of order under this motion because it's

not strictly relevant to this motion. That's the reason.

I would ask the Hon. Member to continue but not to persist

in disobeying the Chair.

Mr. Gibson: I wasn't disobeying the Chair and I

wasn't commenting about the work of any Minister. What I was

doing, I thought I made clear, was to bring before the

Ministers as representatives of the Crown a grievance of

British Columbians.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member

knows enough about parliamentary procedure to know that you

can't bring a grievance up at any time. It must be brought up

at the appropriate time.

Mr. Gibson: Which includes interim supply.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The Hon. Member may

discuss this motion and remarks relevant to this motion, but he

should confine his remarks to the advisability or

inadvisability of approving this amount of money.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to you that

one of the times in the tradition of parliament for the

bringing up of grievances is during interim supply. I have

brought up that grievance and I think it is a disgrace that the

Minister is not here to answer it and that he is not here to

give some assurance to the Indian people that he'll meet with

them on cut-off lands over the next month.

Mr. Gardom: On a point of clarification and order,

Mr. Chairman, would you mind explaining to the House what the

process of electronic censoring is that we're having from the

Chair? I see on a number of occasions Members are standing up

and making points and suddenly their microphones become dead....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I'm sure that the Hon.

Member could receive guidance on this matter from the Speaker

when we meet as the House.

Mr. Gardom: It's not within your domain to turn off

the...?

Mr. Chairman: This was not a decision made in

committee; and in this committee, certainly not.

Mr. Gardom: Well, who's doing it, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. This question should be

addressed to the Speaker.

Mr. Gardom: Is the Hon. Chairman prepared to tell me

who's doing it when the Speaker is not in the chair?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. For the advice of the

Hon. Member, he may recall that there was a decision made last

year that the buttons would be removed. This was done. However,

when the Chairman is on his feet, then any other Hon. Members

must be seated. So there's no problem. Would the Hon. Member

continue?

Mr. Gibson: Who cuts the microphones off?

Mr. Gardom: Why did the microphones suddenly

stop?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I have nothing to do

with the microphones. The Hon. Member knows that when the

Chairman rises to his feet, there must be no other Hon. Members

standing or speaking, so there's no problem. Will the Hon.

Member continue with his speech?

Mr. Gardom: Well, the problem seems to be one of

electronics, because, Mr. Chairman...

Mr. Chairman: Order!

Mr. Gardom: ...it has happened all afternoon.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair is not concerned with the

matter of electronics. The Chair is concerned with the matter

of order and the rules of the House.

Mr. Gibson: Now we have electronic closure, too.

Mr. Gardom: Well, Mr. Chairman, when a Member is

addressing himself to his microphone and the microphone becomes

dead, are his remarks still being transcribed in

Hansard?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Chair is only

concerned with whether the Members obey the Chair. When the

Chairman rises, then the person who is at his place must sit

down and not speak.

Mr. Gardom: It is also the responsibility of the

[ Page 1049 ]

Chair to ensure full and free report of debate, I think, in

the House, Mr. Chairman. My question is pretty simple: is there

being full and complete report of debate when the microphones

are turned off?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The matter has been

dealt with adequately. Does the Hon. Member wish to speak to

the motion?

Mr. Gardom: No, I don't intend to speak to the

motion.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I believe that any

matter to do with the lights or TV or electronics should be

directed to the Speaker, not to the Chairman. This is not a

matter before the committee.

Mr. Gardom: But it seems to happen in committee, and

the Speaker is not here.

Mr. Chairman: I know nothing about it. Would the Hon.

Member continue?

Interjection.

Mr. Gardom: You're in committee.

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to direct a couple of questions on this

motion to the Hon. Minister of Finance, if I have his

attention. The amount that we're dealing with, $537 million, is

suggested in the motion to be one-sixth of the total of the

main estimates. It would lead one to the conclusion that the

interim supply which is now being sought might perhaps carry

the government for the two-month period commencing April 1, in

just a week or so.

However, if you consider the several individual amounts that

are involved in the main estimates, we recognize that there is

something like $91 million in salary contingencies, which may

never be spent at all, and there are vast sums for capital

grants. But also there are vast sums which must be paid

commencing about April 1 to the school districts of the

province and to the municipalities. I wonder if the Hon

Minister of Finance could indicate to me whether or not the

money he is today seeking by way of interim supply will carry

us for two months when, perhaps, we will have the main

estimates completed. Or can we anticipate that there may be a

further motion for interim supply? That's my question.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: On the advice I received from the Department of Finance,

upon request, there were not sufficient funds, in their estimation, and I asked

them to come up with a figure of what would carry us to the completion, within

two months, of our estimates. This was the advice given to me by the department

itself, which covers the substance of your question. I hope that their conclusion

is correct, but it's on the best advice in terms of the patterns of expenditure.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Then the committee may assume that

it is only a coincidence that it's one-sixth of the total

amount, that the Department of Finance has looked at the amount

they will be required to expend over the next two months, and

it comes to about $537 million.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, this is a maximum figure, Mr.

Member. The possibility exists that the House may go three

months. What I asked them was to give me a figure that would

certainly cover two months and give us a cushion as well. Now I

can't give you the exact time, as you know, when we will finish

the debate. But the idea was to give us some cushion period in

which we could reasonably expect to have the normal business of

estimates done.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports

resolutions and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report

of the resolution of the Committee of Supply on the 26th day of

March, 1975, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I now move that the

resolution be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: The resolution is that from and out of

the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid out, applied in

such manner and at such time as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine, a sum not exceeding

in the whole $537 million towards defraying the several charges

and expenses of the public service of the province for the

fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1976, not otherwise

provided for; and being substantially one-sixth of the main

estimates for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March,

1976, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of British

Columbia at the present session.

The question proposed is that this House doth agree with the

committee and the said resolution.

[ Page 1050 ]

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I move that you do now

leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and

Means.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Ways and Means; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, I move that out of

the consolidated revenue fund there be paid and applied, in

such manner and at such time as the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine, a sum not

exceeding in the whole $537 million towards defraying the

several charges and expenses of the public service of the

province for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March,

1976, not otherwise provided for; and being substantially

one-sixth of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending the

31st day of March, 1976, as laid before the Legislative

Assembly of the Province of British Columbia at the present

time.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports

resolution and asks leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the committee sit again?

Mr. Chairman: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the resolution be reported as

considered?

Mr. Chairman: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The question is that the resolution as

reported be considered now.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report

of resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means of March 26,

1975, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I move that the

resolution be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the committee sit again?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Now, Mr. Speaker.

SUPPLY ACT NO. 1, 1975

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I present Bill No. 11,

intituled Supply Act No. 1, 1975.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the said bill be referred to a

Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

The House in committee on Bill 11; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee

rise and report, recommending the introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports,

recommending the introduction of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report

be adopted.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be

introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, with leave I move the

bill be now read a second time.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, with leave I move the

bill be referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

The House in committee on Bill 11; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

[ Page 1051 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, I move that the

committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendments.

Mr. Chabot: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is customary, I

believe, that bills be distributed so that we know what we are

voting on in committee. I haven't received a copy of the

bill.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Could we ask the Chair, with leave,

to have the Members stay in the chamber while the bill is

distributed?

Mr. Chairman: There will be a brief pause while the

bill is distributed.

The committee will come to order. Shall

section 1 pass?

section 1.

Mr. Chabot: Point of order. I'm on

section 2. I was

just about finished reading it. Could you wait for just

one-quarter of a second?

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee

rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports the

bill complete without amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third

time?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The question is that Bill 11 be read a

third time now. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Supply Act No. 1, 1975, read a third time and passed.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): I

understand that we are just awaiting the arrival of the

Lieutenant-Governor. I think if all the Members will remain in

their seats.... He will be here very shortly.

The House took recess at 4:28 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:34 p.m.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and

took his place in the chair.

Clerk: Supply Act, No. 1, 1975. In her Majesty's name

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to this

bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the

chamber.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 4:36 p.m.

Note: The House adjourned until Monday, April

7,1975.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada