1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

317 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Presenting petitions

Alleged breach of confidentiality re budget release. Mr. Macdonald —

Freedom of Information Act (Bill 33) Mr. Wallace

Introduction and first reading — 319

An Act to Amend the Change of Name Act (Bill 34) Ms. Brown.

Introduction and first reading — 319

Oral questions

Special warrant for post-secondary education. Mrs. Dailly — 319

Cash position of B.C. Mr. Gibson — 320

Mincome for extended-care patients. Mr. Wallace — 320

Scaling fund. Mr. Stupich — 320

Special warrants issued to supplement votes 236 & 237.

Mr. Lea — 320

Action on truckers strike. Mr. Wallace — 321

Urgency of restructured grants. Mr. Cocke — 321

Exceptions to extended care rate increase. Mr. Gibson — 321

Warrants for urgent expenditure. Ms. Brown — 321

Universities Council letter to NDU. Mr. Nicolson — 322

Mincome. Mr. Levi — 322

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Davis — 323

Mr. Lauk — 327

Mr. Chabot — 336

Committee of Supply: Supply Act, No. 1,1976

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 340

Committee of Ways and Means

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 341

Supply Act, No. 1,1976 (Bill 10) Second reading.

Mr. King — 342

Mr. Gibson — 342

Mr. Stupich — 342

Mr. Cocke — 343

Mr. Nicolson — 344

Mr. Lauk — 347

Mr. Wallace — 348

Ms. Brown — 349

Mr. Lea — 350

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 351

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

Mr. Gibson — 351

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 352

Mr. Gibson — 352

Mr. King — 352

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 352

Mr. Lauk — 353

Mr. Lea — 353

Ms. Brown — 353

Mr. King — 354

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

Second reading.

Mr. Stupich — 354

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): In the debate yesterday the member

for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) mentioned the growing birth rate as an

example of the confidence shown by people in this province. I'd like to

introduce my contribution to that growing birth rate: in the gallery

today is my new son Robert Mark William Skelly, accompanied by his

mother and also accompanied by his sister, Susan Kathleen. Thank you.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): It's not too often

that I have the opportunity to welcome guests from my own riding of

Revelstoke-Slocan, but today we do have in the gallery Mr. Bernie

Blades and his son Lance. I would like the House to join me in

welcoming them.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would draw the attention of the House to the

distinguished guest we have on the floor this afternoon, Mr. Gordon

Dowding, formerly the MLA for Burnaby-Edmonds and, of course, Speaker

of this esteemed assembly.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): In the gallery today we

have Miss Pat Talbot, president of the Air Canada Vancouver base for

the Canadian Airlines Flight Attendants Association; the two children

of my secretary, Miss Margaret McCubbin and Mr. Bob McCubbin, who are

here on their Easter break; and Mr. Jim Vernon, a friend of all British

Columbians. I'd ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I would very much like

to also welcome the former Speaker to the House, and say that his

record over the years was unparalleled. We've not yet seen a person in

the Legislature who can possibly come close to the soaring flights that

he involved himself in in many interesting debates.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): We have with us today in

the gallery from Vancouver South Mr. and Mrs. Will Preston and their

daughters Ruth and Vicky. I would ask this House to welcome them,

please.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I would draw the attention

of the House to another distinguished spectator today in the person of Mr. Don

Morton of North Cowichan who still serves the province of British Columbia in

one capacity, but who also has devoted many years of service at the local and

regional government level, and is a past president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities,

and by reason of that fact, a life member of that organization.

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, we have with us today

Mayor Karl Maartman and his city clerk, Harold Gyte of Elkford, the

instant coal city of British Columbia. I would like this House to

welcome them, please.

Also I'm being distinguished by having my own personal news reporter

with us, in the person of Miss Susanne Bond from Kimberley. She's the

reporter for the newspaper there. Will you welcome her, please?

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): I would like the House to join in

welcoming this afternoon friends of mine and also my constituency

secretary — Mr. Norm Bridge and his wife, my secretary, Mrs. Pat

Bridge, who are in the gallery. I would like the House to welcome them.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): It has become a

custom on days like this to introduce all members who haven't yet been

introduced and I expect that will now be extended to the members of the

press. There is a group in the west gallery, some lovely young ladies

from the Convent of the Sacred Heart in Point Grey. I hope the House

will welcome them and be on particularly good behaviour this afternoon

on their account.

Presenting petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Attorney-General.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave

to present a petition. When are you going to get crime off the streets

and back into city hall where it belongs? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. first member for Vancouver South (laughter)...Vancouver East.

HON. MR. GARDOM: This is not your suit.

MR. MACDONALD: Pursuant to standing order 73 a petition to

the hon. Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia in

Legislature assembled, the petition, duly signed, Alexander B.

Macdonald and Gary V. Lauk, humbly showeth as follows:

1. Statements have been circulated in The Vancouver Sun

and the Victoria Times alleging a serious breach of confidentiality in

respect to the budget premature release to persons other than civil

servants and to unauthorized persons, thereby reflecting upon the

privileges of this

[ Page 318 ]

House and upon the Minister of Finance and

his custody of sensitive documents relating to tax changes. The

statements referred to are as follows:

In The Vancouver Sun, March 27, 1976, under heading: "Jack Wasserman".

"Ad-man Dave Brown's role in preparing the budget

speech that was under such tight search security came to light Friday

afternoon and there were some questions about the role of a non-civil

servant in dealing with a sensitive document. 'Has he been placed under

oath,' Evan Wolfe was asked. 'I think so,' Wolfe replied."

In The Vancouver Sun, March 27, 1976, under heading: "Alan Fotheringham".

"Dave Brown, the Bennett consultant who was so sloppy with

the budget drafts that he left one in temporary custody of a hotel employee

who transferred some details to his university girlfriend who let it get to

the University of Victoria's student paper..."

In the Victoria Times, March 26, 1976, under heading: "Budget Data Leaked

More Than a Week Ago?"

"Did confidential budget material fall into the wrong

hands before its official release today? The Times has learned a young

man was asked by an aide of Premier Bennett about 10 days ago to put a

folder of papers in a hotel safe overnight. The curious young man took

a look at the papers and saw at the top of the pile a press release

concerning the Alberta budget. Next came a paragraph..."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Mr. Member. I refer you to standing orders contained on page 26, standing order 73(1) and (2)... .

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: ...in which in presenting a petition you have

asked leave, which you have done, and in the presentation of the

petition, you must confine your remarks to the material allegations it

contains. I don't think that it allows editorializing of the material

or straying beyond a very tight guideline in the presentation of the

petition. So I would ask you to be guided by those rules of the House

and that particular rule in presenting a petition.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to debate that point at length because the rule does....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, not debate. I mean, I am not debating with

the Speaker on that. I would be glad to shorten the presentation

because the petition is in writing and I presume it will be dealt with

in accordance with the rules of the House. Rule 73(2) does say that you

must state the allegations and the prayer. I won't continue with the

Victoria Times

article because I think that is in the written material.

But the other things I think are essential to the allegation.

2. That the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano

informed the House on March 29, 1976 that prior to the budget speech he

had received a call advising him that the budget included an increase

in the sales tax to 7 per cent. He has also been alleged to have stated

that he wrote down this information and handed it in a sealed envelope

to Charles LaVertu of the press gallery to be opened after the budget

speech.

3. That the Victoria Times of March 27, 1976 — and

this is part of the allegation — reports a statement of the Minister of

Finance as follows: "Finance Minister Evan Wolfe said later that Dave

Brown, a government consultant on information services, had seen parts

of the budget in advance and had 'assisted in terminology' in making

the budget. Wolfe said Brown was not a member of the civil service but

he believed Brown had taken a secrecy oath required of all civil

servants."

4. The Premier has stated to the House on March 26 last as follows...and that is in Hansard and all members are familiar with the statement, I will not quote it at this time.

5. That we have caused inquiries to be made in the

office of the Clerk of the House to determine if one of the persons

referred to, the said Dave Brown who was neither a civil servant nor an

employee of the government, has been administered an oath of secrecy,

and we are informed, as we verily believe, that no oath of secrecy was

administered nor is on file in the office of the Clerk of the House.

6. That the statement of the Minister of Finance

attributed to him by the Victoria Times in paragraph 3 of this petition

contradicts the assurance given by the Premier to this House on March

26 referred to in paragraph 4 hereof.

7. That the statement of the hon. member for North

Vancouver-Capilano in paragraph 2 hereof contradicts the denial of the

Premier that information concerning the tax changes were available to

people who could use the information as set out in paragraph 4 hereof

and specifically as follows:

"I have to tell him that I received a telephone call very shortly after noon last

[ Page 319 ]

Friday advising me as a matter of fact, not a matter of conjecture,

that as the result of documentation that certain persons had seen that the sales

tax was going to be 7 per cent. I simply mention that to the Minister in order

that he may review the procedures that his department followed in the dissemination

of certain of the consequential documentation surrounding the budget."

8. That the contradictory evidence presented in the

newspapers and the conflicting statements made both inside and outside

the House cannot be reconciled and seriously jeopardize the rights and

privileges of this House and the people of the province who are

entitled to the protection of the budget from premature disclosure to

persons outside the House.

9. That the persons who had made the allegations and

those persons who are reported as having knowledge of the budget prior

to its being made before the House, it is submitted, should be called

before a committee of privileges as prescribed in May, 17th edition at

pages 136 to 148 inclusive, which states at page 147: "A petition

complaining of the matter which affects the privilege of the House may

be taken into consideration on the presentation thereof."

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it would seem that in the remarks

that you are addressing to the House that you are drawing certain

conclusions — also conclusions as to remedies of what should take

place....

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask you to stick strictly to the facts

of the matter in your presentation and your material allegations. I'm

sure you will do that.

MR. MACDONALD: One final paragraph, and that is the prayer

which rule 732 says should be read, in addition to the allegations.

They are not allegations, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to be on the basis

of making a charge. The petition is suggesting that certain statements

cannot be reconciled and is asking for an investigation — not

pre-judgment of anything. I'm serious about that; it's not a charge.

But here's the prayer, and the prayer will clear it up.

Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House

may be pleased to appoint a committee of privileges to investigate the

grave allegations made in this House, and also the allegations

contained in the said newspapers as related herein, the statements by

diverse persons as contained therein which call into question the

authority and dignity of the Legislative Assembly and the rights and

privileges of its members, with power to call for books, papers and

things, and to summon all witnesses who may have knowledge of the

matters and facts bearing upon the said allegation, and as in duty

bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Dated and duly signed by the only member for Vancouver East and the first member for Vancouver Centre.

Would you present that to the Chair?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. first member for Vancouver East presents a petition.

Introduction of bills.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 33, Freedom of Information Act,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE CHANGE OF NAME ACT

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill 34,

An Act to Amend the Change of

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

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

after today.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could advise the House

whether or not you would be ready to rule today on the point of order

which you took under advisement from the hon. leader of the Liberal

Party (Mr. Gibson) yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: The matter is still under consideration. I will try to have a report back to the House before we adjourn today.

Oral questions.

SPECIAL WARRANT FOR

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): To the hon. Minister of

Finance: on March 2 a special warrant for $3.855 million was approved

for post-secondary education and training. Would the hon. minister tell

the House why this warrant was urgently and immediately required for

the public good?

[ Page 320 ]

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Madam Member, I will be happy to take that question as notice.

CASH POSITION OF B.C.

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

have a question for the Minister of Finance, of which I have sent him

notice. It is too bad that this has to be raised in question period,

but it wasn't contained in his remarks last night.

I would ask him, in order to facilitate the debate of Bill 3: what

is the cash position of the province of British Columbia today,

approximately? Does the minister expect any significant inflow of

funds, except those possibly due to Bill 3, before the end of the

fiscal year, tomorrow at midnight?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the question has been given to

me on notice. I felt it was a question which would more properly be

placed on the order paper since it required a certain amount of detail,

but since the question has been raised in the House by the hon. member,

I would be happy to take it as notice and provide the information for

him as soon as I can.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm very puzzled at this. It is

obviously not an order paper question; it's a question of some urgency.

It's a question of which I had sent the minister notice, and I'm

appalled if he doesn't know the cash position of the province within

three hours.

MR.'SPEAKER: Order! Order, Mr. Member. It is not a matter for debate

at this time as to whether it should be on the order paper or not; it is a matter

that the question was taken as notice.

MINCOME FOR EXTENDED-CARE PATIENTS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the

Minister of Human Resources a question with regard to the issue I

raised yesterday, that persons in extended-care hospitals last May who

qualified for Mincome were not given Mincome. Also, with regard to the

minister's statement subsequent to my speech yesterday, that he was

unaware of the May letter — and I'm not casting any criticism in that

regard; it was under another administration — but I would like to find

out if the minister will be now informing those extended-care patients

— and I've already received telephone calls on this — whether, in fact,

the introduction of the $7-a-day charge will now mean that they will be

assured of receiving Mincome if they qualify for it.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon.member

for Oak Bay: I did check this morning with my deputy to see just what

the procedure had been. I found that a letter had been sent from the

department to the Mincome recipients in extended-care facilities, but

there hadn't been any follow-up after the letter. The effect of this

was that some responded and, in fact, their Mincome was withheld while

others continued to receive their Mincome, and we saw develop a very

inequitable situation which we are now immediately moving to rectify. I

think the intentions were well, but obviously it was very sloppily

administered. I can't take responsibility for that, but I can assure

you that we are looking into the matter now, and it will be rectified

properly.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the

minister's very full answer, but it is obvious that certain

circumstances can arise where applicants, on the basis of their assets,

qualify for Mincome but, by government or departmental decision, have

been denied it — rightly or wrongly.

I'm wondering if the regulations or the departmental procedures

allow for any mechanism of appeal by an individual who qualifies for

Mincome but, because of some departmental decision, is denied it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, I'll take that particular question as notice and I'll get the answer for it.

SCALING FUND

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Finance as chairman of Treasury Board.

On March 1, 1976, an order-in-council was passed approving a

Treasury Board warrant. My question is directed to that part dealing

with vote 146, scaling fund. The original provision of $10 would

indicate this is a net amount, that it is recovered completely from

industry. Yet an additional requirement, apparently, of $887,000 was

urgently and immediately required. I wondered why they were departing

from the policy of recovering this from industry.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I'd be happy to take that question as notice.

SPECIAL WARRANTS ISSUED

TO SUPPLEMENT VOTES 236 & 237

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): The question, Mr. Speaker, is

for the hon. Minister of Finance. On March 2 an order-in-council was

approved — or a special warrant, I should say — for $595,000, to

[ Page 321 ]

supplement votes 236 and 237. I wonder if the

Minister of Finance could advise what those special warrants were for,

and why the urgency. Why did they have to be through before the end of

this month?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: That's right. I read the rest of the warrant,

special warrant. It's order-in-council 709, special warrant for

$595,000 to supplement votes 236 and 237; what was the urgency for that?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question on notice.

ACTION ON TRUCKERS STRIKE

MR. WALLACE: I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of

Labour. In view of the very serious continuing effect of the truckers

strike and the latest reports, I am able to determine that no new

negotiations — that's quite a mouthful — have been scheduled. Could the

minister tell us what moves he is about to make, either to bring the

parties back to the bargaining table or for government to take

intervening action?

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would

advise the hon. member that Mr. Albertini, the mediator who was

successful in bringing the parties together last weekend for three days

of continuing discussion, is still involved in this dispute. It is one

which is under his daily concern; he is in touch with the parties. As

the members will know from the press, Mr. Speaker, the employers have

suggested that the differences between them and the union should be

resolved by compulsory arbitration. I understand that a formal request

for such arbitration has been sent to the union, and I understand that

a copy is being sent to me. When I am satisfied as to the basis upon

which such arbitration will take place I will be discussing it with

each of the parties.

URGENCY OF RESTRUCTURED GRANTS

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, a question to

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). Noting the surprise of

Kamloops, Nanaimo, Prince George and Kelowna at the prospect of

receiving money early, what was the urgency of warrant OIC-701, passed

on March 2, for $9 million?

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't you know?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, wasn't this the question that

was raised yesterday to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Curtis)? You should have heard his answer at that time.

MR. COCKE: I asked a question about the urgency. I'd like to ask a supplemental if the Minister....

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think the minister answered that yesterday, but I'll take that question as notice.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, does the minister attend Treasury Board meetings?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): There's a whole big mess of stuff left by you. You know very well we can't remember it all. Put it on the order paper.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

EXCEPTIONS TO EXTENDED

CARE RATE INCREASE

MR. GIBSON: A question for either the Minister of Health or

the Minister of Human Resources, whichever might feel it most

appropriate. There has been much distress caused among some families

who have people, perhaps children for example, in extended care who are

not recipients of Mincome. I would ask the appropriate minister to

clarify to this House, and for the families concerned, whether the

boost in the rate from $1 to $7 a day applies to such persons who are

not in receipt of Mincome?

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please, before the hon. minister

answers. I don't think it's really proper parliamentary procedure to

scattergun at the ministers, and you should specify a minister. If it's

not within his department then he can advise you of that fact.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I

would think this would probably be better taken up in the estimates of

the department, but there will be exceptions and those will be spelled

out in the regulations.

WARRANTS FOR URGENT EXPENDITURE

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): My question, Mr. Speaker,

is directed to the Minister of Finance and it also has to do with

warrants. I really hope he's got an answer at least to this one, because

[ Page 322 ]

he certainly didn't have an answer to any of the others.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

MS. BROWN: On March 2, Mr. Speaker, a special warrant in the

amount of $2,860,000 was approved by the Minister of Finance to

supplement votes 193, 202, 203 — if you're listening, Mr. Minister —

219 and 227. Now would you tell the House what the urgency was that

necessitated your approving of that warrant at that time?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, if I may, just a word of

explanation. As I understand the procedure for approving warrants, what

it requires is an order from the Minister of Finance indicating that

there is no provision in the votes for the expenditure. Then he

receives from the appropriate minister instructions that, in fact, this

expenditure is urgently required. So it is the minister's own

responsibility, if I may say so, to indicate whether the expenditure is

urgently required.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In any event, in response to the question

from the member, we'll be happy to make a report on these warrants that

have been mentioned, and the ones she mentioned.

HON. MR. BENNETT: All of them, all of them!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you on a supplemental question, hon. member?

MS. BROWN: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Are we to understand

then that the Minister of Finance approved these warrants without

understanding whether there was any urgency involved?

UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL

LETTER TO NDU

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, a question to

the Minister of Education: a letter of March 17 went from Dr. Gordon

Armstrong of the Universities Council to the board of governors of

Notre Dame University, a copy of which went to the Deputy Minister of

Education. Has the Minister had an opportunity to read that letter?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice and be happy to file a copy of the letter with the House.

MINCOME

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): A question to the Minister

of Human Resources: with reference to the government's decision to have

the 60 to 64 Mincome group and the handicapped at $265 per month when

the federal cost-of-living bonus takes the over-65 Mincome group to

$269 on April 1, can the minister tell us if it is government policy or

merely a temporary measure until policy can be formulated?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, if I may answer the member....

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Shall I repeat the question, Mr. Speaker? I'll address the question to the Premier, he's so anxious to answer.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Human Resources is on his feet.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: One of the problems that I face, Mr.

Speaker, in answer to the hon. member, is that none of the programmes

have been reviewed for the best part of two years. Frankly, all the

programmes are a bit of a shambles, to say the least. What we've been

attempting to do over the last several months is to unscramble this

mess and find out where we've been going. Also, we've been attempting

to determine just exactly where the priorities ought to be and to also

determine whether in fact we've been getting sufficient federal

cost-sharing. In order to get the maximum dollars from the federal

government, which are due the province of British Columbia....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister is on his feet, hon. members.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: To the hon. member, in order to receive

maximum funding from the federal government, which is due the province

of British Columbia, and in order to develop a better programme which

will provide and assist all the needy people, we are re-assessing all

the programmes. I'm sure that the opposition as well as the government

will be very pleased with the legislation which will be brought down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did the money go?

Interjections.

[ Page 323 ]

MR. LEVI: The wrecking crew! Look at them, the wrecking crew. They want to wreck the question period. Oh, what a wrecking crew!

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, are we going to

have speeches in question period, or answers? On a supplementary to the

same minister....

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr.

Speaker, first I would like to congratulate you on your election as

Speaker to this august assembly. I have a great respect for your

knowledge of the rules, your ability, your good judgment and most

important of all, I believe, your sense of humour. My experience in

another place is that if the Speaker has a sense of humour, he can

often resolve impasses which otherwise would be impossible.

I want to, of course, being on this side of the House, to endorse

whole-heartedly the Speech from the Throne and the budget. The main

reason I do so is because the priorities are in the right place; they

are people priorities. This government has been elected by the people.

It must govern for the people, and its priorities are people priorities.

I know that the official opposition is surprised at the priorities

which stand out clearly in both the Speech from the Throne and in the

budget, priorities which underline the services to people in this

province — education...

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Human Resources.

HON. MR. DAVIS: ...aid to the needy...

HON. MR. BENNETT: Health.

HON. MR. DAVIS : ...health and consumer services. These are all vital

programmes, the kinds of services which governments are elected to provide.

They are services provided by a government elected by the people for the people.

Those are the right kinds of priorities. I'm sure that everyone on all sides

of this House agrees with those priorities, and to that extent, at least, they

must all endorse both the Speech from the Throne and the budget.

I want to talk briefly this afternoon about two other areas of

concern — they're also people areas, or I will argue that this is so —

transportation and the supply of energy.

They are not as obviously people programmes in this day and age as

they used to be a few hundred years ago when people with their own two

hands had to provide the heat and motor power that they themselves

employed. There have been fantastic changes over the last century or so

— from the time when one man alone could break a horse, learn to ride

it reasonably well and had his own means of transport — to today when

the means of transport which we all use depend on the activities, not

of dozens, not of hundreds, but of thousands and tens of thousands of

people, often people in far corners of the world.

We are using transport when we use an aircraft to move about,

transport that's developed by people, that's produced by people and

operated by people. But it isn't as obvious that those people-efforts

have to be organized, and they have to be organized in very efficient,

cooperative ways. The main word I want to underline in my brief remarks

this afternoon is "cooperation" — the contribution of people, many

people, cooperating together to build, to supply us with effective

transport, to supply us with energy here in this province, here in this

nation, here in this world.

Policy is important. Programmes are important in both these areas.

One Minister of Transport not so long ago in Ottawa said that

transportation in Canada was a mess. I want to add: the transportation

in this province, for some years, has been in a mess.

There was a time not so long ago when we were still starting to

build, and build effectively: highways; we were starting new pipelines;

we were starting new rail lines. But all that activity ceased. It

certainly ceased beginning in 1972, and very little that is new has

happened in the last few years in this province — in a province where

distance is probably the main obstacle keeping people apart, where high

mountains and stretches of water also keep us from meeting and

communicating effectively with one another often. We need an effective

transport policy; we need an effective transport programme fundamental

to policy — and I think we've gone wrong nationally and recently we've

gone wrong provincially in the emphasis of our transport policy.

Essentially the federal approach for some years now has been that

government should assist individual industries, pin-point financial

support — give it to particular firms and particular places and have

transport, whether it be rail or pipelines or transmission lines or

airlines, pay their own way. The users pay 100 per cent of cost. In

respect to transport, the subsidies go to individual firms' specific

situations.

That may be all right in some circumstances, but I think a shift all

the way to a specific policy of that kind for economic development is

wrong. It's wrong

[ Page 324 ]

particularly in western Canada where distance is

our biggest single problem. Western Canada, in a real extent at least,

is two-thirds to three-quarters of the nation, and distance-spanning

has to be a No. 1 priority. Any national government that changes that

policy and makes its policy one of financial support for individual

firms in specific areas is deserting a traditional policy in this

country.

The largest chamber in the parliament buildings in Ottawa, other

than the House of Commons and the Senate, is the Railway Committee

Room, and that was built, roughly, 100 years ago. It indicated that 100

years ago, railways, transport, was the biggest subject, the most

important programme area for governments of those days. And we've

shifted from that; we've shifted from it nationally, we've shifted from

it provincially.

We have to get back to transport, transportation also being a means

for developing parts of the country which are relatively new,

relatively remote, especially in the north. This is important and it

must be a major element of development policy.

The present Minister of Transport in Ottawa (Hon. Mr. Lang) has

recently produced a document which outlines a policy, and the policy is

essentially a user-pay policy. That doesn't tell you much. It's a

user-pays-100 per cent policy. If the federal government could push

this policy to complete fulfillment there would be no federal subsidies

for railways operating across this country or, indeed, federal lines

operating north and south; no federal support for airlines, for

highways. Obviously that cannot be pressed to its ultimate conclusion.

There are situations — there are situations right here in this province

— where the user should pay 100 per cent or should pay a high

proportion of all the costs involved. Typical of those instances are

pipelines. Pipelines, basically, have paid their own way and then some.

Our transmission lines carrying energy, electrical energy, should pay

their own way. B.C. Hydro should balance its books from year to year

and should not be subsidized.

I well remember the Premier of a year or two ago (Mr. Barrett). One

of the very big points he made in the election of 1972 was that we were

far too greedy where energy was concerned, that we were consuming too

much energy and he was going to slow down the rate of low growth of

electricity demand, for example. Had he been consistent, he would have

priced that electricity at least at cost and had the users pay, and the

price itself would have helped to ration what in some instances can't

be qualified in any other way than by using the word "greedy".

Interjection.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes, transmission lines should pay their own way and pipelines should pay their own way.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Do you believe in the two prices for...?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The main airlines operating across this country should pay their own way.

MR. MACDONALD: Should there be one price or two prices?

HON. MR. DAVIS: There are situations, however, where for

reasons of development they should not pay their own way, and I would

include B.C. Ferries in this area. The most heavily travelled routes

should come close to paying their own way. The developmental routes,

the services to more remote areas — and I will include theSunshine

Coast in that category or even the Gulf Islands, if I may, Mr. Speaker

— should not necessarily pay their own way. There should be, in other

words, an element of subsidy — the user wouldn't pay the whole shot.

Then there is an argument for subsidy using the reasoning that the

highways of this province as the highways of most provinces and states

in the United States — are paid for out of the general revenue coming

to the government, and to the extent that the ferry crossings are

themselves parts of our highway system, they should receive a similar

subsidy — a subsidy similar, for example, to the subsidy...

AN HON. MEMBER: A toll highway?

HON. MR. DAVIS: ...the financial support for sections of the

Trans-Canada Highway in the Fraser Canyon. That was a very costly

section of our transportation system. It's paid for out of our sales

taxes, out of our income taxes. Similarly, a case can be made for part,

at least, of the costs of the ferry system to be met in that way. I

believe, in other words, that there should be a subsidy for ferries,

but on the main routes, the most-travelled routes, the mature routes,

the users should go some distance towards paying the total cost of the

operation.

The resource industries — new rail lines, for example, into

coal-rich areas — the resource industries should certainly, as users of

those new transportation facilities, pay 100 per cent of the costs.

Perhaps these costs should be pro-rated over a period of years, but

certainly not a period longer than the lives of the first mines. The

users should pay in those cases, clearly, and those groups of users can

help to open up the country and provide transportation systems, be they

rail, highway or airline transportation systems, and help to pay for

those services which others will benefit from directly or indirectly.

We have to get our costs down on the ferries, for example, and we can in various ways — by building

[ Page 325 ]

bigger ferries, manning them more efficiently,

running them, where possible, over shorter routes, or having better

schedules for operation.

In the north development is vital and is fundamental. We have to

cooperate with the federal authorities and, above all, with the

industries concerned. The best way to cooperate — the best way to cut

our costs, to keep them at a minimum — is to put all the facts on the

table, conceal nothing, demand that the others do the same, and choose

the least costly routes regardless of whether they are over B.C. Rail

or over CNR, regardless of whether they are by highway rather than by

rail and, in some instances, by air. We must do the most efficient and

the best thing because this will bring services, and particularly

energy, to people throughout the province efficiently and effectively

and give them the kind of service they deserve.

We've a few problems with the federal government, and I'll outline a

very few of them, in respect to shipping. Currently there is

legislation before the federal House of Commons referred to as Bill

C-61. Bill C-61, in its major intent, is designed to establish a

merchant marine for Canada which has a base, and that base is carrying

goods from one point in Canada to another point in Canada. It's a

shipping capability — at least that's the objective — which will serve

the coasting trade of Canada.

Here on the west coast basically we serve our own coasting needs —

that is, from point to point in British Columbia, with vessels built in

British Columbia, with crews who are British Columbians, with ships and

shipping which is owned in British Columbia by corporations that have

their head offices here.

But in the rest of Canada this isn't really true and the federal

government of the moment seems bent on imitating other countries,

particularly the United States, which, among other things, has

legislation, one law of which is referred to as the Jones Act, and that

requires that all shipping going from point to point in the United

States be carried on U.S.-built ships, U.S.-operated ships, U.S.-owned

ships.

I'm critical of Bill C-61, Mr. Speaker, at least in one respect, and

this is an aspect of that legislation which I believe is prejudicial to

British Columbia. That is with respect to shipping from the east coast

of Canada to the west coast, or from the west coast of Canada to the

east coast of Canada, through the Panama Canal. I would like to allude

to it as "the shipping opportunity through the Panama Canal."

It was the Panama Canal, more than anything else, that gave British

Columbia its great lift-off in the early years of this century, after

1914, and if the traffic which Canadians can use shipping from east

coast to west coast, or from west coast to east coast is limited to

Canadian-owned, Canadian-built, Canadian-operated vessels, the cost

will go up.

This is significant in a very important way. There isn't much

shipping that actually moves from one coast to the other, but it is the

price of that shipping, the competitive tenders on that shipping, that

determines our rail freight rates across Canada for many commodities,

determines our trucking rates across Canada for many commodities. So if

that legislation passes in Ottawa, what it does is eliminate

international competition, eliminates the low bidders from putting an

effective low ceiling on rail freight rates across this country.

Nothing could do more to stretch out Canada, make it longer in economic

terms, wider across, hoist us on the petard of distance more than

anything else, more than that kind of legislation.

We have to have international competition, international shipping

competing through the Panama Canal to hold this country together and

give us the kinds of levels of freight rates and trucking rates that we

should have across the surface of Canada itself.

Port development: we should be working closely with the federal

government in that area. The previous government knew nothing about

Bill C-61. It seemed to know nothing about port development.

One of our very real problems currently is that on this coast the

user pays 100 per cent. There is no subsidy. On the east coast there

are very heavy subsidies for transport of all kinds, and especially for

port development. Not only the east coast in the sense of the Maritimes

and Newfoundland, but Quebec and some of the Great Lakes developments

as well — they are heavily supported. The user-pay principle doesn't

obtain there. The user certainly doesn't pay 100 per cent. But the user

pays 100 per cent in the Port of Vancouver. The user pays 100 per cent

at Roberts Bank. The user pays 100 per cent in the Port of New

Westminster, and 100 per cent in Nanaimo — in all the federal ports.

The user-pay principle is in fact in force in western Canada, certainly

in British Columbia. As I said earlier, that isn't necessarily the best

principle for economic development.

It perhaps can apply to mature developments where there is

competition. Certainly where there are raw materials in the form of

resources moving out from our province, they should pay their own way,

but not in all respects.

Airlines: some of the grumbling in the west relative to rail lines

relates to the great difficulty of determining where costs really lie,

and how rates relate to costs; whether or not the rates reflect true

costs. The supposition is — certainly the suspicion has often been —

that we are subsidizing operations in central Canada by our paying

higher rates across the west and in British Columbia.

This is true, Mr. Speaker, with respect to airlines, certainly. Air

Canada subsidizes its eastern operation out of its longer hauls, and

the hauls of people, for example, from Toronto to Montreal, or Montreal

[ Page 326 ]

Ottawa and on to Toronto are less than average cost

for the system, and the hauls from Vancouver or Calgary or Edmonton,

even Winnipeg, to Toronto and Montreal are above-average cost.

We need to know more about those costs. We need to know more about

the kinds of rates that are charged by the airlines, as well as the

railways, and to make sure that we are not paying as users more than

100 per cent in respect to air travel.

Pipelines: we currently have a problem in respect to oil in this

country. The biggest aspect of that problem, indeed the problem itself,

is that we aren't finding enough oil to remain self-sufficient. We are

no longer exporting as much as we were. We're importing more and more.

We're paying the world price for this imported oil, and refusing to pay

the world price to our own producers.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DAVIS: But the development which I wish to emphasize

is the termination of exports by the federal government and the

diversion of the remaining oil to eastern Canada, particularly beyond

Toronto and to Montreal.

We have been exporting oil heavily down the U.S. west coast. That is

being cut off. The Trans Mountain oil line today is operating half-full

whereas it was operating full a year ago. It may shortly be operating

at a quarter of its capacity, and what this means, Mr. Speaker, is that

the transportation of oil from our principal source in Alberta is going

to cost us in British Columbia more. It's going to cost us more and

more simply because that heavy flow of a few years ago is being cut off

because we're cutting off our exports to the U.S. Pacific northwest.

Our transportation cost across the mountains and down to Vancouver

is rising, and while it's rising, the oil that was flowing out from

Alberta and British Columbia to the Pacific northwest is being diverted

through Sarnia and Toronto to Montreal, through a pipeline that's being

financed in large part by the taxpayers of Canada, and you and I are

paying part of the $20 million subsidy this year to move that oil on to

Montreal.

So we on the west coast are facing a rising tariff for our oil being

brought over the mountains through Trans Mountain's line, and we're

helping also to pay a subsidy to move Canadian oil — this short,

precious Canadian oil — eastward to Montreal to give it security in the

event that at any time foreign oil admitted to that city may be cut

off. That's an inequity, and we have to face this kind of thing and

reach understandings with Ottawa which will at least offset that

transportation penalty which we are being asked now to bear.

We're paying part of the $20 million subsidy for eastward movement of Canadian

oil to Montreal; we're facing a rising price to move the limited amount

of oil that still flows our way from Alberta across the Rockies and down to

Vancouver.

I must conclude, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to say again that these are

programmes that are very important to people, and certainly call for

policies which affect people very much.

The debate about ICBC, I think, was very important in several ways.

It indicated priorities. It indicated the different priorities between

the previous government and this government.

You know, I used to think that the motor vehicle, especially the

North American-type motor vehicle, was the epitome of the North

American capitalist system. It's inefficient. It uses too many

materials. It certainly uses too much fuel, and it damages the

environment.

MR. GIBSON: Sounds like the Social Credit Party.

HON. MR. DAVIS: And yet the previous government was determined to subsidize that vehicle very, very heavily.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame! Shame!

HON. MR. DAVIS: Subsidize that vehicle more than any other programme — any other programme — with which it was involved.

Now this government has, I believe, its priorities straight. It's not going to subsidize the motor vehicle.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DAVIS: The owner should use his car any way he

wants, keep it, Mr. Speaker, but pay the cost 100 per cent. It's a

necessity, if you will, but the user should pay at least 100 per cent

of the vehicle. He won't necessarily pay for the highways, roads or

streets directly through his direct levies, but at least he'll pay for

the vehicle — and he certainly should pay for bashed fenders. If he

chooses, on the other hand, to ride on public transit, to use buses, to

use efficient means of transport, to use means of transport that don't

clutter up our cities, that make them more livable, then he shouldn't

have to pay 100 per cent. He can pay some lesser cost, some lesser

figure, and I believe that is the right kind of approach to transport,

the right kind of approach to energy usage, the right kind of support

for energy consumption.

At least we have our priorities straight. We have to develop a plan.

We have to develop a programme, but it'll be one based on priorities

and one in which people are very much involved.

Mr. Speaker, I feel — I know that the previous government wanted to

do well, intended to do well. I was impressed at times by their

efforts. I remember,

[ Page 327 ]

however, some of the gaffes that they pulled. I

remember the former Premier (Mr. Barrett) going to Washington, D.C. to

announce a plan to bring American oil, Alaskan oil, down across British

Columbia to the United States.

This plan received all kinds of PR support; it was called "The Way

Out". There's still lots of copies around. There's a smiling picture of

the Premier on the front — or the former Premier on the front.

The main fault, the main shortcoming in all that was that it was a

one-man, or a one-shot effort. There was little discussion beforehand,

there was little consultation, there were very few people involved; it

was a brainstorm that blew out. It just didn't have it from a

technological point of view, from an economic point of view, and

certainly from an environmental point of view, because environmentally

it would be much more damaging than an ordinary pipeline down and

across this country.

There are lots of reasons why it didn't fly, and had the former

government been interested in cooperation with other levels of

government, with private enterprise, with the Americans, indeed they

would have found out quite early that this one wasn't going to work and

that others should be developed, and other lines of thought, other

programmes, other policies, other projects were much more feasible, and

could possibly be pulled off.

It's that kind of people involvement. More people have to be

involved; certainly they have to be consulted. We're not going to be

bringing in big new changes on the ferries, for example — even modest

changes at ferry terminals — without talking to the municipalities,

without talking to the people living in those areas.

If a federal subsidy is involved, if industry is to be asked to

shoulder part of the costs, we're going to talk to the feds. We're

going to talk to the industries concerned as well.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are interested in people. The people programmes

were featured in the budget and in the Speech from the Throne. In the

areas of energy development and transportation we will be

people-oriented as well.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I was

interested in hearing the comments of the new Minister of Transport and

Communication. I'm delighted that at least one member of that cabinet

realizes the critical importance of transportation to the western

Canadian economy and in particular to British Columbia — a view

espoused by the previous administration. I am heartened that at least

one minister on that side of the House in this administration also

espouses that view.

Economic development is important, and we cannot look at a

transportation system as being efficient or profit-making in itself.

From that transportation system flows the lifeblood of the economy, the

jobs, the income, the taxes on the income that make this whole economy

and society turn around in British Columbia.

I am wondering whether it is an overall policy of the government or

just the views of that minister, because if it was an overall policy of

the government, certainly the concept of economic development would be

part of their philosophy in all of their decisions. And we now know it

is not, that they think that all things must make a profit, that profit

equals efficiency and efficiency equals profit.

Not true! That is not even a nineteenth century economic view; that

is not even a pre-Cambrian economic view. That is a view that is only

new today because it's never been thought of before, and there's a good

reason why it has never been thought of before — because it doesn't

work. It's nonsense.

The bottom-line economic theory is unique to this province and is

now becoming under this new administration the laughing stock of the

world. The bottom-line economy that it's cheaper to have government

agencies, departments and services make profits — what utter and

complete nonsense! We can also see the impossibility of it, Mr.

Speaker, when we take a look a this budget address and the budget that

was tabled on Friday. They are not even doing it themselves; they're

paying lip-service to an election clarion call that was false from the

beginning.

I certainly hope that the policy as outlined by the new minister is

an overall policy, that we all espouse a theory of a mixed economy in

this province, that the BCR and the CPR must be supported by the public

purse because it relates to the social and economic well-being of

Canadians from coast to coast.

There's not a free market system in Canada

and there never has been, so all of the slogans from people who have

just arrived to our shores should be put in that light. It is not a

free market; it's a mixed economy.

We must support the transportation system. We must support other

services to people and to the economic system. But I am interested to

note when the minister talks about coal in the northeast — in the light

of his remarks about subsidies to transportation and to railway and so

on, this vast development that I'm sure he and the Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) are jointly conferring on — he must

take into consideration the tremendous infrastructure costs that will

be involved: the transportation, the roads, the railways, the electric

power, but also the schools and the other services that the new

community or the already existing but necessarily expanding communities

of the northeast must have. Who is going to pay for all of this?

From the budget address we can see that the people, through their personal income taxes and sales

[ Page 328 ]

taxes, will be the ones to suffer the burden,

because it seems to me that that government over there will exact no

payment from private industry who will be taking the coal out of the

ground and shipping it out at great profits...without exacting the

proper taxation through royalties or whatever on that coal to help pay

that infrastructure cost, because it's the responsibility of the

private industry as well as government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: It was interesting to note the minister's comments

on oil, and I think this side of the House agrees that we have been

subsidizing eastern Canada since Confederation through the tariff

protection system, through an unfair freight rate structure. We have

transfer payments for close to, I think it is — what is it now? — $300

million and $400 million a year through tariffs alone. Because from

British Columbia alone $800 million to $1 billion a year in tariff

transfer payments to the federal treasury — excuse me, to the Niagara

peninsula manufacturing base....

MR. G.F. GIBSON (Vancouver-Capilano): About $500 per capita.

MR. LAUK: About $500 per capita? That is what we pay in

British Columbia to subsidize Confederation. We subsidize Confederation

to that extent, so it is interesting....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that that point of

view which is now espoused by the minister should have been espoused by

him when he spent several years on the front benches of the federal

cabinet. But I was waiting with a great deal of interest throughout his

federal career to see what his point of view was in terms of his native

province. I was disappointed indeed to see no public statement, no

encouragement for subsidies to transportation in the west, no

encouragement for a sensible free trade or lowering of tariff situation

— the continuation of this great injustice since Confederation under

which British Columbia have suffered. He wasn't very vociferous then.

It's interesting that the minister will decry all of a sudden the

use of the private automobile. He says it pollutes, it's inefficient

and it uses too much fuel. My friend to the left here said that it

sounds very much like the Social Credit Party, but I don't think I'd be

that mean. Certainly the private automobile is all of those things, but

what are you substituting over there, through you, Mr. Speaker? They

are not providing the alternative.

People in modern society must be mobile, to get to their jobs, to

travel, because of social reasons and economic reasons, but nothing's

being substituted. You're raising insurance rates and taxes on the

people so they cannot afford to travel. But what's the substitute? We

have the minister in charge of public transit — I think he conferred

with you on the matter, Mr. Minister — and what does he say? "Oh, well,

I'm still trying to straighten out the memos from Jimmy Lorimer and

I've got a problem here and I had to fire this fellow and I had to do

that fellow." We're not interested in excuses, Mr. Speaker. We want

action. I'll tell you one thing: Mr. Lorimer, when he was minister in

charge of public transit, launched programmes to bring about an

increase in dozens of buses going to suburban areas and areas all over

this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: We see every sign this will be cut back. We see

every sign that your interests are to get people out of the private

automobile but on their shoe leather and not into any other alternate

form of transit. So at this stage, Mr. Speaker, there is no substitute.

It's a catch-22 with that government over there. Get out of that

polluting, terrible automobile, but no alternative transit. Just stick

out your thumb. We feel that that is a harsh and cruel way to treat the

people of British Columbia who must be mobile for economic and social

reasons.

Well, Mr. Speaker, one of the little innocuous statements — if one

can describe any statement in the budget address as being innocuous —

perhaps the statement in ordinary times about the vitriolic diatribe

that the Minister of Finance included in his remarks, perhaps this

particular statement on page 27 concerning financing of Crown

corporations, had it not been innocuous...but it has passed relatively

unnoticed. "Legislation will be presented to the House in this session

to increase the borrowing power of the Hydro Authority from $3 billion

to $3.5 billion." Prior to that there was a description of the British

Columbia Hydro and Power Authority and also B.C. Hydro — the

corporation.

I was interested when I read those comments in the budget address

about the current chief executive officer of B.C. Hydro. We were

greatly disappointed, Mr. Speaker, at the appointment of Robert Bonner

to head up that vast, large corporation — one of the largest in Canada.

Mr. Bonner was Attorney-General of this province in years gone past. He

left under a cloud. He left in a cloud but the other day, when the

Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) was speaking, I mentioned the Sommers case,

and do you know — I won't mention any names — some Social Credit

backbenchers came up to me and said: "What was that case? What was that

all about?" Methinks there

[ Page 329 ]

is something lacking in their education, particularly about their political party.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Now I know you're wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: A socialist red herring.

MR. LAUK: Can you imagine that? The Sommers case was a cover-up to end all cover-ups, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. LAUK: The Attorney-General, Robert Bonner, sat on a report for months...

AN HON. MEMBER: Eighteen months.

MR. LAUK: ...eighteen months, before prosecuting a guilty

cabinet minister for bribery. That's the Sommers case. And that's the

person who now heads B.C. Hydro. Is it little wonder, Mr. Speaker — and

I know I have your undivided attention on this important matter — is it

any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that this party would be opposed to the

appointment of such an individual to head up such a vast corporation

which is so important to the economy and the social and economic

life-blood of this province?

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame, shame!

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, you have all of a sudden taken on a

stature that I didn't think was possible. It's so good to see you in

the chair, Sir.

AN HON. MEMBER: Poppycock!

MR. LAUK: He's following distinguished people like Dr. Gordon

Shrum, David Cass-Beggs, who served for many years in other provinces

as well as here.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: After he flunked out at MacMillan Bloedel, after he

totally botched that job, he then became a flunky for the international

business conspiracy...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: ...and now we trot him off the shelf and place him in charge of the biggest corporation in British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: That's right. And what about the Liberal members who have disappeared from that side of the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: The former Liberal members.

MR. LAUK: Eh? What about the Liberal members? Do you remember

what they used to say, my friends, about Bob Bonner? Do you remember

what the Liberal members — former Liberal members who now sit over on

the treasury benches — used to say about Bob Bonner? Well, I have

copies here of Politics In Paradise .

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, read it!

MR. LAUK: Oh, yes!

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell me a story.

MR. LAUK: You remember, Mr. Speaker, what was said about Bob Bonner by the new Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) .

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Who is the author?

MR. LAUK: Oh, the author was Patrick Lucey McGeer.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): No, no!

MR. LAUK: That's him. None other. In black and white. When he

took pen in hand, Mr. Speaker, I am sure he didn't realize that there

would be greater things in store for him. I am sure he thought that

perhaps he would be in the political wilderness — not in the paradise —

forever. But now, when he's really in the paradise, I am sure he

regrets some of the things he said about Bob Bonner with the

Commonwealth Trust case, page 51; with the Sommers case, with the

Bennett Dam, the Columbia River treaty. Do you remember all those

things? They're here — Politics In Paradise — I haven't the proper

number for you to get it out of the library, but I recommend it to all

members of the back bench of the Social Credit Party and, particularly,

some new members of the front benches of the government.

The three Liberals — reformed Liberals — fell on their knees to the

politics of fear and greed and were silent when this former

Attorney-General, Robert Bonner, was appointed to B.C. Hydro. I'll bet

those three members didn't say a word, Mr. Premier, through the Speaker

to you, about his appointment in cabinet.

HON. MR. MAIR: I bet they did.

[ Page 330 ]

MR. LAUK: I bet they sat on their hands, and running through

Pat's mind, I'll bet, were the thoughts of his unfortunate authorship,

the first and the last great work from the now Minister of Education.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is unfortunate, but we are going to be

trotting out, it seems, another former Social Credit cabinet minister

to head up the BCR. I wonder what that's going to do. What kind of

background has Mr. Williston got? Well, let me tell you. He sat on the

board for many years. He sat on the board of the BCR when, in those

years, they were involved in doubtful accounting practices that were

condemned by the accounting association of British Columbia. And,

indeed, the auditors of that day, when he was sitting on that board,

were suspended from the Chartered Accountants Institute for

non-acceptable accounting practices on the BCR that hid losses of the

BCR for over 15 years. Talk about a cover-up, Mr. Speaker, an

outrageous cover-up!

Now you may ask: "What has this got to do with the budget speech?" I

knew you were about to ask that, Mr. Speaker. I'm getting to the point.

This budget is an admission of guilt. The vitriolic language and

frantic desk-thumping is only a pathetic attempt to mask this

right-wing coalition's total failure to fulfill their most emphatic

election promise: they promised to cut back on spending and freeze

government taxes. They have done neither! Rather they have exceeded NDP

spending and have literally fleeced the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): They always chatter like that when they get nervous.

MR. LAUK: You know, Mr. Speaker.....

AN HON. MEMBER: You giggle for both of us.

M R. LEA: You settle down; you're the head-chatterer.

MR. LAUK: You know, Mr. Speaker....

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Where's your leader?

MR. LEA: He's going to be right back.

MR. LAUK: Do you know, Mr. Speaker? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Who was it said...? Whenever I hear the hon.

Minister of Agriculture and Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips),

I'm reminded.... I think it was Shakespeare who said something about an

empty vessel.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: What was that? Can someone complete that for me? An empty vessel makes the most noise.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I have been listening on that side of the House,

and now on this side of the House, to that empty vessel for three and a

half years. Will somebody not spare me? Can the people of South Peace

River keep him there one term, just one term?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I hear from the Premier that the Minister of

Economic Development is planning to resign. Maybe it was he who leaked

the budget, I don't know.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Maybe it was he who leaked the budget.

But the other day I was up in South Peace River and some people said to me: "You know....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I was up there. You weren't there, though.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's never there.

MR. LAUK: You weren't there. I don't know where you were — maybe in Palm Springs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Visiting the Premier.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I was up in South Peace River the

other day and some constituents of the hon. minister came up to me and

said: "What's going to happen? We haven't seen Don since the election."

"He's so busy as a cabinet minister, " I said. "You

know, he's got a lot of work down here. He's still trying to figure out

the filing system." (Laughter.) Someone showed him what a dial phone

was. "But, " I said, "he's got to spend some time down here. He can't

possibly make it to his constituency." I said: "If

[ Page 331 ]

you like, I'll go down and mention it to him."

They said: "Oh, no, no, no. Keep him busy." (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You know I've done more work in the last three months than you did in three and a half years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Economic Development constantly

intervenes, Mr. Speaker. He's a glutton for punishment; it's sort of a

masochistic type of thing — so I'll carry on about the minister.

It seems that he took office: we know that because we read the

order-in-council the other day, but we wouldn't know it by any other

action that the minister has taken since. I should point it out to you,

Mr. Speaker, this Minister of Economic Development.... The only

significant thing I can see he did was give an old pal $29,000 a year —

Arthur Leaks...uh, Weeks. (Laughter.) Oh, Arthur's been very busy since

he.... He used to be a creative cheque-writer, Mr. Speaker, as

everybody knows, but now he's been very busy: he's whispering to the

resident "leak" recipients in Vancouver; he's poking around the Crown

corporations that this minister has in his charge — and I am loosely

speaking. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: And do you know what's happened? Nothing.

(Laughter.) That's why we can't pick on that minister; he hasn't done

anything. The poor fellow is still trying to emerge from this paranoiac

feeling he's got since the election, that everybody's against him, that

all the civil servants are all NDPers. He looks under his bed every

night to see if an NDPer is there.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I sure don't look to see if you're there. (Laughter.)

MR. LEA: You'd know it. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Well, may I return to the budget, Mr. Speaker?

This budget, Mr. Speaker, expects the ordinary working men and women

of this province to control their wage demands, to tighten their belts,

to suffer and be pure. Well, they're not very pure, Mr. Speaker, but

they sure as heck are suffering! They sure as heck are.

While they are making these demands of the working people of this

province, they are increasing the costs that working person must

endure. That is a Catch-22 that has no humour in it whatsoever. It is a

cruel joke; it is a betrayal of election promises.

They said they would freeze government spending; they said they

would freeze taxes; they would freeze oil and gas. What they did was

pay lip-service to the price freeze on food for a short period of time.

Then every one of that front bench couldn't help themselves but jump up

in front of the cameras and declare some new increase that the ordinary

little people of this province have to bear.

Nothing about any new resource taxation formula. Nothing that can

bring in new revenue on natural gas. But the little people, Mr. Speaker

— oh, they can pay, because they want to feel pure. They want to feel

purged. They're being spanked for voting NDP.

MS. BROWN: Terrible!

MR. LAUK: And on we go.

MS. BROWN: As a mother I know that's not right.

MR. LAUK: The New Democratic Party, on October 24, 1975...

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The architect of the wasteland.

MR. LAUK: ...announced an increase in Mincome to $265 a month

for single persons and to $530 for couples. It announced an increase in

the minimum wage from $2.50 to $3 an hour. It announced continuation of

rent control, with a decrease from 10 per cent to 8 per cent...

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: ...to 8 per cent, and all the shouting in the world won't save them. We said 8 per cent; they say 10 per cent. They know it.

We announced a plan to establish a housing corporation to provide first mortgages at lower interest rates.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: We put a price freeze on all food and beverage

products — the only province in Canada to do this, Mr. Speaker — put a

freeze on all energy prices, including home heating fuels, gasoline,

propane, natural gas and electricity, put a price freeze on

transportation, including ferries and bus fares, announced new

legislation to be introduced on rental control on commercial properties

to help small businesses. We demanded our law control bank profits,

interest rates, mortgage rates and professional incomes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): And broke the

[ Page 332 ]

province doing it.

MR. LAUK: What has the Social Credit done since they were

elected? They've increased auto insurance anywhere from 100 to 400 per

cent, and promised to let the United States insurance industry back

into the field to pay off old campaign debts — not so old; they're even

lukewarm — increased electricity and natural gas rates an average of 12

per cent, and allowed an increase for home heating oil of 4.54 cents

per gallon.

HON. MR. MAIR: Increase? Increase? What do you mean?

MR. LAUK: You've got to repay the oil companies for their campaign fund contributions, it says on speaker's note 325.

They've eliminated the price freeze on propane and gasoline. What

about the northern MLAs? They've eliminated the price freeze on propane

and gasoline, and you sit there silently on your hands in that

steeplechase for the cabinet post you want?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: They have allowed an increase in the allowance for residential rents from 8 per cent to 10.6 per cent.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: They have cancelled the plan to introduce rent

control on commercial premises and then cancelled the food price freeze

that affects mostly the lower-income and fixed-income people of this

province.

Well, Mr. Speaker, all of these increases, together with the

increases that we have now in the budget, have put the ordinary

industrial worker in this province in a complete and utter bind. The

average person who works — a member of the IWA, Mr. Speaker, let's take

that example. The average industrial worker gained a percentage

increase that was held down because of the fight against inflation, and

their leader John Munro was a very reasonable union leader in this

province and should be hailed as such on all sides of the House. He

said to his union: "We will act responsibly and keep our demands low."

What was his reward, Mr. Speaker? What was the reward that he can now

tell his members? That increase and more was taken up by the ICBC

increases in automobile insurance rates.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Then he goes on, and he says to his workers: "We've

still got to cooperate. We've got to belt-tighten. Look at the ICBC.

We're having problems." Then he's hit with a budget that increases his

personal taxes, his sales taxes and his Medicare payments by 50 per

cent. He is now hundreds of dollars behind what he was when he first

negotiated the increase. He's been betrayed, Mr. Speaker, and I don't

blame him for feeling betrayed. Why should he be the one to tighten his

belt? Why should he be the one to go home and tell his family they will

have to do with less because that bottom line government over there has

no feelings for the ordinary working man. They only feel for the

corporate interests which they represent.

The wages, Mr. Speaker? Salaries for 1973 and 1974, including the

industrial workers, rose in that period of time 21.8 per cent. The cost

of living, before these increases in this province, rose 22.7 per cent.

They're behind before these increases.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Who was in government then?

MR. LAUK: The working Canadian cannot afford to wait. How can

we ask them this year in negotiations to say pull back? Their car

payment is due now.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: How is Larry?

MR. LAUK: Their ICBC rates are due now. Their rent or their

mortgage payments are due now. Their sons and daughters want to go to

university and college this fall — not two years from now, not next

year, this fall.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Make a suggestion. Be helpful.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I'll be helpful. I'm going to give you an

alternative to this budget in a moment, Mr. Member, but I think I must

lay a foundation. Wouldn't you agree, Mr. Speaker? I've got to lay a

foundation to give an alternative.

What about tax relief to over-65s? Now nobody on this side of the

House resents that. What about the tenants? I represent an area — and

some of the members of the Social Credit back bench represent ridings —

with large tenant populations.

What about the people over 65 who rent premises? All these people

are considered by that government as second-class citizens. My

predecessor, Herb Capozzi, God rest him, argued for renters' grants in

this House, and they were ignored for years. Finally he was able to

push it through. Then he was ostracized by this new Premier. But they

are always treated as second-class citizens — the rent control, a cruel

joke

[ Page 333 ]

at 10.6 per cent; in three years the landlords can

raise rents by 34 per cent, in five years they will be able to raise

them by 65 per cent.

If someone is paying today $200 a month, in five years they can be

paying $340 a month, or more, under this so-called rent control system

of that government over there. So what about some relief for the

tenants? Have you considered that, you northern MLAs? The member for

Kamloops.

HON. MR. MAIR: That's not north and you know that!

MR. LAUK: It's north to me, and you look pretty bush to me,

Mr. Member. (Laughter.) What about the approach in the budget to

Mincome and the new restrictions, Mr. Speaker? You know, here's a

letter.... I'm sorry the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm) is not here today. "Dear Mr. Lauk,

"Here's an example of how the Social Crediters are

wasting the taxpayers' money. Bennett said over and over again he would

not touch Mincome, and it's one of the first things he's gone back on.

My husband is retiring this year and I am 62. We will have $400 a month

to live on and Vander Zalm (that's the Minister of Human Resources)

says all or nothing at all, so instead of assisting us with $130 a

month he's now going to pay us $530, because we're going to cash in our

shares and blow the works. He will be paying us $4,800 more per year,

for life, than if he had left us alone.

"I am surprised that... (and the expletive is deleted)

individual has enough sense to put his tulip bulbs in right side up. He

doesn't want people building estates on Mincome, but if you don't think

buying a house a few years ago for $20,000 and have it now worth

$65,000, or more, is not building up an estate, I don't know what it

is. His Mincome costs are going to zoom sky-high, and to think I voted

Social Credit. I know many others who are going to do the same thing.

Yours truly, Mrs. Elva Johnson."

Now you know, Mr. Speaker, that letter exemplifies the kind of fuzzy

economic thinking; anything simplistic appeals to the government over

there. They don't realize that by shutting off costs to day-care

centres.... In one day-care centre in my riding alone, 20 single

mothers will be forced onto welfare, and they will be paying 10 to 11

times the costs they would be to give a little bit of support to the

day-care centre, women who now can go out and earn a living, and

contribute to the cost of the day-care centre, to relieve the

government burden, to fulfil the same promise that you were arguing

about during the election campaign — that is, have people make out for

themselves and be responsible for themselves. This is forcing them back

on to welfare.

Is that the kind of economic thinking you are proposing? What a

ridiculous thing for you to suggest. I am sure that you will reconsider

on those points.

Who suffers from ICBC rate increases, ferry rate increases? Only the

rich can ride now, Mr. Speaker. It reminds me of the stories of the old

days when the aristocracy rode through peasant villages in elegant

carriages. Now we are forcing the poorest people, the middle-income

people, off the roads and highways, not being able to use ferries, so

that the rich can ride their big Cadillacs, their Mercedes Benz, their

Rolls Royces, driving over the countryside laughing at the poor.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): What colour is your Mercedes?

HON. MR. MAIR: You are the only member with a Mercedes.

MR. LAUK: Well, let's put it in perspective. Some of the

members are questioning my use of terms, and I know it's harsh. But you

know, when it comes down to the bottom line in economics, that's

exactly what it means. Take care of the people who can afford it. But

what do you say to the person who can't afford it? "You walk. You walk."

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the Hon. Premier withdraw the word hypocrite.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): If the member thinks it's offensive that I call him a hypocrite for driving a Mercedes Benz, I withdraw the remark.

MR. LAUK: I thank the Premier for that unconditional withdrawal. (Laughter.) I do drive a Mercedes Benz.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, is this coming off my time?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I must press on, then. I should

tell you this: they say about socialists not having a good business

instinct; well, let me describe to you my personal history.

In 1966 I bought a Mercedes Benz for $8,000. It is now worth, I am

told, $8,000. It's over 10 years old, it gets good mileage, and they

call me a hypocrite? No, Mr. Speaker, that's not so — good business

sense.

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised in reading the budget

[ Page 334 ]

speech that they did not back-slide and ask for our

forgiveness, especially the Minister of Economic Development — and I

hesitate to call his attention to my speech once again, operating on

the old empty-vessel theory. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I was very disturbed to see after the election that

they refused $117 million of federal money in the railway agreement.

They left it on the table. Mr. Speaker, these people left that money on

the table all because the Premier — who was not then the Premier —

during the election campaign said to himself: "Oh, I can't let them

have this kind of an announcement in the middle of an election. I've

got to say the agreement's bad." They have not come up with one reason

why the agreement's bad. It's an excellent agreement for British

Columbia.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's an absolute falsehood, and you know it.

MR. LAUK: I heard the minister interviewed on CBC radio and

every time the interviewer said "well, what's wrong with the

agreement?", he said: "I don't want to prejudice negotiations with

Ottawa." The interviewer said: "What negotiations? I didn't think there

were any". He said: "Oh, well, there will be."

You know, Mr. Speaker, prejudice what negotiations? The agreement is

a good agreement. You know it, Mr. Minister, and you are going to sign

that agreement....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LAUK: This man has no respect for the rules.

Mr. Speaker, that agreement was a good agreement for the economic

development of this province. Everyone says so, and let me tell you

something else — $117 million down the drain because I know from my

sources in Ottawa — are you ready for this? — they want to pull out of

that agreement because they know they don't want to give that $117

million. You sign that agreement now, Mr. Minister, and you won't miss

the boat.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Do you want me to sell B.C. down the drain?

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Columbia River?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, that agreement would lead to the great economic development of the northwest and the northeast of this province.

So we gave running rights to the CNR. What are we, a sovereign

country unto our own? No, we gave the CNR running rights and we have

originating rates for traffic from the northeast on the great British Columbia Railway and that evens itself out. In addition, we get $117

million to the provincial coffers. This minister, because he's been

browbeaten by the Premier, told what to say, told what to do, is

turning his back on the people of his own constituency and delaying the

development of the northeast and northwest for a crass political reason.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'd do that for $150 million....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the decision was just political and

the Premier is opposed to the agreement simply because he got his

fingers pinched in someone's briefcase. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Ouch!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: He's saving face on our time instead of his own.

That agreement, Mr. Speaker, must be accepted, and must be signed, and

it must be now or the federal government may pull out.

Now what about the economy, Mr. Speaker? We've heard so much about the....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I do a one-man act, if you don't mind.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, that was unkind. Oh, the member for North

Okanagan, after all we've.... Oh, I am speechless. (Laughter.) It's

almost a Pavlov dog situation in here, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, dealing with the Clarkson, Gordon report, do you know

we've heard so much about that and its review of the finances of this

province. I think that my colleagues have sufficiently shot that one

down.

You know, that report started to be prepared by the bagman

accountant who was taken off the case, the bagman accountant by his own

admission, a bagman for the Social Credit Party, and he was appointed

by that government to do an audit. The Premier said "audit" — now we

know it's a "review" of the figures that were provided to him by the

Premier and the cabinet.

The other day when the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) was

talking about the economy, he was referring to one of our own

in-service documents from the Department of Economic Development, an

absolutely first-class

[ Page 335 ]

organization, which I established myself.

(Laughter.) There were people involved in that organization, the best

economic advisers we could find in the country — and I know the

minister's going to keep them all — who prepared an independent,

unbiased view of the economy, and they said things were fine.

But what did the Premier do when the member for Nanaimo was talking? He waves a copy of the DREE report. Have you read it?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The DREE report says that we're not doing so well.

You ask them what evidence they have. None. Do you know who said that

our statistics division — now in your department, Mr. Minister — is one

of the best in the country? Mrs. Ostry of Canadian statistics. These

are the people that put together....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: May I advise the speaker he has one minute left of his speech?

MR. LAUK: I'm much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I've got

about three hours to go here but I'm sure there'll be another

opportunity. There are many more points that have to be made on this

budget. I may have to propose an amendment. Have you got one ready?

(Laughter.)

Well, Mr. Speaker, the....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Now Mrs. Ostry said we have a good statistics

branch. In that report they said: "British Columbia's economy has

withstood the shocks of world recession and major work stoppages of

1975 surprisingly well. Personal income growth is estimated at 16 per

cent." That was a major factor contributing to an anticipated 10 per

cent growth in the gross provincial product.

The wholesale price index was up only 7-point-some per cent compared

to the dramatic 22 per cent increase in 1974, but still up. Do you know

why the wholesale price was down in 1975? It was the price freeze —

this little NDP government sticking up for the little people, the

consumers of this province.

What does the new Consumer Services minister say? Do you know what he says?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: He withdrew the price freeze and kicked them in the rear. That's all that consumers need. He said: "Kick them in the rear."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the hon. member kindly conclude at his convenience, please?

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MS. BROWN: At your convenience.

MR. LAUK: Concluding briefly, Mr. Speaker.... (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: If I could leap forward to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could you do it in say, about 10 seconds, hon. member?

MR. LAUK: Ten seconds you are.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, to the right-wing coalition that triumph

and defeat — I want you to get this now — triumph and defeat are but

imposters. Remember that no matter what side of the House you're

sitting, there is a game of musical chairs that we don't play, Mr.

Speaker. The people play. You've embarked upon a very ugly course in

this budget that will leave a bad taste in the mouths of British

Columbia voters and taxpayers for a long time to come.

MS. BROWN: Revenge.

MR. LAUK: It's a revenge budget, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I was not permitted, before I received....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Sit down.

MR. LAUK: I'll sit down, yes.

MRS. JORDAN: These are your rules. Remember that.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, thank you for drawing the time to my attention. I will sit down but I would like to just say one thing.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the hon. member would tax the chair, if you did that. Would you please rise another time?

MR. LAUK: You're a very patient man and I

[ Page 336 ]

thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, it is again...

AN HON. MEMBER: Attaboy, Jim!

MR. CHABOT: ...a pleasure to take my place in the new

parliament, the 31st parliament of British Columbia. I want first of

all to express my appreciation for the confidence of the electorate

from Columbia River who have sent me to Victoria on five occasions. I'm

happy to have the opportunity of continuing to serve them in their best

interests.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your elevation to the

high office of Speakership of the Legislature. Your role is that of a

mediator, and I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that you won't encounter too much

difficulty from the member for Columbia River.

MRS. JORDAN: Right on!

MR. CHABOT: The member for Columbia River has always adhered to the rules...

AN HON. MEMBER: Your rules.

MR. CHABOT: ...and has never had any difficulty with Speakers (laughter) who have shown impartiality in this House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the act we've just witnessed in this assembly from...

MR. LAUK: Order!

MR. CHABOT: ...the former Minister of Economic Development is

indeed difficult to follow. He's a natural born actor. He's all wind

and no action. We witnessed that when he had the responsibility of

administering the portfolio of Economic Development. Every time we

attempted to elicit some information from that minister we were always

told that his department was under review.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

MR. CHABOT: Not only was his department under review, but

practically the departments of every aspect of government were under

review for three and a half years. He was a review. He was not a

government governing for people. He was a government reviewing the

books and doing nothing.

That minister, that member and former minister, has the gall to

stand in this House and suggest that the price of propane and

electricity is going up in this province, when they've increased the

price of propane and electricity at record levels!

MR. LAUK: We froze them.

MR. CHABOT: In a three-and-a-half year period never in the

history of British Columbia has propane increased to the proportion it

increased in 1974. It more than doubled in 1974. When I approached the

Energy Commission set up by that group when they were government, and

ministers of the Crown as well, they told me their hands were tied,

there was nothing they could do, the people would have to take it, and

the price of propane was doubled. That minister, that former minister

over there, has the gall to stand in this House and complain about a

slight increase in the price of propane. What gall, Mr. Speaker, from a

former minister of the Crown!

MR. LEA: Well, so are you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which former minister?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Don't be jealous.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, that former minister and the first

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), attempts to set himself up as

an expert in the management of government. He was probably an example

as the most inefficient administrator in government in the history of

this province. He talked about the B.C. Railway and the potential

management of a man who has given 20 years of his life in service to

the province of British Columbia, who has established the most

comprehensive and most sought-after forestry policy ever seen in any

nation, Mr. Ray Williston. That former minister has the gall to attack

the man that is sought by all governments throughout the world. No, I

hope that Ray Williston will become the head of the B.C. Railway.

Maybe we'll get some efficiency there.

I recall very clearly when the first member for Vancouver Centre was

a director of the B.C. Railway, Mr. Speaker. Oh, he was in charge of

the new railway car plant that was established in the community of

Squamish.

Oh, you know, they had the gall to talk about the overrun on the

Columbia River Treaty. Oh, yes, massive overrun. You know, 33 per cent

overrun over a 10-year period. Well, they built a railcar plant that

took about three years to build — two years longer than projected — and

would you believe that the overrun during that period of construction

was 85 per cent? Eighty-five per cent overrun. And those people have

stood in this House, Mr. Speaker, time after time, so many times, and

have given the same

[ Page 337 ]

speeches since '63, that I can remember, that I

could almost recite them verbatim myself. How ridiculous to criticize

the Columbia River overrun of 33 per cent in a 10-year period,

approximately 3 per cent per year, and then an 85 per cent over a

short-term construction of a railway car plant in the community of

Squamish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: How many cars?

MR. CHABOT: Oh, yes, I recall when the first car came off the

assembly line — the minister made an announcement in the Legislature

just about two weeks before. Oh, he gave us a projection and the

difficulties they were having with the new railcar plant. Oh, they were

having serious difficulties; it will be about two to three months

before the first car rolls off — even though they're already 18 months

behind. Then, lo and behold, we have to read in the Vancouver Province

a press report in which the first car came off the assembly line in

Squamish about two and a half months before the minister and the

director of the B.C. Railway had indicated in this House would take

place. So as he reads the newspaper report in the Province , the

minister is quite amazed. He's sitting back here, you know, as chirpy

as he usually is and....

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: No. You know, if that makes you feel indignant,

Mr. Member, I certainly withdraw that. I won't be abusive; I'll leave

that to you to hurl insults and libelous statements against individuals

in this House where they have no right of recourse, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I would ask the

hon. member to withdraw the statement that I have made libelous

statements. I did not libel anyone in my speech in this House this

afternoon.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: This afternoon? What about yesterday?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, on your point of order: I listened

to the remarks of the hon. member for Columbia River, and as I recall

them, and Hansard will show the exact words, he said: "I'll not make

libelous statements; I'll leave that to you." He didn't infer that you

had made a libelous statement at any time during your speech, as I

recall.

MR. LAUK: I took the inference, Mr. Speaker. Maybe the hon. member did not mean to imply it, but if he did, could he withdraw?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're guilty if you must protest.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member implied or inferred that the

hon. first member for Vancouver Centre made libelous statements in the

House, would he withdraw it?

MR. CHABOT: Well, I would withdraw if the member feels offended by anything I might say. I'm always willing to advocate to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this afternoon I

listened to the most despicable, vicious and unwarranted attack against

a British Columbian that I've ever witnessed in this House. This was an

attack against a man who served his province well in 16 years as

Attorney-General, and that man is Robert Bonner — a man who has the

capabilities of being the chief executive officer of the B.C. Railway.

Mr. Speaker, this is a personal attack which is not warranted in

this House. This is the kind of attack that this member has a habit of

giving in this House, the kind of attack that he doesn't dare repeat

outside this chamber where he has immunity.

No, Mr. Speaker, I challenge that member to repeat those statements

outside this House. He'll find out whether those statements are

libelous or not.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: You don't dare. Mr. Speaker, that member doesn't

dare to repeat those statements outside. He has the gall to question

the ability of a man who served very well as Attorney-General of this

province, who served very well as chief executive office of one of the

largest forest complexes in the Commonwealth. Then he challenges his

ability, his integrity to lead the B.C. Hydro, yet we know who he

followed in that position. He followed a man who had no qualifications

whatsoever. The only qualifications he had, Mr. Speaker, and I listened

very attentively to the member on television the other night, and he

couldn't even give us the credentials or the reasons why Jimmy Rhodes

qualified to be the chairman of B.C. Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you what the qualifications of Jimmy Rhodes were to be the chairman of B.C. Hydro....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Are you on a point of order, Mr. Member?

MR. CHABOT: Gee, he's touchy.

[ Page 338 ]

MR. LAUK: If the hon. member will guarantee me that Mr.

Bonner will serve the same length of time as Mr. Rhodes, I'll withdraw

my remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! That's no point of order, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Chirpy!

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the only qualifications that I've

been able to establish that Mr. Rhodes had to become the chairman of

B.C. Hydro were that he once was a room-mate of Dave Barrett when he

was a member of the Legislature, he was a socialist, and he was a

friend of the government. That's the only qualifications he had.

AN HON. MEMBER: Vicious attack!

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Bonner brings ample qualifications to his role as chairman of the B.C. Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak very briefly on the member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and some of the statements he had to say

regarding the job-security budget of March 14, 1975. He was then

Minister of Economic Development. He said: "It seems to me that the

opposition party has failed to comprehend the thrust and the dynamic

nature of this budget."

Well, we've got the evidence of the dynamic thrust of that budget,

Mr. Speaker. Labelled as a "job-security budget" by the former Minister

of Finance and Premier of this province (Mr. Barrett), never in the

history of this province have we ever witnessed the degree of

unemployment that we had in the year 1975. That cliché "job security"

wasn't borne out by the facts about the high rate of unemployment we

had in this province — the highest in the history of British Columbia.

Oh no, the job-security budget didn't make provisions to alleviate

the punitive tax measures that they had imposed against the mining

industry of British Columbia so that people would have an opportunity

of being gainfully employed again. They virtually shut down the

exploration in the mining industry, Mr. Speaker. They shut it down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

HON. MR. MAIR: Stay and listen, Gary, you might learn something.

MR. CHABOT: Oh no, the member for Vancouver Centre runs. He can't take the heat.

MR. LAUK: I'm staying right here.

MR. CHABOT: We know what happened in the mining industry. We

know the constant threats they made against the forest industry that

resulted in no expansion whatsoever in the last three and a half years.

The government was busy, Mr. Speaker, busy in wasting the taxpayers'

money. The Minister of Economic Development, rather than initiating new

policies that would create employment for British Columbians, was busy

trying to spend money by acquiring land at inflated prices and

unrealistic prices to establish industrial park sites in the province.

I'm not going to take all the time to reveal the facts of the

purchase of the old Molson hop farm just east of Kamloops. I don't

blame those people who sold the land to the Government of British

Columbia, but I blame the minister for having paid extravagant and

excessive prices for that land. What a waste of millions of dollars

unnecessarily by that minister who has the gall to stand in this House

and attempt to lecture the government on its priorities!

HON. MR. MAIR: Tell them about the Highland Valley, too, Jim.

MR. CHABOT: No, Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively as well

yesterday to members of the opposition when they talked about the other

provincial governments that have deficit financing. They suggested that

— virtually suggested — that this is the route we should go in British

Columbia. They set the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and Quebec as

beacons to be watched, as directions to be followed. Mr. Speaker, I

want to tell you that I wouldn't want to be a part of a government that

believes in deficit financing. I believe that this government is taking

the right route by going on a pay-as-you-go basis. Mr. Speaker, this

budget is a document of fiscal responsibility...

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. CHABOT: ...and political reality. It is a sharp contrast

to what we've witnessed in the last three and a half years, the kind of

fiscal irresponsibility and political immaturity that was given to us

over three and a half years. This is a government that recognizes the

greatest need in this province and they have directed the greatest

allocation of funds to the areas of human needs. The three major areas

of the human needs have received the greatest increase in allocation of

dollars. They are health, human resources and education.

It's clearly spelled out, Mr. Speaker, that the expenditures for

health are to increase by 20.5 per cent to $871 million dollars, to

take up 25 per cent of the entire budget. It clearly indicates the

government's priorities: education, the second-largest

[ Page 339 ]

government expenditure, $846 million overall

increase, almost 11 per cent over last year's allocation for education.

The increase is caused primarily by increase in the quality of

education and the additional costs in the quality of education in the

province and not by the growth and student enrolment in our schools

which have stabilized over the last several years.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, inflation has had a bearing. Inflation has

certainly had a bearing. But student enrolment is a minor factor as far

as increased costs in allocation for education are concerned. Public

school enrolment has increased by only 31 per cent since 1965 and yet

we look at the budget for education in that same period of time and it

has increased six fold from $141 million to $846 million today. The

allocation for education in this budget is almost double the entire

1965 budget for the province of $488 million.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): What is it?

MR. CHABOT: The allocation this year? It is $846 million.

MRS. DAILLY: What hasn't gone up?

MR. CHABOT: So it has gone up six fold since 1965 and yet

student enrolment has increased only by 31 per cent. So there is a

vast difference there. So the priorities are right. The money is being

directed towards people needs, Mr. Speaker.

Now I want to speak very briefly about that other area, and it is

unfortunate the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is

not here at this time because I....

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, no, that's the $100 million loss, Madam, the clerical error, Madam.

We witness, Mr. Speaker, a massive increase, over 22 per cent and

approximately $100 million more for the needy in this province in this

budget. It is a true reflection of the government's concern for the

needy. There's no doubt about that, when the largest percentage

increase is in human resources. It clearly reflects the government's

concern.

We see the provision of a guaranteed income for those between the

ages of 55 and 59, again a reflection of this government's priorities.

This is an innovative move that has no parallel anywhere in this

country. We see that there has been increased allocation for Pharmacare

by 20 per cent to $24 million, an increase of $4 million.

That brings me back to the last provincial election which I want to

talk about very briefly. I want to talk about Pharmacare and Mincome as

it relates to statements being made during the last election. Oh, I

remember listening on television, reading in the newspapers, listening

on the radio and reading the socialist ads in the paper. "We have

strong leadership." Where is that strong leadership today? Where is

that strong leadership today?

AN HON. MEMBER: Parachuting in Vancouver East.

MR. CHABOT: But they threatened the senior citizens of this

province, Mr. Speaker, with the possibility that if they didn't vote

socialist their Pharmacare might disappear, and their Mincome was

liable to disappear. That's what they told the people of the province.

Yet we see the massive increase here for Pharmacare — a 20 per cent

increase from $20 million to $24 million and an expansion to a lesser

age for Mincome for those people in need. What's wrong with that? If

we're financially able to help those people that need help why

shouldn't we help them out?

One of the areas that I am concerned about, Mr. Speaker, with the

Department of Human Resources is that since 1971 there has been a

massive staff increase in that department. It has increased from 1971

to today from 780 employees to 3,100.

You know, you might almost describe that as wall-to-wall social

workers — wall-to-wall social workers, social workers all over the

province. I'm not going to suggest for a moment that there wasn't a

need for expansion of staff within that department as new programmes

were initiated; certainly there was a need. But this appears to be a

colossal, colossal, unnecessary increase in the staff of that

department. I think....

AN HON. MEMBER: Quadrupled!

MR. CHABOT: I would like, and I hope the minister...or

somebody will take to the minister that I believe that there is a need

for a close examination of the staffing, which appears to be excessive

within his department.

I'll give an example of this. Back four years ago in my own

constituency we were serviced at the northern end of my riding by a

social worker coming to the community of Golden to service Golden and

surrounding area. He would come in for one or two days a week. The

community of Invermere and surrounding district was serviced by a

social worker coming in from Cranbrook one or two days a week.

Now we find that in the community of Golden we have two full-time

social workers plus backup staff. In the community of Invermere — a

community with

[ Page 340 ]

a population of 1,350 — we have two full-time

social workers with backup staff. I am suggesting that the staff and

the number of social workers within my constituency is excessive. I'm

not suggesting we go back to the days of part-time social worker

services within my constituency, but certainly two social workers for a

community of 1,300 is excessive along with the clerical help. I think

that should be re-examined.

AN HON. MEMBER: 1,300.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, a community of 1,300 people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. CHABOT: Invermere.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the whole riding.

MR. CHABOT: I'm sure that the former Minister of Human

Resources (Mr. Levi) will strongly support the allocation in this

department because there is an increase of approximately $100 million

more for people that need help in this province.

You know, when we talk about $100 million more it has to remind me

of the clerical error of $100 million. (Laughter.) When the minister

couldn't find that additional $100 million he had spent he ran to the

Premier and he says: "What do we say now?" So the Premier said: "Oh,

well, we'll blame a clerk. We'll call it a clerical error." But I

assure you that that had a great bearing on the downfall of your

government — the laxity and the lack of respect which you had for the

taxpayers' money.

I want to tell the Minister of Human Resources that I have personal

admiration for him in the job he is doing here in British Columbia, and

I want to assure him that he has strong support within my constituency

as well.

Mr. Chabot moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I move that you do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

Motion approved.

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

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Chairman, I move

that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the

public service of the province there be granted that from and out of

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

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

determine a sum not exceeding in the whole $1.222 billion towards

defraying the several charges and expenses of the Public Service of the

Province for the fiscal year ending March 31,1977, not otherwise

provided for, and being substantially 1/3 of the total amount of the

votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977,

as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British

Columbia at the present session.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution and asks leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the resolution as reported be considered?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move that the report of resolution from the Committee of Supply on March 30, 1976, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move that the resolution be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The resolution reads that: from and out of the

Consolidated Revenue Fund there be paid and applied in such manner and

at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may determine a sum

not exceeding in the whole $1 billion 222 million towards defraying the

several charges and expenses of the Public Service of the Province for

the fiscal year ended March 31, 1977, not otherwise provided for, and

being substantially 1/3 of the total amount of the votes of the main

estimates of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977, as laid before the

Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia at the present

session.

Motion approved.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of procedure, Mr. Speaker, I assume we'll be receiving a supply bill now.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go

[ Page 341 ]

into Committee of Ways and Means.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Ways and Means; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move that from and out of the Consolidated

Revenue Fund there may be paid and applied in such manner and at such

times as the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may determine a sum not

exceeding in the whole $1.222 billion towards defraying the several

charges and expenses of the Public Service of the Province for the

fiscal year ending March 31, 1977, not otherwise provided for, and being

substantially 1/3 of the total amount of the votes of the main

estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977, as laid before the

Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia at the present

session.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution and asks leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the resolution as reported be considered?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of

resolution from the Committee of Ways and Means on the 30th day of

March, 1976, be now taken as read and received.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that from and out of the

Consolidated Revenue Fund there may be paid and applied in such manner

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

sum not exceeding in the whole $1.222 billion towards defraying the

several charges and expenses of the Public Service of the Province for

the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977, not otherwise provided for, and

being substantially 1/3 of the total amount of the votes of the main

estimates of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977, as laid before the

Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia at the present

session.

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT, No. 1, 1976

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, a bill intituled Supply Act No. 1, 1976.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, can we ask for a five-minute recess while we circulate the bill at this time?

Leave granted.

The House took recess at 4:30 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:36 p.m.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said bill be referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm just concerned to establish in

my own mind the order of procedure at this stage. The bill has been

introduced, if I understand it rightly, and has had first reading?

MR. SPEAKER: No.

MR. GIBSON: No? Okay, fine. Thank you.

The House in committee; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report recommending the introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports recommending the introduction of the bill.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved. Bill 10 introduced and read a first time.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): I'm speaking to the second reading of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 342 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Leader of the Opposition yield the

floor for a point of order? I'm sorry, Mr. Member, I recognized the

Leader of the Opposition before I saw you rise to your feet.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a very brief point

of order. Since we're passing from one stage of the bill to another on

the same day, wouldn't it be proper to ask leave to do that?

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, I note that the Minister of

Finance has moved second reading of the bill without comment, and this

is a considerable sum that we're debating here: one-third of the total

estimates for the year. I would hope that the Minister of Finance would

be prepared to elucidate somewhat and explain to the House precisely

why he feels it is necessary to seek interim supply on the basis of

such a large amount.

We are facing, in the debate over the next few weeks, Mr. Speaker,

consideration of the estimates of each department and it seems to me

that although the opposition recognizes there certainly is a need to

keep the business of government operating in the interim, the interim

supply is an emergency step and one that should not embody greater

amounts than are absolutely essential. I wonder what the government's

thoughts are in anticipation of the length of this session when they

are moved to ask for such an extremely large amount.

I would expect, too, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance would

be prepared to outline somewhat more precisely the kind of obligations

to meet the public service requirements that justify an expenditure of

this amount. Is it the main wages that are the concern of the

government at this point? Is it the salaries, and so on?

I would seek assurance from the minister that nothing is contained

in interim supply which relates other than to the administrative

functions of each department and the projected estimates that we have

before us for consideration shortly.

I haven't had a chance to study the estimates thoroughly, and I

don't believe any other member of the House has. Indeed, they will be

up for item-by-item consideration. Therefore it seems to me that when

we're looking at such a large amount we need some assurance and some

explanation that there is nothing contained in the estimates that goes

beyond the sphere of the normal procedures in interim supply which

relate to wages, which relate to administration, rather than to any new

programmes that may be embodied in the estimates which the House has

not, as yet, had an opportunity to peruse at length and to discuss and

to debate in the Legislature.

I would hate to be placed in the position of giving any type of

tacit approval to new programmes which the members of the House have

not, as yet, had an opportunity to consider and debate under the

estimates of the various departments.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we are entitled to it, and the

Minister of Finance owes the House some greater detailed explanation

before simply standing in his place and moving second reading of the

bill.

MR. GIBSON: I will be brief with this statement, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would appreciate it if the minister would, on the closing of

second reading, advise us why he has seen fit to ask for one-third of

the year's supply instead of one-sixth, which was the bill introduced

at this time last year, on March 26, 1975.

I would also like to suggest to him.... I think the second reading

is not the proper stage, but I would wish to ask him in committee —

just in case he wishes to have his deputy handy, which I hope he would

have — before we vote this sort of money I think it proper that this

House should know the current financial situation of the province, and

therefore I would be asking the minister: what is the current cash

balance of the province, and what are the current bank or other

obligations that might have to be eliminated by March 31?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Completely relevant, Mr. Premier, completely

relevant to this question. We have to know if indeed one-third supply

for one-third of the year is sufficient, or if there are other

obligations that may have to be wiped out in other ways. We can't

assume in the passage of this bill that any other legislation before

this House may be passed. Therefore, as it seems to me proper, Mr.

Speaker, I will be asking the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), how

much cash he has on hand, and what the loans are. I would hope he would

know that anyway. It is just a simple matter of information for the

House.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not

the intention of the official opposition to unduly delay the passage of

this bill. We recognize the importance of providing for interim supply.

The concern has already been expressed at the amount being sought.

I noticed in an interjection the hon. Premier has said that last year the government had to do it twice.

[ Page 343 ]

But at least, Mr. Speaker, in doing it twice, in

coming forward at approximately this date last year with the smaller

request, it did give some opportunity for every member in the House to

debate some of the estimates at least, to get some idea as to just what

the government was doing, and to get that additional assurance as to

the direction of the spending programmes of the government.

But today we are offered a bill; we are asked to accept the bill. As

I said earlier, we are not going to hold it up long and