British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, May 27, 1975 — Night Sitting (30th Parliament, 5th Session)
30p 05s 750527z
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
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)
TUESDAY, MAY 27, 1975
Night Sitting
[ Page
2729 ]
CONTENTS
Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates.
On vote 29.
Mr. Phillips — 2729
Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2734
Mr. Phillips — 2735
Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2738
Mr. G.H. Anderson — 2738
Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2739
Mr. L.A. Williams — 2739
Mr. Phillips — 2740
Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2741
Mr. Phillips — 2741
Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2743
Mr. Phillips — 2743
Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2743
Mr. Phillips — 2744
On vote 30.
Mr. Wallace — 2744
Mr. Fraser — 2745
Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2745
Mr. Fraser — 2745
Mr. Smith — 2745
Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2746
Mr. Smith — 2746
Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2746
Mr. Smith — 2747
Mr. Fraser — 2747
Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2747
Mr. Fraser — 2747
Mr. McClelland — 2747
Department of Economic Development estimates.
On vote 34.
Mr. Chabot — 2747
Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2751
Mr. Fraser — 2752
Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2753
Mr. Chabot — 2753
Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2755
TUESDAY, MAY 27, 1975
The House met at 8:30 p.m.
HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): On the floor of
the House this evening I have the pleasure of introducing the
Hon. L. Thompson, Member of Parliament in the State of
Victoria, Australia, and his wife, Mrs. Thompson. Hon. Mr.
Thompson is the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Education and
the House Leader and he also happens to be Irish.
Orders of the day.
HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave of
the House to permit debate in Committee of Supply for this
evening's sitting.
Leave granted.
The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the
chair.
ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT
OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
(continued)
On vote 29: rentalsman, $1,281,644 — continued.
MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): The rentalsman
— I wonder why he is the rentalsman, because we have a
Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) who really should be in
charge of rental accommodation. Yet I can't understand why the
Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) is the Minister of
the rentalsman.
HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Neither can I.
MR. PHILLIPS: I can't understand why he's in charge of the
B.C. Petroleum Corp., and I can't understand why he's chairman
of the....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member speak to
vote 29, please?
MR. PHILLIPS: That's what I'm doing. Mr. Chairman, I have
had a tremendous amount to say about the rentalsman in previous
debates. I advised the Attorney-General that he was
heading down a path of no return. I told the
Attorney-General about the error of his ways. I told him
that he was backing himself into a corner. But, Mr. Chairman....
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Wait a minute now. Either I am going
down a path, or I am backing into a corner — which is
it?
MR. PHILLIPS: You've done all four.
The Attorney-General would not listen and he appointed
a man who made Colin Gabelmann feel like he wished he had lost
the election. Here's a man who fought for the NDP, and who was
working for $24,000 a year, but the man who lost the election,
the Liberal who lost the election to Colin Gabelmann, is
getting $43,056 a year.
Interjection.
MR. PHILLIPS: He had a bet?
MR. AN. FRASER (Cariboo): He's not a lawyer, either.
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, but who threw the election to whom?
(Laughter.)
MR. PHILLIPS: So the NDP Member for North
Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) wishes that he had lost
the election, but he sent a note over this afternoon, which
said: "I bet you that Mr. Clark doesn't run against me because
he is making too much money."
MR. PHILLIPS: One thing that doesn't show up here on this
vote is the rentalsman's expense account, Mr. Chairman. But
this is all right. We have told the Attorney-General that
this whole deal wouldn't work. But now the rentalsman, who must
be a tremendous man of stature and not afraid of his job
because he has the intestinal fortitude to know that he is not
doing a good job, to know that the office of rentalsman is not
working. He stood up to the Attorney-General. In Vernon
on May 14, 1975, Barrie Clark, pardon the pun, bared it all. He
let it all hang out. He told the Attorney-General that it
wasn't working. He told the people of British Columbia that it
wasn't working — the same thing that we told the
Attorney-General when he put this legislation
through.
I would like to quote from a speech made in Vernon by the
rentalsman — that man who is making $43,000 a year, a
very high salary, indeed, for a man with no previous experience
as either a landlord or a renter. Now what did he have to say?
The title of this
article is: "To Freeze Or Not To Freeze."
This
article is from the Vernon Daily News .
This is quite amazing to me, Mr. Chairman, because this man
was given practically a blank cheque to solve the rental
accommodation problem in British Columbia. I have to quote from
this
article because it says: "Rentalsman Barrie Clark said
Tuesday that he and Alex Macdonald experienced confusion in
transmission" — and this isn't Westcoast Transmission and
it isn't cablevision transmission. It is a transmission of
ideas — "on statements about the
[ Page 2730 ]
future of rent controls in British Columbia. Mr. Clark said
here Tuesday that Mr. Macdonald wants the rent freeze off." The
Attorney-General wants the rent freeze off! I have heard
the Attorney-General say last spring that he wants the
rent freeze off. Yet at that same session of the Legislature he
brought in another bill to carry the rent freeze on until
September of this year.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.
Member that rent controls or rent freezes are no longer under
the jurisdiction of the rentalsman, and are not a part of his
duties. Also, it is a matter of legislation; therefore I would
ask you to confine your remarks to the present duties and
responsibilities of the rentalsman's office.
MR. PHILLIPS: Are you telling me, Mr. Chairman, that on May
14, Mr. Barrie Clark, who is the rentalsman, is speaking in
Vernon about things over which he has no jurisdiction?
HON. MR. MACDONALD: These are things which do not come under
this vote.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is that the opinions or the remarks
of the person who occupies the position of rentalsman are not a
matter specifically for debate under this vote, except as they
apply to the administrative responsibilities under this
vote.
MR. PHILLIPS: Well now, let's not sort of get everything
twisted around, Mr. Chairman, because, after all, the
rentalsman is in charge of rent control. In this
article he is
speaking about the administration of his department. And you
are telling me that what the rentalsman says has no bearing on
his responsibilities. In that case, I say: fire him
immediately! Get rid of him! Get rid of him because he is out
making public statements over which he has no jurisdiction.
AN HON. MEMBER: Save that $43,000.
MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Did he have a
long-term contract?
MR. FRASER: Plus his travelling expenses.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Matters of rent control....
MR. PHILLIPS: You know, I am amazed at your statement, Mr.
Chairman, I really am. I am really amazed at your statement.
Here is a man talking about the jurisdiction in British
Columbia, over which he has complete control by legislation....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps it would clarify the matter if
the Hon. Member would allow the Attorney-General to outline briefly the duties
of the rentalsman's office so that we might both see....
MR. PHILLIPS: No, he doesn't have to outline the duties of
the rentalsman's office, Mr. Chairman. I have them right here
before me:
"The office of the rentalsman administers the Landlord and
Tenant Act which governs the relationship between landlords and
tenants who rent residential premises.
"The office of the rentalsman is empowered to mediate, adjudicate
and rule on all matters covered by the Act, with the exception of questions
of rent increases, to deal with matters of termination of tenancies, possession
of premises, redirection of rent, or for repairs and essential services and
security deposits, to disseminate information to the general public" — for which
he has a vote of over $200,000 in advertising to disseminate this information
— "about the rights and responsibilities of the Act."
I feel that is exactly what the rentalsman was doing in
Vernon.
The Attorney-General now realizes the error of his
ways, because here is a man who is hired.... He is hiding
behind one of those pieces of paper which are costing the
public of British Columbia $200,000 a year — "The
Rentalsman and You."
HON. MR. MACDONALD: You are costing the Social Credit Party
the vote of every tenant in the Province of British
Columbia.
MR. PHILLIPS: No really because....
HON. MR. MACDONALD : You bet you are! You're against tenants
— let them be soaked, let them be evicted.
AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Come on, applaud. This is a farce! Your
leader comes out for rent control. What are you doing here?
MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I am absolutely amazed at the
way the Attorney-General can blow his mind here in a
responsible court, the highest court in British Columbia.
Absolutely blows his mind. He blows his mind because the man
whom he hired to administer this Act has come out and spoken
his mind, has had the heart and the guts to stand up against
this all-powerful Attorney-General, to tell him
that he is wrong. Deep within the Attorney-General's
heart, he knows himself that he is wrong. Although it
[ Page 2731 ]
may be politically expedient to bring in the legislation he
has brought in, he knows deep down in his heart that it is
wrong.
I must continue with this article, Mr. Chairman, because it
lays everything out in public. I'm afraid that there wasn't a
fair hearing given to Mr. Clark and his speech in Vernon.
He continues: "Mr. Clark said here Tuesday that Mr.
Macdonald wants the rent freeze off." He wants the rent freeze
off. I have to ask you: did Barrie Clark have a bad dream? Did
he see what's going to happen in the future? Was he talking to
the Attorney-General? Where did he get this idea that the
Attorney-General wanted the rent freeze off?
HON. MR. MACDONALD: It wasn't even a correct quotation.
MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, now he's taking the same route as the
Premier. "Oh, I was misquoted." That is the last, last effort
of all politicians — when they say they were
misquoted.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's what he says.
MR. PHILLIPS: Am I to call the people who were at this
conference, who quoted this article, liars? Not at all. I
believe the rentalsman when he said that the
Attorney-General wants the rent freeze off.
"In Victoria, Mr. Macdonald said the government has no
intention of scrapping existing rent controls, which call for
an annual rent increase of 10.6 per cent. He emphasized that he
had not heard Mr. Clark's remarks."
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Member
proceeds, I will try again on a slightly different tack in this
regard. That is to say, we are considering under this vote the
administrative responsibilities of the rentalsman's office.
We're not considering whether or not to support rent controls
or rent freezes. This is a matter for legislation and is not,
strictly speaking, one of the administrative duties of the
rentalsman's office.
MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I won't call you naive, but if
we didn't have rent controls, we wouldn't need the
rentalsman.
AN HON. MEMBER: Well, you are naive to ask that
question.
MR. PHILLIPS: If we didn't have rent controls, we wouldn't
need the rentalsman.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, come on! Don't you know what the
office does?
MR. PHILLIPS: So I can't really accept your statement. I'm
going to continue this article, because this shows the
rentalsman and his statements. If they're not relative to this
vote, then I don't know what is, Mr. Chairman, really.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I am not suggesting that the
Hon. Member is not going to be relevant. What I am suggesting
is that his remarks must deal with the administrative
responsibilities or with the details of this vote.
MR. PHILLIPS: Would you suggest that statements made by the
rentalsman are relative to the rentalsman's vote?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It appeared to the Chair that the Hon. Member
was embarking upon the merits of rent control and rent freezes...
MR. PHILLIPS: No, no, I wouldn't want to do that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: ...and that is a matter of legislation.
MR. PHILLIPS: No, no. What I'm trying to bring to the people
of British Columbia is the fact that here is a rentalsman, who
has a budget of $1,281,644, who doesn't agree with the man who
brought in the legislation, the man who hired him. This has got
to be a break, you know; there's got to be a crack in the
administration. It's got to prove what the opposition said many
years ago, in spite of the Attorney-General losing his
noggin a few moments ago and going off on that political
tangent. Here is a man who is being paid out of the taxpayers'
pockets to administer this Act, who says he doesn't agree with
it.
The Attorney-General said a provincial task force is
studying housing policies, and included in the force's terms of
reference is rent controls. He said there will be no further
legislation on rent controls until the report has been
presented to the Legislature — definitely not during the
current session. He added that in view of the housing crisis in
British Columbia, controls are essential.
In his statement, Mr. Clark said: "The person affected most
by the rent freeze is now the landlord, because he's the one
who's feeling the pinch financially at this time."
That is a statement we have made in this House many times
before. But he goes on to say the same thing we have been
telling the Attorney-General for many years — well,
for many sessions: in the long run, it will be the tenant who
is most affected because, unless the landlord is encouraged to
continue to invest in rental accommodation, there just won't be
any. There won't be any more built.
[ Page 2732 ]
If you want to look back through Hansard , you will
find that I have said this in the House. The Member for Saanich
and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) has said this in the House. The
Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) has said this in the
House. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) has said this
in the House.
Interjection.
MR. PHILLIPS: And I'm telling you, Mr.
Attorney-General, that you can make all the stupid, snide
remarks you want. You can get as angry as you want. But I tell
you, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General is wrong; and he
can put on all the acts that he wants to. Here is a man, who he
pays $1,281,644 a year, who disagrees with him.
Here's a man who has the stature, the guts and the fortitude
to stand up to that socialist government even though they hired
him. I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, I have more respect for this
rentalsman tonight than I have ever had for him because he is
telling the government the error of their ways. What bothers me
is that the government will not listen to him.
Here is a man who has a no-cut contract....
Interjections.
MR. PHILLIPS: That's right — a no-cut contract.
Here is a man who can be fired at a moment's notice....
MR. FRASER: We'll pay him off and get rid of him.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Who, your leader?
MR. FRASER: No, the rentalsman. (Laughter.)
MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, we've heard in this Legislature
this afternoon.... I'm not going to take the time of the House
to go through and talk about the rent review commission which,
as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A.
Williams) pointed out very ably in the House, is not even
legal.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: You can change your party but not your
riding.
MR. PHILLIPS: Well, that's all right. You can go ahead and make fun,
Mr. Attorney-General. But the Member pointed out very ably in this House this
afternoon that you are paying a commission which is not legal, which was not
passed through this House. The whole system of rent control that you have developed
is really a farce and working against the betterment of housing and rental accommodation
for the people of British Columbia.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is beginning to
embark on the merits of rent control, and this is not really
the subject of this vote. I would ask the Hon. Member to deal
with the administrative aspects of this vote.
MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, there's one thing about you: you
have dinner and you automatically change your controls. Before
we went to dinner you were allowing a free and wide debate on
this subject, then all of a sudden you want controls. You
remind me of the Attorney-General — he sort of
changes....
Interjection.
MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, there's the American eagle over there!
(Laughter.) The staff sergeant in the USAF, 1953-55, the
Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) who should be
protecting the very people that she's fighting against, and
there she is spitting fire and venom here in this Legislature
tonight.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the...?
Interjection.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member for South Peace
River, in true northern spirit, not be distracted by these
southerners and carry on with the issue under debate?
AN HON. MEMBER: The eagle is an endangered species.
MR. PHILLIPS: May there never be any more like her —
we couldn't stand two.
Interjections.
MR. PHILLIPS: To continue, Mr. Chairman, I quote Barrie
Clark, the man who is being paid $43,056. He never earned that
much in his life before and probably will take some time again
to earn that. He stood up to the Attorney-General, he
stood up to this socialist government and said, "You're all
wrong," and put his job on the line. He said: "But in
the long run it will be the tenant who is most affected because
unless the landlord is encouraged to continue to invest in
rental accommodation, there just won't be any more built." Mr.
Clark added: "This is the crisis facing the provincial
government" — facing the Attorney-General.
He didn't say that, those are my words.
Mr. Clark added: "This is what the rent review commission is
looking at at the present time. I
[ Page 2733 ]
haven't found anyone in Victoria who disagrees with what I'm
saying."
There is the man who is being paid $43,000 a year to
administer this Act, and who disagrees with the
Attorney-General. In view of the speeches made this
afternoon by the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) about
the rent review commission, how it isn't working, and how they
have biased people on that commission, how can he justify and
how can he carry on when rental accommodation is decreasing by
the day?
I've got information and research here by the miles;I don't want to bring it all up, Mr. Chairman, because they
might think I've done my research. The Premier glories in the
House in saying about how we haven't done our research. I have
a file that thick back in my office. I won't take the time of
the House to tell you about all the research the Member for
Langley has done, the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith)
has done and I have done on this rent review commission and on
housing in British Columbia. I don't want to embarrass the
Premier. We've done our research, and we have the facts.
Interjection.
MR. PHILLIPS: There's the Minister of Consumer Services who
had jet lag and who misled the House on $65,000 worth of salary
contingencies.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are not....
MR. PHILLIPS: And she didn't have the guts...
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MR. PHILLIPS: ...to stand up in this House and tell this
Legislature how many people she was hiring.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!
MR. PHILLIPS: There's the old American eagle, Mr. Chairman...
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!
MR. PHILLIPS: ...ready to pounce.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member is obviously out of order. I
don't know what rules he is following, but he certainly is not
following the rules of this House. I would ask you to observe
the rules of the House and to.... The Chair is attempting to
allow some latitude, but the rules are the rules.
As long as you are discussing the rentalsman, you're all
right. But I would ask the Hon. Member to keep his mind on the
vote and not on the Hon. Members.
MR. PHILLIPS: On the Hon. Minister? No, I won't keep my mind
on her, Mr. Chairman. You can rest assured of that.
HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Be a gentleman.
MR. PHILLIPS: I would like the Attorney-General to stand up
and tell us where he's going because it is of great concern to those
who are wanting rental accommodation in British Columbia. Not only
tonight, not only six months ago, but in the future where are we going?
Mr. Chairman, we've had many talks in this House about areas that have
brought in rent controls, how slum conditions have arrived, about money
under the table, key money, to get accommodation, and how this is
happening. I've got the statistics here, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to
go into them. I don't want to tell you that British Columbia is the
lowest in all of Canada in rental accommodations, per thousand of
population.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Are you discussing the merits
of any part of the Landlord and Tenant Act, or are you
discussing this vote?
MR. PHILLIPS: No, no. I'm discussing the rentalsman vote. As
I say, I don't want to go into telling you all the statistics
about how this rentalsman and his jurisdiction over rental
accommodation in British Columbia has brought rental
accommodation to a point of deterioration to the lowest in
Canada. I don't want to tell you that, Mr. Chairman. I don't
want to even mention that.
I do want the Attorney-General to stand up, be
non-political and outline to us where he intends to go.
When you get the No. 1 man working against you and disagreeing
with you, then it's time you outlined your policy. If you're
going to do away with rent controls in September, if you're
going to bring in new legislation, tell the people of British
Columbia so that we can get some of that cash flowing back in
here to build new rental accommodation in British Columbia.
It is your responsibility, Mr. Attorney-General, and
if we had not taken so much time to warn you of the error of
your ways.... When you got up and, I remember, you lost your
temper....
HON. MR. MACDONALD: And I will again if you don't tell the
truth.
MR. PHILLIPS: You can lose your temper, but it isn't
becoming of you, Mr. Attorney-General. But I remember you
losing your temper and saying that we want everybody to be
gouged. We want all the tenants in British Columbia to be
gouged by the rip-off artists, the landlords.
[ Page 2734 ]
Interjection.
MR. PHILLIPS: What are you going to do? You have got
yourself into a situation where you don't know where to turn
because the landlords are not building new accommodation, the
tenants are being ripped off. Where are you going to go? The
rentalsman doesn't agree with you. He says you should do away
with it. You have a great policy statement to make, Mr.
Attorney-General, and I'm going to resume my seat so that
tonight you can tell the people of British Columbia.
And the old American eagle flaps her wings and claps the
hardest because she hates anybody to zero in on the policies on
her great Attorney-General whom she hovers over every
day.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member keep to
the vote?
MR. PHILLIPS: I'm taking my seat. I want the
Attorney-General to tell us, because he's stuck in his
own mucilage. He's the one who brought in this legislation. He's the one who has his feet stuck in the glue.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the Hon. Member discussing the legislation?
The Hon. Attorney-General.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate a good
chairman: you don't get to your feet; you're called to your
feet.
I'll stick to the vote. I'm not going to discuss rental
control because it isn't under this vote. I'm not going to
discuss the fact, although I guess we can discuss it in some
future time, that if the Social Credit Party were returned to
power in this province, which heaven forbid, the rents of
ordinary people would go up 20 and 30 per cent overnight.
MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, you've got to be....
HON. MR. MACDONALD: That in an area of scarce housing units...
MR. FRASER: You caused it.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: ...and the burgeoning population
growth those tenants would be at the mercy of landlords, and
time after time the very gouging that you're talking about
— that's the word — would be used under a Social
Credit government. And that message ought to be taken to every
tenant in the Province of British Columbia.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would also ask the Hon.
Attorney-General to confine his remarks to the vote,
rather than to discuss....
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Under the rentalsman, who as I said this
afternoon....
MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Are you in favour of key
money?
HON. MR. MACDONALD: I am not. But I'm in favour of some
equal justice and equity, and we would not abandon people to
the mercies of a marketplace where they have no chance to
survive. We'll go into the highrises, and we'll go into the
small apartment units, and we'll tell them the story of what
Social Credit is up to, tonight. Don't worry, we're talking
about hard dollars and hard-earned dollars that would be
gouged off from many of the families of British Columbia,
from people who can't afford to pay those dollars.
MR. McCLELLAND: Key money! That's what you're in favour
of.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, these are the kinds of
matters that come under this vote. I read from the report of
the rentalsman, Barrie Clark, from his office, the statistics
for this month — the kinds of things that he's had
to deal with, and dealt with, and the number of people he has
to deal with: security deposit disputes, 302; rent increases — as to
information, he doesn't handle them — 74;
essential services, 175; tenant damage, 20; repair disputes,
391; privacy interference, 37; noise and disturbance, 28;
abandonment, 97; illegal eviction, 41; distraint, 58; subletting and
assigning, 18; locks and access restrictions,
17; attornment, 5; disputed terminations, 1,147; application for order
for possession, 1,168; miscellaneous, 627; general information, 186.
So those are the kinds of areas in which this office is
being of service to the people of the province.
Interjection.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: This is in the first few months of the
year. And altogether there have been literally — you
know, I mentioned it earlier — 55,000 calls on that
office in the first four months of this year.
AN HON. MEMBER: Personal or otherwise? Personal calls?
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Some of them personal, some of them by
phone. So if you don't think there is a great social need out
there, there is. And in spite of the clippings that the Hon.
Member reads, the rentalsman is doing a good job. The office
had only been in operation a relatively short time, and I think
it is beginning to win confidence, not with everybody, not with
some landlords, not even
[ Page 2735 ]
with some tenants. But it is beginning to win the kind of
confidence that is necessary, and I don't just see it
disappearing from view under any government, except perhaps the
Social Credit government, who do not seem to care for the human
needs this office is attending to. I don't see it, because
there is going to be a need for that kind of help for the
tenants of the province.
Interjection.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, of course. And nobody has. It is
not under this vote. Why did we form a Housing Ministry?
AN HON. MEMBER: That's what I want answered.
AN HON. MEMBER: We would like to know, too.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: For years we asked the Social Credit
government to do something about this question. For 20 years we
asked in vain, but we are doing something.
MR. FRASER: You weren't here 20 years ago.
MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell the Attorney-General that
I give him credit for more intelligence than he displayed when
he just recently stood in the House. It is the
Attorney-General, through his Landlord and Tenant Act and
rent control, that has created the problem.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is clearly
embarking on a discussion on the merits of rent control, which
is not part of this vote.
MR. PHILLIPS: I am really trying to bring the
Attorney-General back to his senses. He's the one who
made these statements.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General is out of order as
well. The Chair calls both Members to order.
MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to tell you, Mr. Chairman, what
would happen. Now he chastised and used all this political...and just about lost his temper a couple of times, which he
really doesn't want to do. There is so much pressure on that
government, the Premier and the Attorney-General and all
the other Ministers, that they are at the boiling point. I
don't want them to boil over, and I don't want them to blow,
because they are the government and they have a responsibility
to the people, Mr. Chairman.
But I will tell you what would happen with a Social Credit
government.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, what would happen?
MR. PHILLIPS: We would see that there was more rental
accommodation needed so that people wouldn't have to live in
the slums they are going to have to live in in five years under
your legislation, the same as they have everywhere else in the
world.
MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): You never did anything for 20
years.
MR. PHILLIPS: There's the Member for Kamloops, who has got
to have the least brains of anybody in this House, Mr.
Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine
his...?
Interjection.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I am fed up with the Hon. Member
deliberately being out of order. I would ask the Hon. Member to
speak to the vote or take his seat.
Now would the Hon. Member speak to the vote?
MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, now don't get excited, Mr. Chairman,
because you have gone through a couple of hard weeks and I know
your nerves are on edge. But I am speaking about the vote. I'm
speaking about rental accommodation, and I realize that your
nerves are on edge and that you have had a hard couple of weeks
and that the Attorney-General has got you all upset by
deviating from the vote and that you didn't really want to call
him to order. Now I will accept all that.
But what I want to say, Mr. Chairman, is that it has been
the fallacy of this socialist regime that has brought about the
problems we have today. The Attorney-General knows it and
the rentalsman knows it. He can make flippant remarks about
press statements, but he knows that the rentalsman doesn't
agree with him. I think we have backed ourselves into a very,
very dark corner, and the Attorney-General will go about
the province in the next election saying: "Let the Social
Credit in and they'll have land gougers, they'll have rental
gougers."
I'll tell you what we'd do. We would give the rentalsman the
authority to basically start at the very top, the $600
apartments, and take the limit off. And we would go to those
people who would build rental accommodation and we would say:
"How long will it take you to meet the need?"
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Attorney-General on a
point of order.
[ Page 2736 ]
HON. MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, the Member is out
of order. There is no control over $500. So your policy is to
take it off over S600?
Interjection.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point of order is well
taken. It appears that the Hon. Member has no intention of
discussing the vote. I would ask the Hon. Member, if he is not
intending....
MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, don't you read my mind! I am certainly
discussing the vote. You better believe I'm discussing the
vote!
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to hear it for the first time.
Would the Hon. Member proceed, please?
MR. PHILLIPS: You better believe I'm discussing the vote!
We're discussing the....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member read an
article
about the rentalsman. It would appear that he was interested in
two possible courses of action: either the fact that the
rentalsman shouldn't be in the job or else that the legislation
should be changed. Both of these are out of order. I fail to
see any relevance to this vote.
MR. FRASER: Oh, come now!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member speak to the vote,
please?
MR. PHILLIPS: I'll sit down, Mr. Chairman, and you tell me
what the taxpayers of British Columbia are paying $1,281,644
a year for.
AN HON. MEMBER: They want to know.
MR. PHILLIPS: They want to know.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That is precisely what we would like
the Hon. Member....
MR. PHILLIPS: Because what is the purpose of all this...
AN HON. MEMBER: Right, they want to know it. You don't.
MR. PHILLIPS: ...if it doesn't have anything to do with
rental accommodation?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The rentalsman's office clearly has certain
charged administrative responsibilities. The Hon. Member would be in order if
he would ask questions or discuss those particular duties or responsibilities
of the rentalsman. Would the Hon. Member continue?
MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly have always agreed with you, Mr.
Chairman. I will abide by your decision tonight. What I will go
on to say is that the rentalsman should bring in a new theory
and say to the people who would provide rental accommodation in
British Columbia: "We will do away with the $400 to $500
apartments over a period of years, providing that you who
provide the accommodation will provide that accommodation."
Then, over another period of years, we will do away with the
$200 to $300.... And you phase it out over a period of years,
Mr. Chairman; you phase it out.
The rentalsman should be responsible for bringing this new
policy to the Attorney-General who, by his completely
dictatorial, unilateral decisions, based upon caucus
discussions by the First Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.
Barnes) and the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms.
Brown).... I think the Member for Vancouver Centre actually
threatened the Attorney-General at caucus meetings and
said: "Bring in rent controls or else I'll lose my seat." It
was a political decision, and chaos has developed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member wish to
discuss rent controls and nothing else? Is this his
subject?
MR. PHILLIPS: I am discussing rent controls!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, then, he is out of order. The Hon.
Member should be discussing the administrative duties of the
rentalsman's office.
MR. PHILLIPS: Are you telling me, Mr. Chairman, that rent
controls do not come under the rentalsman's vote?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member is getting the message. The
merits of whether we should have rent control or not have rent
control are matters of policy and legislation and are not,
strictly speaking, considering the administrative duties or the
functions of the rentalsman's office in applying the
policies.
MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I see. What you are telling me is that the
rentalsman is just a puppet who is stuck with the decree of the
Attorney-General.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member knows
full well that all Crown agencies...
MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I see...are puppets. Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: ...have to follow the policies
[ Page 2737 ]
and the legislation....
MR. PHILLIPS: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that the rentalsman,
who costs the taxpayers of British Columbia
one-and-a-quarter-million dollars a
year, spoke out against the government. Maybe you should fire
him, because...
AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you fire him?
MR. PHILLIPS: ...he was out of order when he spoke out. He
had the intestinal fortitude to stand up to this dictatorial,
stone-hearted Attorney-General.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Member is seeking
to charge the rentalsman with misconduct of any description, he
should do so on a substantive motion.
MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm not charging him. I think he is a
great guy. I think he is a man who should be given a gold medal
because he told the people of British Columbia. He threw
politics aside, he threw his job aside, and he waded into the
Attorney-General and said: "You are wrong, Mr.
Attorney-General." But what we are asking tonight, Mr.
Chairman, is that we want the Attorney-General to quit
being political.
I have in my office a complete survey of the results of rent
controls in Canberra, Australia, a complete book. If you
provoke me enough, I will go into my office and I'll get that
book and I will read you the results of how rent control did
not work in Canberra, Australia.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Again, the Hon. Member is
discussing a matter which can only be dealt with by
legislation. This is not part of the vote. I would again ask,
plead, with the Hon. Member to try to be in order.
MR. PHILLIPS: You are a difficult Chairman. You are a
difficult Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chairman is very patient, I think.
MR. PHILLIPS: No, I mean you are a good Chairman. You are a
good Chairman, and I know that you are trying to abide by the
rules. I will abide by the rules, Mr. Chairman. But I want the
Attorney-General, before he gets this vote through, to
stand in this Legislature and tell us where he is going with
his rentalsman who disagrees with him and who is causing
hardship to all of those poor citizens in British Columbia
tonight who are looking for rental accommodation.
Those are the people he is really hurting, the people who are
looking for rental accommodation in the lower mainland where we have 1
per cent of the land mass housing 80 per cent of the population. They
are the people who are being hurt; they are the people who are having
to hand in the key money. They are the people who stand to be gouged.
Who can afford it? Who can afford it and who doesn't go to
the rentalsman? It's the people with the dollars in their back
pocket who can pay that key money, who can pay for blackmail
rental accommodation; those are the people who aren't
being hurt. But the very people whom the Attorney-General
wants to help are the people who are being hurt. They are the
people who are being gouged by this socialist government.
I have to agree with the rentalsman. I want the
Attorney-General to tell me what he is going to do in the
fall. Is he going to continue? You don't want me to say that,
do you? No, I won't. But what's going to happen to the office
of rentalsman if there are no more rent controls to
enforce?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member....
MR. PHILLIPS: What job is he going to have?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Attorney-General
on a point of order..
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Surely the Hon. Member knows that there
is a rent review commission which....
MR. PHILLIPS: You're not supposed to discuss that under this
vote. I have been told that by the Chairman several times. Now
sit down; you're out of order.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: I know. That's right; it's not under
this vote.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River
finish his remarks? Before you proceed, though, on the point of
order raised by the Hon. Attorney-General, perhaps the
Hon. Member doesn't appreciate the fine point that the Chair is
trying to make.
MR. PHILLIPS: Oh yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I do; I
understand your fine point.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is resisting the temptation to
lecture the Hon. Member, but the Hon. Member doesn't seem to
understand the point. Now the point is that any change of
policy or a change which would require legislation cannot be
discussed in Committee of Supply. In Committee of Supply the
Hon. Member is to discuss only those administrative
[ Page 2738 ]
responsibilities which presently exist under the
legislation. You are not to discuss the merits of the
legislation or possible changes to the legislation but, rather,
only the way in which the responsibilities are being carried
out by the rentalsman's office.
MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I want you to understand
that the way these estimates have been jockeyed around, we've
never had the opportunity to discuss the vote of the
Attorney-General, which gives us wide ranging latitude
because it was forced through. You recall, Mr. Chairman; you
were in the chair. I wasn't in the House, but it was forced
through. This is why sometimes the Members have to deviate just
a little bit because we didn't have the opportunity to discuss
these....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think you would find the
Chair most co-operative and would allow certain latitude
if the Hon. Member somehow could show some relevance to the
vote in terms of his remarks. I am sure it could be done if the
Hon. Member tried.
MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I think I have. I am going to resume my
seat, and I want the Attorney-General to stand up and
tell us where he is going in this situation. But I think you
have to understand, Mr. Chairman, that the estimates have been
so jockeyed around backward and forward, and we never did have
the opportunity to discuss the salary vote under which we would
have brought a lot of these things out.
Interjection.
MR. PHILLIPS: No, we didn't get a change...
AN HON. MEMBER: You're fabricating.
MR. PHILLIPS: I am not fabricating at all. They were crushed
through this House.
AN HON. MEMBER: He's an absolute liar.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Minister
of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) to withdraw the remark that he's an
absolute liar.
HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, I withdraw the....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. An unconditional withdrawal on
the part of the Minister of Health.
HON. MR. COCKE: I withdraw.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member proceed?
MR. PHILLIPS: So I'd like the Attorney-General to
stand in this Legislature and advise us tonight where we are
going on this deal. If he doesn't, well, I will just have to
continue on my course through questioning.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: The rentalsman in the forthcoming year
is going to carry out the duties that are set out in this vote
and with the funds voted by the Legislature under this
vote.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I gather from
the previous speaker that Liberal candidates who are successful
earn $24,000 and, if unsuccessful, earn $44,000. I am not going
to ask the Attorney-General for a legal opinion as to
whether I can now ask for a recount. I would just like to say
that I am very pleased with where I am.
I have a number of questions, Mr. Chairman, to the
Attorney-General on this particular vote. First, would
the Attorney-General like to give us some indication as
to building of apartments at the present time? I realize that
he may not have the facts entirely at his fingertips because
sometimes they allow the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr.
Nicolson) to make trivial decisions dealing with housing. But
he is normally the man who handles these things and I think the
effect of the Landlord and Tenant Act which the rentalsman
applies and attempts to interpret and which set up his office
has had an effect upon building rates. I think it is reasonable
to ask whether the Attorney-General would give some
suggestions as to why we now have close to zero building rate
for apartments. I think that as this particular Act and as the
rentalsman deals with questions of rent increases to a certain
degree, I wonder if he would like to give some suggestion as to
the possibility of phasing out this whole piece of
legislation.
Will we continue to have to vote money for it in future
years? Now that's a question, Mr. Chairman. As you can see,
it's up from zero to $1.281 million. I wonder whether these
phenomenal increases are going to continue in future years.
When will the legislation be phased out? When can the
rentalsman's job diminish?
It's impossible to compare it to last year because there was
no such job last year. I'm thinking in the future and wondering
when we're going to receive an estimates book with a happy
situation, with all the list of expenditures on the left and
blank spaces on the right, instead of the other way around.
I wonder whether the Attorney-General could offer some
comment and advice as to when rates will be next changed. We
had a great to-ing and fro-ing and backing and
filling on the 8.6 and the 10.6, and I
[ Page 2739 ]
wonder whether or not there's some date for an increase. It
obviously affects the whole question of the
landlord-and-tenant relationship. When will
increases next be granted?
I wonder whether the Attorney-General would like to
offer some comment under this particular piece of legislation
and this particular vote as to the renovations clause. Are
buildings being maintained? Can he indicate the information
that's been given to him from the rentalsman about the problem
of maintaining buildings? We have heard some rather worried
stories. I'm sure you yourself have heard many dealing with the
fact that landlords are no longer maintaining buildings as they
used to do because occupancy is 99.8 per cent and vacancy is
0.2 per cent or less, and therefore under those curious
circumstances, surprising circumstances, in particular in light
of the lack of incentive to build further rental accommodation,
the maintenance of buildings is going downhill very
rapidly.
Those are a number of questions. I trust the
Attorney-General, who got up himself to complain about
the number of questions he used to ask the previous
administration and the lack of answers he used to get, will
display the new spirit, which presumably he was referring to,
by answering them all in detail and in a fair manner and not
simply give one side of the story.
Another subject I'd like to touch upon is the case of
rentalsmen exceeding their authority. This matter has been
before the courts. Somewhere here I have the decision.
MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): If you
were here at 4 o'clock today, Dave, you would have heard it
then. It was all covered.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, maybe it was all covered, but I
wonder whether what I heard was adequate in terms of the
Minister's reply. Certainly questions were asked, but the
rentalsman himself talked about.... I'm quoting a letter dated
March 24 of this year, the president of the New Westminster
Apartment Association, from page 2, paragraph 1, where he
states: "We have already taken the necessary steps to avoid the
delegation problems until such time as the Legislature deals
with this matter."
HON. MR. MACDONALD : It's already on the order paper....
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, that's in one of the bills?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 77, I believe has the section.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I apologize to the Attorney-General for referring
to it. The omnibus bill is broken down and I appreciate that, but obviously
from the title one couldn't grasp entirely what was in it. I must admit I haven't
been reading every bill as fast as I used to when they come out. I will accept
the Attorney-General's word that this matter and the reference in the rentalsman's
letter of this date has been adequately taken care of. I will look at that matter
when the legislation comes forward in the clause-by-clause.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: There'll be an amendment to it....
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the Attorney-General now
tells me there will be an amendment to it, and naturally with
some fascination.... First I'm told the thing is taken care
of, and then we find, indicated by the Attorney-General,
that it's not taken care of; there'll have to be an
amendment. But I will be quite willing to discuss this with the
Attorney-General when not only the legislation, Bill 77,
comes forward but we see the amendment. Obviously that would be
the time to do it.
However, I'll leave that subject and simply ask the
Attorney-General whether he would deal with the other
five specific questions that I asked him.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't want to be technical about the
vote, but I haven't brought housing-start information,
which is the Department of Housing, with me.
In terms of whether this vote will continue in succession
years, I can only venture an opinion. I would say yes. I would
think that landlord-tenant problems will — I hope
not multiply — I'm sure, be with us in the following
years.
In terms of the upkeep of apartments and whether or not the
12 per cent renovation allowance is enough, well, again, that's
under the rent review commission. May I say very briefly that
that is the purpose of the research and the inquiry that's
going ahead, which will report sometime in the summer under
Karl Jaffary of the City of Toronto. I suppose the legislation
will have to be looked at in the fall or certainly in the
spring. So that was renovation. But generally these things that
have been raised are the subject matter of the inquiry.
MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I agree with
the Attorney-General. I think that in the years to come
the rentalsman's office will continue to flourish and will deal
with the kind of problems that the rentalsman has been
confronted with over this past several months. While there's
been a backlog of smouldering differences between landlords and
tenants, nonetheless I suspect that they will continue.
[ Page 2740 ]
It's a natural result of the confrontations which exist
between landlords and tenants, particularly under the
circumstances of low vacancy rates, the inability of a tenant
to have freedom of movement within the community in order that
he can disassociate himself with a landlord with whom he does
not agree — similarly for the landlord who does not agree
with the tenant.
I don't want to offend against the rules of order, Mr.
Chairman, but I think I have to say that you can't separate
this problem of the rent a tenant pays from all of the other
problems. It affects the way in which the rented property is
managed; it leads to increasing tensions between the landlord
and the tenant or the manager of the landlord and the tenant;
it contributes to a breakdown of a relationship between these
two people. As I said, with no place else to go under the
legislation we currently have today, the tenant can't move and
the landlord can't get him out.
The Hon. Attorney-General read statistics as to the
nature of the complaints or inquiries that the rentalsman deals
with. Some of those dealt with the termination of tenancies,
proper terminations within the limits of the legislation. For
every one of those which is terminated, that means that the
tenant has to find someplace else to go. The Second Member for
Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) indicated the 0.2 per cent vacancy
rate. That means that there is no place to go.
I think it's unfortunate that we don't have in the
Attorney-General's estimates a
section for the rent
review commission so that these things could be dealt with
together, because you can't really separate them. I would not
like to think that the absence of any estimates for the rent
review commission is because the Attorney-General and
this government don't want to debate this issue at this
time.
I make this prophecy, Mr. Chairman. I give this government
about four to five months under present circumstances, where
there is no rental accommodation being constructed in British
Columbia, where the rentalsman and the rent review commission
are continuing to receive the complaints and problems that are
coming before them day by day. You have a situation in British
Columbia which this government will not be able to overcome, a
situation which is not of their making but to which they have
contributed. That's what the rentalsman was talking about in
the remarks read by the Member for South Peace River (Mr.
Phillips). The government has got to face up to this. You're
not facing up to it by telling us that under the rules of order
we can't talk about the rent review commission and the problems
that they are creating.
MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I just went down to my office, because I
think the Legislature should know.... I'm sure the rentalsman has read this
review from a study of the effects of rent controls in
Canberra.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Even though the Chair may have
the greatest sympathy with the desire of the Hon. Member to
discuss this subject, since he clearly wants to talk about it,
unfortunately the Chair must enforce the rules. There is simply
no provision in this particular vote for discussion of the rent
review commission or rent controls.
MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, as I said before, I certainly
want to abide by the rules of the House. However, it is the
rentalsman who must enforce rent control, because if there were
no rent controls, there wouldn't be a need for a rentalsman.
Does that sound relevant?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that perhaps the
Attorney-General could make the distinction of that
particular point with the Hon. Member.
MR. PHILLIPS: No, you're the Chairman. You're the
Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The rentalsman has the responsibility of
administering the Landlord and Tenant Act, those particular
sections for which he is responsible for the administration.
However, it is the Chair's understanding that matters of rent
control are matters either of legislation or the rent review
commission and not specifically of the rentalsman.
MR. PHILLIPS: Does the rentalsman not...?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The rentalsman has incidental administrative
responsibility.
MR. PHILLIPS: Just as a matter of information to my humble
self.... I realize that I am just a poor country boy trying to
protect the taxpayers of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman. If
there were no rent controls, no controls on the amount of money
that can be charged for rental accommodation in British
Columbia, what would be really the need for the rentalsman? So
is it not relevant?
MR. CHAIRMAN: My understanding was that the original duties
of the rentalsman did include a rent control function. However,
this was taken out of the rentalsman's responsibility by the
rent review commission.
Opinions regarding the merits of rent control are out of
order regardless, since they are matters of legislation.
MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, then I have to ask you under
what vote do we discuss the rent control
[ Page 2741 ]
commission.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps you could ask that of the Hon.
Attorney-General.
MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm asking you; you're in charge of the
House.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All I can say to the Hon. Member is that it is
not under this vote.
MR. PHILLIPS: Under what legislation do we have a rent control commission?
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Under my salary vote.
MR. PHILLIPS: And under what specific vote do we have the
rent control commission, Mr. Chairman? Maybe the
Attorney-General would answer that.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's statutory at the present time.
MR. PHILLIPS: What do you mean by statutory? Has it been
passed by the Legislature?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Member....
MR. PHILLIPS: By order-in-council?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, The Chair would consider the
questions the Hon. Member is answering as good questions, and I
would ask him to ask the questions and then allow the Hon.
Attorney-General to stand in his place and answer
them.
MR. PHILLIPS: I would just like to know under what statute
should we discuss the rent review commission. Under what vote
is it in the estimates? Under what estimate?
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it is not under this vote.
That's point 1, which has some significance to what we are
doing. The second part of the answer is that while it is not
under this vote, it is under the Landlord and Tenant Act and
that is provided for by an appropriation by the Legislature to
look after this function.
MR. PHILLIPS: Under what amount of money under the Landlord
and Tenant Act...? I mean, if we are going to administer the
Landlord and Tenant Act, there must be a vote, so I would like
to ask the Attorney-General under what vote does the
administration of the Landlord and Tenant Act come. What vote
in the estimates?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Anything that is not actually
covered under the rentalsman's duties would come under the
Attorney-General's salary vote inasmuch as he is
responsible for the administration of....
MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, you are the one who told me to
ask the Attorney-General. I'd like to ask the
Attorney-General under what vote does the rent review
commission come.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's a statutory appropriation.
MR. PHILLIPS: Under what vote? What is the number of the
vote? I want to be able to discuss it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The money was provided by the
legislation that was passed at the last legislative session; therefore it was debated at that time and cannot be debated
again. If a further bill is brought in providing additional
funds, or if a vote is brought in, then the Hon. Member may
debate it.
MR. PHILLIPS: No, no, Mr. Chairman. Don't pull the wool over
my eyes. There was no money voted by the Legislature to
administer the rent review commission, and if there were, this
is a new year. Don't snow-job me like that.
I want to know under what vote in the 1975 estimates of this
Legislature should we discuss the rent review commission. Now
you said for me to ask the Attorney-General. I want to
know what vote.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Attorney-General did
say that it was a statutory provision.
MR. PHILLIPS: No, it is not a statutory provision. I want to
know under what vote.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Hon. Member is not satisfied with the
answer, he can press the matter and ask a further question, but
I would ask him to return to consideration of this vote. This
is a matter of....
MR. PHILLIPS: No, I would rather pursue your instructions,
Mr. Chairman, where you asked me to ask the
Attorney-General under what vote we can discuss the rent
review commission. That's all I am doing. I would like the
Attorney-General to tell me under what vote do we discuss
the rent review commission.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member asked the
Attorney-General.
MR. PHILLIPS: No, don't take the
[ Page 2742 ]
Attorney-General off the hook.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MR. PHILLIPS: You're the one who told me to ask the
Attorney-General.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And I also heard the answer. I would say that
the Hon. Attorney-General said that it was a statutory
provision. That's the answer. Now would the Hon. Member
continue with this vote?
MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, but I have to disagree with the Hon.
Attorney-General because....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Are we in Committee of Supply or not?
Are we considering vote 29 or not? If we are not, I am going to
go home to bed. Now would the Hon. Member speak to the vote?
Otherwise we are all wasting our time here.
MR. PHILLIPS: You know, Mr. Chairman, I hate to see you lose
your temper, but you're the one who asked me to ask the
Attorney-General.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. And the answer was given
— statutory provision. Now that means it is not in any
vote.
MR. PHILLIPS: That's like "it's raining out" — it's
covering the whole waterfront. I want to know under what vote
in these estimates we can discuss the rent review commission.
Now you're the one who told me to ask the
Attorney-General. You wouldn't answer, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I allowed some latitude of the
Hon. Member to ask a question of the Attorney-General
which he answered, and he seems to be satisfied that that is
the answer.
MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not satisfied.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Well, I cannot allow any
further latitude. We must speak to the vote or the Hon. Member
must take his seat, because I am sure there may be other Hon.
Members who wish to speak, or we could get on with the
business. I would ask the Hon. Member to speak to the vote.
MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll certainly take my seat if other
Members wish to speak on this vote, and I'll wait my turn
because I don't want to monopolize the....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I fail to see any value in having the Hon. Member
wasting the time of the House. Now the Chair has a responsibility to follow
the rules of order and to ask the Hon. Member to speak to
the rules of order. Now is the Hon. Member testing the will of
the Chair?
MR. PHILLIPS: Not at all. No, no, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, what game are you playing then?
MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!
MR. PHILLIPS: That's a facetious remark. I'm not playing any
game. I came down here to work for the taxpayers of British
Columbia, and you accuse me of playing games. Now you withdraw
that remark! You withdraw that remark, Mr. Chairman!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MR. PHILLIPS: Withdraw it. Withdraw! Withdraw the statement
that I was playing games.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will the Hon. Member be seated?
MR. PHILLIPS: Well, certainly I'll be seated.
[Mr. Chairman rises.]
[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair apologizes for intemperate language. I would
ask that we have an atmosphere of goodwill. There are rules that we all have
to follow in this place. I am sure that there are many intelligent things that
could be said about this vote and I would ask the Hon. Member to speak to the
vote.
MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have
exercised a spirit of goodwill all evening. I really have. But
I am concerned. The rentalsman is administering rental controls
and I felt it was only proper that I should talk about what has
happened to rent controls and I felt it was only proper that I
should talk about what has happened to rental controls in other
provinces and in other areas.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This would be permissible if it
was in order. However, it happens to be out of order. Would the
Hon. Member speak to what is in order in this vote?
MR. PHILLIPS: You leave me dumbfounded, Mr.
[ Page 2743 ]
Chairman, because we are going to spend $1,281,000 on a
rentalsman whose purpose is to administer — and correct
me if I am wrong, Mr. Chairman — rent controls. Is he not
to administer rent controls?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member knows, I think, that the
duties of the rentalsman's office are very specific ones. He is
to administer many functions under the Landlord and Tenant Act.
However, the rent control function is one which is either a
matter for the rent review commission to consider or a matter
of legislation. On both grounds a discussion, therefore, would
be out of order on rent controls. However, the rentalsman's
office may very well have incidental functions to do with rent
control, but we should not embark upon a general discussion on
the merits of rent control.
MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I feel that if you would give me
a little leniency, we could settle this matter. But when the
legislation was passed through this House it was the duty....
HON. MR. MACDONALD : Do you want me to explain the situation?
MR. PHILLIPS: Well, certainly.
HON. MR. MACDONALD : The rent review commission was established
in the fall session of the Legislature. It was not established at the time of
the basic preparation of these estimates and therefore the Legislature voted
sums out of general revenue for the rent review commission. That's why it's
not in the estimates; it is a statutory appropriation.
I don't want to get uptight about answering questions about
what you call rent control in this vote particularly. It isn't
really under the rentalsman. But, in addition, I have explained
that we are now canvassing and studying the whole
situation.
The Hon. Member has an
article from Canberra and I would
like to have a copy of it. It may be that we have it as part of
our research material. So you are not going to get definite
answers from me at a time when we are now reviewing where we
have to go. That's where we stand at the present time. I would
expect the report will be down some time this summer —
the task force we have working on the problem of protecting
tenants in the rental field, and landlords too. So there we
sit.
MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Attorney-General's
remarks. But I am just not too sure that I buy everything he says because he
has the ability as a politician to get up.... As I said this afternoon, this
man is the chief justice of the province and we have to rely and hang on every
word he says. But I don't want him to mislead the people of British Columbia.
When the legislation went through to establish the office of rentalsman, he
was to be in charge of rent controls. Now the government has made a unilateral
decision which never came to the floor of this Legislature...
AN HON. MEMBER: You voted for it.
MR. PHILLIPS: No, no, I didn't vote for any rent review
commission. No, no. That was a unilateral decision on behalf of
the Attorney-General, and maybe he's right. It was this
same rentalsman who said: "I can't control the rents in British
Columbia." He said: "You've got to take it out of my hands."
And there was no legislation which gives the rentalsman the
right to foist his responsibility on the rent review
commission, and the Attorney-General knows this.
Interjection.
MR. PHILLIPS: No, no. It was a unilateral decision by the
Attorney-General. This same rentalsman who condemned him
and condemned rent controls, said to the
Attorney-General: "I am not going to be responsible for
rent controls. I want you to set up a separate commission." Now
I want the Attorney-General to stand in this Legislature
and tell me if I am wrong.
Interjection.
MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, tell me I am wrong.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the answer is that you are
wrong. Your memory is defective.
We had in the fall of 1974, the Landlord and Tenant
Amendment Act, 1974, which we presented to the House, that had
the appropriation for that expenditure. I think we can perhaps
find it for you. It is now incorporated, I would expect, in the
main Act, but it was then a separate bill. I suspect the Hon.
Member voted against it.
MR. PHILLIPS: The answer is yes.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: The answer is yes, but at least that
means you remember it. That is where the rent review commission
came from.
MR. PHILLIPS: And that legislation was due to statements
made by the rentalsman that he could not control rents...?
AN HON. MEMBER: You've spent a couple of hours beating the
air here now. Let's not redebate that.
[ Page 2744 ]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the point has been made
quite clearly.
MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I accept the Attorney-General's statement, and
I will sit down. I will resume my seat, but I will do it knowing that the government
really does not want to discuss one of the most pressing problems in British
Columbia today. I will certainly send the Attorney-General a copy. I feel
sort of stinted that I can't read this into the record because this is probably
the most up-to-date review made. Just bear with me, Mr. Chairman. This is
probably one of the most up-to-date reviews made...
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Send us a copy, eh?
MR. PHILLIPS: ...of rent controls in the world. I won't go
into the report, but it points out that rent controls just
haven't worked. There are reviews from all other jurisdictions
in the world. This is dated February, 1975. Certainly I will
have my secretary make a copy of this in the morning.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Would you?
M R. PHILLIPS: I'll send it to the Attorney-General on the provision
that he will read it with all consciousness.
HON. MR. MACDONALD : Yes, I will. But would you...?
MR. PHILLIPS: Would you sit down just a moment? Promise me
this evening to listen to some of the statements that are made.
They come from Chicago, they come from Sweden, they come from
New York; they come from jurisdictions everywhere in the world
that have had rent control. Unfortunately, Mr.
Attorney-General, they tell of the problems that have
been created in other jurisdictions by rent control. I want the
Attorney-General to tell me that he will have an open
mind and that he will listen to the statements made in Vernon
on May 14 by the rentalsman and not use politics in this very,
very tenuous situation of supply and demand where it is the
small people of British Columbia who are going to be hurt.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has allowed the Hon.
Member some latitude because I thought you were just going to
wind up.
MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'm going to. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
your being lenient and I appreciate the
Attorney-General's statements. And on the places where
I've made errors, I stand corrected. But I am concerned about
those poor people in British Columbia who are not going to be able to find accommodation
in the very near future and today. I am concerned about all the
risk capital which is fleeing our province and not being used
here to provide much in this whole bag.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been a good
discussion. I appreciate your leniency and I know that you are
working also for those poor people of British Columbia.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Send me a copy, and make an extra one
for Peter, too, will you?
Vote 29 approved.
On vote 30: salary contingencies, $13,107,898.
MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I don't know if
the House Leader read out the sum or not, or whether she was....
HON. MRS. DAILLY: I did read it out.
MR. WALLACE: Oh, I am sorry. Perhaps it was smothered by the
noise over here. One thing I would pay credit to the
Attorney-General on is that at least he put this in a
separate item. In some of the other votes we have discussed in
this session, the salary contingencies have been put in with
other expenses. But $13 million out of a total of $115 million
is just about a 10-per-cent cushion of some sort
or another.
The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) has already
explained that this year, instead of putting contingencies in
one item under his budget, each department has been asked to
calculate its own salary contingencies. So far during debates
on estimates, we have tended to be told by Ministers that we
couldn't get a breakdown on this because negotiations were
still going on with government employees, and, on the basis of
these negotiations, specific percentage increases in salaries
could not be discussed or revealed. I wonder, now that the
Provincial Secretary has completed negotiations, if the
Minister could give us a breakdown as to how this $13,107,898
was calculated. Is it a ballpark 10 per cent pulled out of the
air, or is this related to specific salary adjustments and
temporary assistance and consultation fees for people who are
just part-time employees or what?
On this side of the House we have been a little frustrated
so far in debate on estimates to come across rather large items
of many millions of dollars under this delightful word
"contingencies." I'm sure that every citizen in this province
wishes that 10 per cent of their budget could include an item
for contingencies. Most people are living right up to the
[ Page 2745 ]
bone on their income, and the same in business these days,
particularly in the light of inflation. I hope that this
Minister will shine tonight by being the first one of the
government in this session to give us some specific, valuable
breakdown on how he arrived at the magic figure of $13
million.
MR. FRASER: As this deals with salaries, I'd like to talk a
bit about salaries of provincial judges, particularly
stipendiary magistrates.
In the smaller communities of this province today, we have
stipendiary magistrates working for $50 a month, and it's far
below the labour laws of this province. They don't even get the
minimum wage, and this Minister is completely responsible for
it. They've approached him innumerable times and he says: "Oh,
yes, it's all being looked after." They continue to work seven
days a week — seven days a week, Mr. Chairman — for
$50 a month. I think it's time this nonsense and
brush-off from this irresponsible Minister came to a halt
and we paid these decent citizens a decent salary. He certainly
looks after the members of the legal profession...
AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
MR. FRASER: ...at $38,000 a year and $33,000 a year. What's
going on here? Is he trying to squeeze out the responsible
citizens who will let themselves be appointed as stipendiary
magistrates? He is trying to squeeze them out, as far as I'm
concerned, at $50 a month, because they have no legal training.
That's what's going on. It's time this Minister stopped
brushing off and taking an airy-fairy view of everything
and looked after these people who are called night and day by
the RCMP detachments to sign search warrants in the middle of
the night, seven days a week, for $50 a month. It's an absolute
disgrace, when this Minister supports the minimum wage laws of
that government, and all the labour laws they've brought in. He
has to apologize to those people here tonight, and tell us
tonight what he's going to do about it and when.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: In answer to the first question: when
the estimates were made up in the fall of last year, we did not
have the impact on our budget of the public service settlement,
so in this salary contingency vote we have to take into account
the increases in salaries that have been negotiated, and they
are very substantial. They are very substantial, too, in terms
of their impact on conditions of work, for example — more
overtime, some portal-to-portal pay in the forestry
camps, things of that kind.
Secondly, it's an estimate of what may be negotiated in the coming year, within
our budget. Then there are reclassifications that have taken place, subject
to the public service commission. So it's this kind of a process as a result
of the union bargaining, the provincial government employees union.
There's nobody in the province, even the part-time lay
judges, who's making $50 a month. Not one.
MR. FRASER: I completely disagree, and I'll name names.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, will you do that privately, to
me?
MR. FRASER: Well, I don't want to....
HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't know of one. However, it was
varied in the old days, and this is what we inherited. We
inherited a situation where some did very little work and some
did quite a bit, so that the part-time lay judges'
remuneration, when I came into office ranged from very low
figures to up to about $1,300 a month.
A lot of the lay judges have now been absorbed into the
court service, and under legislation that will be introduced,
they will finally be given status as justices of the peace
— those who choose to join that service — and a
proper wage and a proper workload because the workload varied
from practically nothing in some places to a very considerable
workload in the case of somebody like Judge Evans — well
he was full-time.
[Mr. Kelly in the chair.]
That's the situation we inherited, and that's the situation
we're correcting.
There will be — and we'll bring in the provincial
court judges Act — full-time, trained judges and
there will be justices of the peace in the smaller
communities.
MR. FRASER: I want to refute the Attorney-General's statement in
one degree. I might have been wrong. I'm referring to justices of the peace
who are operating as magistrates. That's the only arm of the law that they have
in small communities, and I'll go one step further without names — just check
in Clinton. The judge there retired, and you're using a justice of the peace
seven days a week for $50 a month. It's an absolute disgrace.
Don't blame it on the prior administration. This vote here
gives you bundles of money to correct it. It's been brought to
your attention and you haven't done anything about it. I demand
you do something here tonight and say what you're going to do
for these people whom you are putting this injustice on.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, it seems that the vote
[ Page 2746 ]
we're dealing with now, salary contingencies, is a
substantial amount of money — $13 million in effect.
While the Attorney-General has indicated to the House
this evening and the committee that this will include
substantial salary increases, there is one area I wonder if the
Attorney-General would clarify for me. That is the matter
of retirement allowances — I guess that's the only thing
you could call them — to those lay judges who by statute
have been retired in the last 12 months, some of them prior to
the time that they were 70 or 75 years of age.
As I understand it, because they operated as lay judges or
lay magistrates for a number of years, while their salary may
have increased according to their workload, they were never
involved in any civil service pension plan so they never
contributed towards a pension plan, and the government never
contributed anything on their behalf.
I am subject to correction if I am not right but I am told
that as compensation at the time these judges were retired, the
decision was made to pay them an allowance of one month's
salary for each year of service that they had for past service
in government employment. That would mean a person with 10
years' employment as a magistrate would receive 10 months'
salary beyond their retirement date. Is that correct? If they
received one month for each year of employment, it would be 10
months.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 30 pass?
MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Chairman. I want to pursue this point; I
want to get an answer on it first to see that I am correct on
the
interpretation that I have.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We wait for the Hon. Minister.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think it was one month's salary for
every year of service. It varied tremendously because some of
them were part-time with a small remuneration. I think
the largest one we had was probably Judge Evans up in
Nelson.
MR. SMITH: As I understand it, the remuneration was based
upon their....
HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's in the Act that we passed.
MR. SMITH: As I understand it, the remuneration that they
would receive was based on their last month's salary prior to
the time that they were retired.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's right.
MR. SMITH: The point that I want to make is this: a person
who retires after 10 or 15 years' service with the province, probably
starting as a part-time lay magistrate and working up to a full-time
appointment, with that many years of service, surely they're entitled
to more than 10 or 15 months of additional pay. Wouldn't it be possible
under a vote of this magnitude to provide a better allowance than that?
I know that there has been representation made to your
department by the bar association and the judges themselves to
try to work out a favourable formula. I would say that these
people have been retired unilaterally, some of them at an age
when they could still be productive for a number of years yet.
Certainly as their employer, taking into consideration the
largesse you seem to throw around or that you seem to be able
to create for not only the present members of your work force
but in matters of salary contingencies of $13 million —
over 10 per cent of your vote — couldn't that be looked
at again and reconsidered on the basis that these people are
now retired and they have no other income and the number of
months that they can look forward to?
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, that's in the Provincial
Court Act that's already been passed. But let me say that I
went to Treasury on behalf of these people who had nothing in
the old days. They had no severance allowance; they were
part-time lay judges. As I say, their salaries varied all
over the lot from very low to some of them working almost
full-time, and some working full-time. But they had
no severance pay, no superannuation.
We went to Treasury on the basis of...well, as good as we
could do for them. That was about $500,000. Some of the
payments are generous, but if the person was part-time at
a very low monthly return and working in this as
part-time employment, then his severance wasn't very
great. But at least there was something. There was really no
obligation; we did this because we thought it should be done
for these people who had given service for many years in the
justice field in British Columbia.
If they had retired and the old government had been
re-elected, Mr. Member, there would have been nothing.
There hadn't been the whole 20 years. They dropped off at 65 or
whenever they retired with nothing. At least we gave them
something. It's not as good as anybody would like, but there it
is.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the
Attorney-General's answer and I think that, really, when
he says that they would have received nothing, that's a
hypothetical answer. I'm sure that any government....
HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, over 20 years they received nothing....
[ Page 2747 ]
MR. SMITH: I'm sure any government, faced with the same
situation that you were faced with at that particular time,
would have looked at the situation very seriously.
What I'm saying to you tonight is this: the amount of money
involved to more adequately balance out a system of some sort
for these lay judges who are now retiring or retired is
insignificant in relation to the budget of your department or
the budget of the province. True, they went through a
transitional period whey they were never declared civil
servants, so they lost the benefit of anything they might have
contributed to a civil service pension plan. There have been
ways of overcoming that on an actuarial basis, Mr.
Attorney-General, for many, many years. It's known
throughout the insurance industry where you take a look at the
situation and you allow, if it's to the advantage of an
employee, to make a lump sum contribution and for that give
them full credit for full pension benefits for many years past.
It's called past service.
I think that should have been investigated by the
department, rather than just solving the problem with a
suggestion that we'll pay you a continuing salary for however
many number of months is equal to the number of years of
service that you had as an employee of the department. All I'm
asking is: will the Attorney-General take another look at
it? Some of these people now are really feeling the financial
pinch. You know, it's getting very close to the position where
that few months of additional salary is close to extinction.
It's running out.
MR. FRASER: I still haven't got an answer from the
Attorney-General. I'm talking about the justices of the
peace who are working today for $50 a month, and we're talking
here about $13 million in contingencies. Is that all for the
lawyers? That's what I want to know! These are lay people, and
in the case of a lot of smaller communities here, they're
working full-time for $50 a month because the lawyers
won't go to these places. I want to know what you're going to
do about it — tonight!
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, I apologize to the Hon. Member. I
thought you were talking about a part-time lay judge and
you were not. You were talking about a justice of the peace in
Clinton. We're looking....
MR. FRASER: Who works full-time as a lay judge.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: He's a JP, not a judge.
MR. FRASER: He certainly does, because all the lawyers won't
go there.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Under the new Act....
MR. FRASER: At $38,000 a year, they won't go to Clinton.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, okay. We're looking at those too,
but a JP can't be a judge until the new Act comes in.
MR. FRASER: Yes, sure, but what are you going to do about
their inadequate salary now? You haven't answered the question
at all. And if I ask you what's the new legislation, you'll
say: "Wait for that." I'm not prepared to wait for it. I want
to know about these people now!
AN HON. MEMBER: Speak up.
MR. FRASER: They have served for a long time under these
circumstances — under your administration.
MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Right on!
MR. McCLELLAND: Well, just before this vote goes — $13
million — I'm still worried, Mr. Chairman, through you to
the Attorney-General, about a question yesterday. I'm
worried about that poor, lonely film projectionist in the film
classification bureau who has to work 12 and 14 hours a day
viewing pornographic movies for a living, and who can only
have, probably, a four-year lifespan in his job at the
very most. (Laughter.) How much raise is he going to get, and
how much danger pay does that man get? That's the question the
people of B.C. want to know.
Vote 30 approved.
ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT
OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
On vote 34: Minister's office, $85,129.
MR. McCLELLAND: No answers from the Minister. No
answers.
MR. CHABOT: Vote 34, Mr. Chairman. I have a few questions to
ask the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk), who
hasn't been extremely active since he's been in this portfolio.
He seems to have been void as far as activity is concerned
— void in answers to questions put to him in the few
minutes we had in discussing his portfolio on a prior occasion.
Now I'd like to....
HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic
[ Page 2748 ]
Development): Three days.
MR. CHABOT: Three days, but there were no answers.
HON. MR. LAUK: Three days.
MR. CHABOT: Three days of questions and two minutes of
answers. That's all we got from you, Mr. Minister. Now I want
to....
Interjection.
MR. CHABOT: Well, now, there's the Minister of Agriculture
(Hon. Mr. Stupich) chirping up when his estimates are through.
But then his were rammed through this House — without
debate!
Interjections.
MR. CHABOT: And he has the audacity to suggest that we're
too long winded!
MR. FRASER: Be real proud of it.
MR. CHABOT: You should be ashamed of yourself, Mr. Minister
of Agriculture. Hide your head in shame!
MR. FRASER: Get under the desk!
AN HON. MEMBER: No questions.
MR. CHABOT: There are many other votes that weren't
approved. They were rammed through this House by closure. You
know that full well. You know that.
HON. MR. COCKE: You're just making a bunch of speeches and
never saying a word.
MR. CHABOT: There's the Minister of chewing gum, you know.
That Minister chews more gum, I would suggest, than the other
54 Members in this House because he never stops chewing
gum.
HON. MR. LAUK : Don't get personal.
MR. CHABOT: Well, I just don't like the unnecessary and irresponsible
interjections from that Minister of Health. But I want to say a few words. There
have been a few developments since the last opportunity we had to question the
Minister of Economic Development. One area that disturbs me tremendously is
the Minister who is in charge or is the director of the B.C. Railway and chief
executive officer, I believe, and it has to do with the B.C. railcar manufacturing
plant in the community of Squamish. Would you believe that that plant was supposed
to open on January 1, 1974, and that we have now reached the end of May, 1975?
Proposed to be opened on January 1, 1974. They missed the deadline by a substantial
degree. Yet we read in that political propaganda rag, the B.C. Government News ....
AN HON. MEMBER: It gets to you, doesn't it?
MR. CHABOT: Yes, it gets to me and it gets to a lot of
British Columbians because of the lies, the deliberate lies...
MR. FRASER: Deliberate lies.
MR. CHABOT: ...that are in the B.C. Government
News .
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on now!
MR. CHABOT: Deliberate lies.
Interjections.
MR. CHABOT: It stated in the B.C. Government News .... That socialistic government inaccuracy rag stated that on
March 25 the railcar manufacturing plant would be officially
opened — in other words, that we would be in the process
of manufacturing railcars because of the extreme shortage that
has existed on the BCR for some considerable period of
time.
There's a beautiful picture in this political rag showing
the car plant ready to produce railcars. It suggests that it
was going to open on March 25. Would you believe that this is
May 27 and it hasn't produced one single car? And this
political rag suggests that it would open on March 25 and that
they would manufacture four cars per day. The Minister, by his
own admission, has suggested that there won't be one
manufactured car prior to the middle of June.
[Mr. Dent in the chair.]
A railcar plant that was originally projected to cost $5
million.... Two years later the costs have escalated by 60 per
cent to $8 million. There's the government over there that has
the gall to suggest that the costs on the Columbia River treaty
escalated to an unacceptable degree. Over a period of 10 years
it increased by 33 1/3 per cent. Talk about business acumen!
There is none in this government, none whatsoever, Mr.
Chairman.
AN HON. MEMBER: Acumen?
AN HON. MEMBER: They couldn't run a woodshed. (Laughter.)
[ Page
2749 ]
MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: He thinks acumen is a skin disease.
(Laughter.)
MR. CHABOT: Well, maybe the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.
Cocke) thinks that's what it is.
Four cars per day. Four cars per day — B.C.
Government News says it will open on March 25. And the
Minister admits that no railcars will be manufactured until
June 15. An $8 million plant inoperative 18 months after its
projected opening day. I suggest that the Minister, who now has
his railway vest on, has a responsibility to investigate the
shortcomings of the BCR. Certainly when they kicked that
Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) out of his position as chief
executive officer and director of the BCR because of his
conflict of interest, why would the government bring on the
weakest Minister they have in office to become the chief
executive officer?
MR. FRASER: He's all they had.
MR. CHABOT: He's a Minister who has been responsible for
suggesting that the plant would open on March 25, some 15
months too late, and who has the gall to suggest that the
railcars won't be manufactured until June 15, when everyone
knows there's a pressing and a dire shortage of cars on that
railway. I want to suggest that....
Interjection.
MR. CHABOT: Oh, yes, that's the Minister who suggested that
there would be a scandal and that it would be revealed about
the BCR momentarily.
AN HON. MEMBER: Three months ago.
MR. CHABOT: That was some considerable period of time ago
and we haven't heard that major scandal. Maybe this is an
opportunity for the Minister who is so knowledgeable about
scandals to reveal that great scandal about the BCR. Your
Premier is away tonight. Maybe this is the opportune time as
the chief executive officer of that railway to tell us what the
scandal is all about.
Now there are a couple of other points I wanted to raise. I
certainly don't want to occupy all the time until 11 o'clock
because I know that there are a lot of other Members who want
to speak about the lack of activity in that redundant
Department of Economic Development.
Since the last time we have had an opportunity to question
the Minister, there have been some strange developments in that
particular portfolio. The one that concerns me, not necessarily
most of all but to a great degree, is the firing of the former
Deputy Minister of Economic Development.
The Minister can weasel around all he wants about an
unfiring, but never in the history of government has a man
willfully or of his own accord resigned from a position and
been given six months' severance pay. Never have I heard of
such an asinine situation in my life. The Minister has
suggested in this House when I questioned him during the
question period that the former Deputy Minister of Industrial
Development resigned of his own volition. Why would the
Minister find it incumbent upon himself to abuse the taxpayers
of this province to over $20,000 in severance pay? When a man
resigns, he leaves because he feels it is more opportune to
leave a redundant and a do-nothing department
administered by that Minister over there.
There is something wrong here; the whole truth is not
being told. I think the Minister has a responsibility at this
time to tell the truth. Did he fire the former Deputy Minister
of Economic Development? If he did, maybe he found it necessary
to give him severance pay. If he wasn't fired, why was it
necessary to establish the kind of precedent he established?
Without any doubt, it is a precedent, and an irresponsible
precedent in my opinion, Mr. Chairman. There have been other
firings by that socialist government over there. Most of those
firings didn't institute a contract. Never has severance pay
been given.
I think the Minister is on the horns of a dilemma in this
particular instance because he has suggested publicly that the
Deputy resigned of his own volition. If he did, which I doubt
very much, why did the Minister find it necessary to give
severance pay for someone who resigns, who finds it opportune
to leave because of a conflict of opinion with the Minister
probably, or maybe because of greater opportunities existing on
the outside of government service?
HON. MR. COCKE: Who is writing your speeches for you
now?
MR. CHABOT: The Minister of Health can chirp all he wants
and chew his gum as long as he wants.
HON. MR. COCKE: I thought it would help you think.
MR. CHABOT: These are serious matters, Mr. Minister. If you
are not concerned about taxpayers' dollars, you have no right
to be a Minister of the Crown. You took an oath of office; you
have a responsibility to uphold that oath of office. I know
that the government, as an example, fired Tom Machin of ICBC
who had no contract with ICBC. He was one of the top officials
of ICBC in charge of Autoplan. Was he given any severance pay?
The answer is no. He was a powerhouse, he was a man who had
tremendous knowledge in the field of auto
[ Page 2750 ]
insurance. Yet he was dismissed without so much as
goodbye.
But the Minister, whom I don't believe, suggests that the
Deputy Minister resigned of his own volition. Yet he is given
some $20,000 for leaving because it was opportune to leave or
because he didn't believe in socialist philosophy or socialist
policies. I think it is about time — the time is now
come; we are on the Minister's salary vote — that he
tell the truth.
I want to ask a couple more questions which I posed to the
Minister before. Mr. Chairman, when I questioned the Minister
regarding the tremendous waste of taxpayers' dollars by the
purchase of half of the Kaymor investment company, the old hop
farm, the Molson hop farm in Kamloops....
MR. G.H. ANDERSON: A good deal.
MR. CHABOT: The Member for Kamloops says it's a good deal,
but it's a tremendous waste of agricultural land in this
province. We paid substantially beyond its true value.
MR. PHILLIPS: Are you going to plant rubber trees there
— get more gum to be stuck in?
MR. CHABOT: First of all, the Minister made application for
a rezoning out of the agricultural reserve, the Land
Commission. It appeared to be just a formality, and the
rezoning was given. It was removed from the agricultural
reserve, despite the fact that it had grown hops for some
considerable period of time. That was no problem.
Now the Minister said that the option was in place until May
15 for acceptance. I am wondering if the Minister, and I will
have a few questions later, tells me that the government picked
up the option that expired about 12 days ago. It's an important
question.
Now I wonder if the Minister would tell me as well, in view
of the fact that he's involved in the question of industrial
development, whether he plans to accompany the Premier into
that great socialist boondock of England, come next month
— that great socialist state of England. Would he tell me
if he intends going there regarding the oil refinery?
I recall very vividly the Premier going to England a couple
of years ago. Then he came back with a great fanfare and great
publicity, saying that they had received a firm commitment from
a British firm to establish a steel mill in British Columbia.
Would you believe that was two years ago?
Interjection.
MR. CHABOT: The British dollars aren't flowing.
Mr. FRASER: Another kite.
MR. CHABOT: The steel mill isn't here. I am wondering
whether the Minister really believes that it is worthwhile that
the Premier of British Columbia go to England to discuss the
feasibility and the financial acceptability of establishing an
oil refinery in British Columbia because of the dismal failure
of the Premier, on his last trip to England, to attract British
capital to establish a steel mill which is still on the drawing
boards in British Columbia, and which will be on the drawing
board long after that government over there is defeated.
MR. FRASER: Right on!
Interjection.
MR. CHABOT: You'll be defeated by the people, Mr. Minister
of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke). The people will defeat you, Mr.
Minister of Health.
MR. FRASER: Right now — any time.
MR. CHABOT: You're about the only one who will survive, as a
Member of the opposition.
MR. PHILLIPS: That's only because he is healthy.
MR. CHABOT: The Minister, being interested in the sphere of
industrial development, could he tell me how the negotiations
are going regarding securing crude oil deliveries from the
Province of Alberta to British Columbia for the establishment
of an oil refinery in British Columbia? It is unbelievable that
the Premier of this province would perpetuate a hoax on the
taxpayers regarding his proposed trip to England for the
discussion of an oil refinery if there is no potential of crude
oil being delivered to British Columbia.
MR. FRASER: Hoax No. 51.
MR. CHABOT: I have never been told, and no one else in
British Columbia has ever been told, that we will ever get any
crude from the Province of Alberta.
I suggest to you, and I sincerely believe, that the Province
of Alberta will not deliver one drop of oil...
MR. FRASER: Not one drop!
MR. CHABOT: ...to this socialist province. I really believe
that. I could be proven wrong, but I believe it despite the
fact that you people over there might accuse the Premier of
Alberta of being Peter the Red. He's in the process of
establishing petrochemical industries throughout the Province
of Alberta. He has one in place, coming up in the vicinity of
the community of Red Deer. You had
[ Page 2751 ]
better believe that any commitment of crude will go to the
petrochemical industries of Alberta before it will flow to the
socialist Province of British Columbia.
I wonder whether the Minister of Economic Development will
tell us where the negotiations now stand regarding the great
announcement made by the Premier for the establishment of an
oil refinery in this province.
HON. MR. LAUK: I don't know what quirk of fate placed the
Hon. Member for Columbia River and me together all the time.
Corporate fate? I don't know whether the Leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Bennett) is a sadist or not.
Actually, when the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)
stands in his place he makes very good theatre, but not many
points.
With respect to the B.C. Railway car plant and the
announcement of the opening, he indicated I was the one who
announced it would open on March 25. You're in error there.
MR. CHABOT: The B.C. Government News , not you.
HON. MR. LAUK: I was not on the board at the time. I think
it should be realized that many, many delays were caused by
strikes on the railway and on the CNR. (Laughter.)
AN HON. MEMBER: That has nothing to do with it.
HON. MR. LAUK: It did stop the construction schedule. I
think the Hon. Member knows this.
MR. CHABOT: No way.
HON. MR. LAUK: Strikes on the CNR caused supplier delays for
equipment and so on that was going to the car plant.
Interjections.
HON. MR. LAUK: We can only rely, as Ministers and as members
of the board, on the information that we receive from our
officials who tell us the cars should be in operation by the
middle of June.
I indicated earlier they were also putting in further
equipment to build an addition to chip cars, another kind of
car. We hope to have that on pretty soon.
Interjections.
HON. MR. LAUK: It's fine for them to snort and giggle and
guffaw about what this government is doing. We've had delays.
Certainly we've had delays, and no one regrets them more than we do. We would like to
get the car plant in operation and provide the jobs that we
promised.
Interjection.
HON. MR. LAUK: But the state of the situation when we took
office.... What efforts were being made by that government
over there to provide the kind of jobs that we have made every
effort to provide?
Interjections.
HON. MR. LAUK: These people are going to eat their words
when that car plant is operating, and those people are
producing cars that we can sell all over this continent.
They're going to be eating their words. They're only
politicians for the moment. If they've got an issue that'll
last five minutes, they'll use it.
With respect to the Kaymor property in Kamloops, it's quite
clear to us — and it was early on quite clear to us
— that there must be a policy of this government to
provide reasonably priced, leased industrial land for small
enterprises to establish. It was also clear to us that this
land should be in decentralized areas; that is, areas outside
the lower mainland area. We've established sites; we've
assembled land in various areas.
AN HON. MEMBER: Pick up the option.
HON. MR. LAUK: Insofar as Kaymor is concerned, it was used
at one time for a hop farm — part of the acreage.
MR. CHABOT: For some considerable period of time.
HON. MR. LAUK: At great expense to Molsons, who used it. It
was because of the tremendous expense and the high salt content
of the soil that Molsons moved their hop-producing farm
to the lower mainland of the Fraser Valley. We're also told
that the amount of chemicals and whatever is used on this soil
has a tendency to pollute the Thompson River.
Interjections.
HON. MR. LAUK: And again we hear nothing but guffaws over
from the other side. They're not interested in facts.
Interjection.
HON. MR. LAUK: Yes, there was an application
[ Page 2752 ]
to remove the Kaymor property from the agricultural land
reserve. The Environment and Land Use Committee reviewed
carefully the reports they had on the quality of the soil. It
was the opinion of the committee and regional district and many
of the people in the area who were familiar with the site that
this land would be better used as industrial land rather than
agriculture. It would be extremely expensive as agricultural
land, and indeed undesirable for such use.
HON. MR. LAUK: I'm informed that the British....
MR. PHILLIPS: Even the Minister of Agriculture left the
House.
HON. MR. LAUK: And I might add that at the same time that
this land was taken out of the agricultural land reserve, the
land that was being developed by the Kootenay Industrial
Development Association in the Kootenay area also had Columbia
Gardens released from the agricultural land reserve for largely
the same reason. It was a better use to use it for industrial
purposes.
MR. PHILLIPS: Do-nothing Minister.
HON. MR. LAUK: There was no interested part of a Crown
corporation in that land. Check your facts, Mr. Member. You'll
find that the Environment and Land Use Committee and the Land
Commission act fairly and even-handedly with people in
all areas who make a reasonable appeal to them.
Interjections.
HON. MR. LAUK: They've come full circle now.
The option on the Kaymor property has been extended, and
it's British Columbia Development's intention to pick up the
option, to purchase the land, to design an industrial park that
would be exemplary and will provide that needed industrial
diversification for the Kamloops area.
MR. CHABOT: Extended to when?
HON. MR. LAUK: It'll be extended long enough for the
corporation to pick up the option, because it's their intention
to do so and to design an industrial site on that property.
Kamloops has an increasing population, Mr. Chairman. It has
a need for industry, and it's the responsibility of this
government to assist in any way it can.
With respect to the questions on the oil refinery and the
Premier's trip and the crude oil for Alberta, and so on, I
would refer those questions to the Premier himself.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
HON. MR. LAUK: The matter of the B.C. Petroleum Corp., as
you know, is under the Attorney-General's department.
MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I have a few things to say to this
Minister as the executive vice-president of B.C. Rail. I
have spoken earlier about this; I feet strongly about it. B.C.
Rail operations are in a complete shambles. This Minister has
been there long enough now hopefully to be able to answer some
questions.
Regarding the car plant, I have an observation that there'll
be 31 cars salvaged from a wreck they had two months ago. They
will produce more rolling equipment than the car plant will for
the rest of the year — I mean, by salvaging them.
Just to show you the mismanagement that's going on, they had
a rail wreck at Kelly Lake some two and a half months ago when
31 log cars, loaded, left the rails. The other day they let a
contract for $98,000 to extract these 31 cars and logs from
where they plunged. These rails, Mr. Chairman, could have been
unloaded where they piled up by a dragline, put back on the
rails and sent on their way to the coast. But oh, no, the brass
at B.C. Rail decided they would build a road and take them down
the other way. This is what the $98,000 contract was let
for.
It's my information that a dragline or a donkey could have
been hired to bring these back on the rails for $25,000.
MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Speaking of donkeys....
MR. FRASER: This is the kind of mismanagement that's going
on. I want to let these donkeys know from Kamloops, who have a
decent railroad running through there, how this railroad
operates, the BCR. They don't even know where it runs. They
keep sniping in on the side all the time. They haven't got a
clue about how important this railroad is to the economy of the
central interior of British Columbia. I want to inform this
Minister of actual mismanagement that's going on. No wonder
this railroad is running the huge deficits it's running!
I will give you another example of mismanagement of this
railroad that is going on tonight, Mr. Chairman. This railroad
has 18 locomotive foremen on its system from North Vancouver to
the end of where it runs up to the Peace River, where these
socialists have stopped it at Dease Lake — creating a
scandal. You know, Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the CPR
mainline from Calgary to Vancouver has two locomotive foremen.
I would like to ask you who is hauling the most merchandise and
passengers — the
[ Page 2753 ]
BCR in all their system or the CPR from Calgary to
Vancouver. These locomotive foremen are in the $25,000 to
$30,000 salary range. I ask you what they are doing, and I ask
that Minister. They don't run a locomotive; they're supervisors
— brass created by the socialists. That's why this
railroad is running....
I'd like to ask where in the internal management is Mr.
Trask, one of the finest railroad men we ever had? Where is he?
He's gone. Where is he? He left. Do you know why he left, Mr.
Chairman? He happens to be a personal friend. He left because
of political interference from that bunch of socialists over
there, particularly the Minister Without Portfolio (Hon. Mr.
Nunweiler) who calls himself the "Minister of Northern Affairs," who is a director. I resent this.
MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Did you lose money on the game
tonight?
MR. FRASER: No, I didn't.
Interjection.
MR. FRASER: I want to inform you, Mr. Chairman, that all the
employees in that railroad are unhappy. We've got a disaster
ahead of us if this man, as the executive vice-president,
doesn't dig into these things and find out what's going on.
Where's Mike Wakeley, the chief engineer? Where's he? He is
gone. I'm telling you why he's gone, too: because of political
interference.
The other question I'd like to ask the executive
vice-president: who is running that railroad tonight? Who
is running it? There is no one left in senior management. What
is he going to do about that? Everybody in the central and
north want to know. When they pull episodes such as these 31
cars, they roll over the bank and let them rot there for two
and a half months, take them out the wrong way, build a road,
let a contract for $98,000 when they could have pulled them out
the top way for less than half the money, what kind of
management is that?
No wonder we haven't got a financial statement, from the
mess on that railroad. I don't know whether we're going to get
one. It's now five months late, and the Premier every week says
it's coming in a couple of weeks. I doubt whether it is coming.
The Premier has even cut up a chartered accountant over it and
blames them for it. What a bunch of poppycock! They're just
covering up the whole mess. It's a real shame and a shambles.
Everybody in the central and north would like to hear what this
Minister is going to do about it.
HON. MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Chairman, if hot air could run a
railroad, the Hon. Member over there could put Lord Strathcona
to shame.
I appreciate that the Hon. Member comes from the Cariboo. The one thing I do
know that he understands, and that I agree with, is the importance of the railway
to the north and to the central part of this province — indeed, to the whole
northern economy of this province. This government accepts its responsibility
and understands the importance of that railroad to the economy of the north.
That responsibility is accepted fully, as I say, and we will operate the railroad
accordingly. I think it is important that that point be made.
But you know, when the Hon. Member gets up and shouts and
yells about these issues, Mr. Chairman, he doesn't know
anything about railroad operation. If he does, maybe we should
hire him. But I see no evidence in the two or three speeches he
has made in this session about the railroad that he understands
exactly what he is talking about.
The railroad board regrets the leaving of Mr. Trask, who is
a very excellent man, a very excellent general manager. But I
don't think it is appropriate to start dragging these things
into Committee of Supply, and discussing resignations for
various reasons. The Hon. Member for Columbia River talked
about the Associate Deputy Minister who resigned. What purpose
does that kind of thing serve?
The question of whether or not you could have recovered the
derailed cars in one method or another is a matter of railroad
operation. The railcar recovery...
MR. FRASER: I want to find out what is going on.
HON. MR. LAUK: ...is a matter of railway operating
judgment. We will look into the matter but, Mr. Chairman, that
is what we hire these people for — to operate their judgment in terms of recovery of those
cars. You are going to have us running around after them
saying: "Well, couldn't you have done it another way, and what
is the comparison?" We will come back and we will find out that
probably you are all wet. But you keep on running after these
butterflies about the railroad.
I say that in the same light that I say I agree with you and
your sensitivity to the need for this railroad in the north.
You are absolutely correct. But are you helping the situation
by dragging red herrings here in the Committee of Supply? No,
you're not. If you want the railway to succeed, and it will
under this administration — it will succeed — then give us a hand
and give us some support. Don't blow hot and cold in this
chamber simply because you want to impress your constituents.
We know how good you are; you don't have to stand in here and
give us a lot of hot air.
MR. CHABOT: A couple of points, Mr. Chairman. The Minister
suggested that there has been an extension of the option to
pick up the Kaymor
[ Page 2754 ]
investment land, which is a scandal as far as I am concerned
regarding the abuse of taxpayers' money. They paid more for
half the land than what was originally paid for the land just a
few months before by a group of investors in the Kamloops area.
It is a political scandal as far as I am concerned. It is
nothing less than that to have wasted that kind of money for
the government to provide the kind of services that they will
be providing to this land which might not have been
economically viable for the investors to provide. Nevertheless,
the government has seen fit to make a quick buck for those kind
of people whom they have always held in disdain. All of a
sudden they've gotten into bed with developers in British
Columbia on the Kaymor investment, the Molson hop farm just
east of Kamloops.
The Minister suggested that the option has been extended
beyond the period of May 15. I am wondering if the Minister
will tell us how long the option has been extended and what the
reasons are for the necessity of extending this option. Have
there been difficulties? Is there a bit of dragging of feet on
the part of the Department of Highways on the provision of
access?
The Department of Highways was pretty vociferous in its
opposition in the provision of access to the private
developers. They had no hesitation in saying so publicly
— that they would never provide access to Kaymor
investments because of the fact that they were in an area that
was congested as far as highway traffic is concerned. Yet all
of a sudden the government is making an application to the
Department of Highways for access. I suggest that the access
will be readily provided.
But is the Minister attempting to delay the option until
such time as his estimates have been passed in this House so
that we would no longer have the right of questioning the
merits, the demerits and the advisability of the purchase of
this land? I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that that government
over there will get access almost forthwith once the estimates
of the Department of Economic Development have been passed.
The Department of Highways had stated emphatically and
forcefully that they were opposed to the provision of access to
this land. Yet all of a sudden a different situation develops.
The government is involved in having paid unrealistic prices
for this land and I am wondering just where the present
situation stands as far as application for...
MR. PHILLIPS: You can't make up your mind about moving just
one building.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River
(Mr. Phillips) restrain himself please? He is interrupting his
fellow Member for Columbia River.
MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much. ...access which was
denied without so much as your leave. Now all of a sudden the
government, the B.C. Development Corp., has applied for access.
Is this access going to be provided to the B.C. Development
Corp. after having been denied to an investment company?
Interjection.
MR. CHABOT: Now I suggest to you that there is
hanky-panky on the part of the Department of Highways
regarding the provision of access in this province, not only in
the Kamloops area but also in other areas of this province.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member suggesting
by the use of the term "hanky-panky" that there is
wrongdoing?
MR. CHABOT: I suggest that there is collusion.
AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw.
MR. CHABOT: There is collusion within government
departments. If a socialist organization such as the B.C.
Development Corp. applies for access, it is almost immediately
provided. But if an individual trying to make a living in this
province applies for access in this province, it is virtually
denied. And I have emphatic proof of that. I have proof of
that.
Interjection.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MR. CHABOT: I can cite you examples, Mr. Chairman. But I
know you will rule me out of order because of the fact that we
are dealing... You won't rule me out of order?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Not yet.
MR. CHABOT: ...because we are dealing with industrial
development. I can cite you example after example within my
riding regarding the provision of access to the
Trans-Canada Highway which has been denied to individuals
but has been readily available to government corporations and
socialist operations.
Now the Minister washed over very lightly on the question of
the firing of the former Deputy Minister. Now, Mr. Chairman, it
doesn't wash with me. You have given feeble excuses regarding
the giving of over $20,000 as severance pay to a Minister whom
you suggest — which you don't believe, though —
resigned of his own volition. You know full well that's not
true. You have a responsibility to the people of this
[ Page 2755 ]
province to come clean on that issue. Never in the history
of this province has a Deputy Minister or an Associate Deputy
Minister, which is a new term under your government, left the
public service of his own volition — never in the history
of this province — and been given the kind of severance
pay that you are giving to the former Deputy Minister of your
department. There is something wrong; there are untruths, as
far as I am concerned, regarding the statements you have made
regarding his departure. The Minister has a responsibility
tonight to level with the people of this province.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the Hon. Member making a specific charge
against the Minister?
MR. CHABOT: I am suggesting that the Minister has not told
all the facts.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member
appreciates that if the Hon. Member wishes to charge a Minister
with anything that is not quite right, he should put a
substantive motion on the order paper.
MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I am just suggesting that the
Minister is not telling the full story regarding the departure
of the former Deputy Minister of industrial development. How
could anyone ever possibly leave the government service on his
own volition? The Minister says: "Well, you know, the taxpayers
of British Columbia are very generous people. You have been a
good guy. You have been with us for a couple of years and you
want to go off in the consulting field of industrial
development. You are a good guy. Well, we will help you out. We
will give you over $20,000." That doesn't wash with me, Mr.
Chairman, and that doesn't wash with the taxpayers of this
province. The Minister tonight has a responsibility to tell the
truth.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MR. PHILLIPS: Don't threaten me!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Hon. Minister of Econ