1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7971 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act To Establish An Institute Of Native Languages For British Columbia

(Bill M207). Mr. Hanson

Introduction and first reading –– 7971

Oral Questions

Donation of Xerox copier to Vancouver Junior League. Mr. Macdonald –– 7971

Expenses of Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 7972

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 4). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Fraser)

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 7974

Mr. Lorimer –– 7975

Offence Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 3). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 7975

Mr. Macdonald –– 7976

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates.

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On the amendment to vote 28: minister's office (continued) –– 7976

Division

On vote 28: minister's office –– 7976

Mr. Macdonald

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mr. Howard

On the amendment to vote 28 –– 7984

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Barrett

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Mr. King

Division

On vote –– 28: minister's office –– 7994

Mr. Howard

THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I

would like to bring to your attention that we have in the galleries

today, visiting from West Vancouver, Joan and Graham Powell. With them

are three visitors from Liverpool, England: Chrissie Murphy, Pauline

Senior and Alice Williams. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. HALL:

Visiting with us today in the gallery are three very good friends and

constituency workers from the Surrey–White Rock area. I'd like the

House to join with me in welcoming Mrs. Gwen Clark, Mrs. Mary Fee and

Mrs. Isabel McKechnie.

MR. RITCHIE: I am pleased

today to introduce Mr. Fred Middleton to the House. He is a retired

school district superintendent and a hard-working community worker.

With Mr. Middleton are three Rotary exchange students from South

Africa: Wendy Istead, who is billeted in Abbotsford; Carla Sutherland,

who is billeted in Haney; and Tracy Ritchie, who is billeted in Prince

George.

Also in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, I note that we have the beautiful wife of our member for North Vancouver–Capilano, Cheri Ree. Would the House please welcome these guests.

MR. KING:

I'd ask the House to join me in extending a welcome to a group of grade

6 students from Mount Begbie Elementary School in Revelstoke. They are

visiting the parliament buildings with their teacher Mr. Lewis.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Sometimes in the rough and tumble of legislative debate, we miss the

true beauty that surrounds us. Today I had such an experience when I

met with the grade 7 students of the Haney–Pitt Meadows Christian

School. They are with their teacher, Mr. Tuininga, and their

chaperones, Mrs. Groenewold and Mrs. Vander Veen. I'd ask this House to

make them welcome.

MR. LAUK: Would the House please

welcome my constituency secretary, Mrs. Thelma Pankiw, who is being

accompanied today by a member of the NDP judicial committee, a member

of the Vancouver bar, Mr. Chris Harris.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like the House to extend a welcome to one of my

constituents who is an inventor of no slight success. He's here in Victoria

today demonstrating his most recent invention. I welcome Mr. Vince Walters.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH AN INSTITUTE

OF NATIVE INDIAN LANGUAGES

FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

On a motion by Mr. Hanson, Bill M207,

An Act to Establish an Institute of Native Indian Languages for British

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

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

after today.

Oral Questions

DONATION OF XEROX COPIER

TO VANCOUVER JUNIOR LEAGUE

MR. MACDONALD: I have a

question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can the

minister confirm that without authorization he bestowed a tangible gift

upon an organization, The Junior League of Vancouver, in March, 1981,

in the form of a Xerox photocopier?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, most assuredly my answer is no.

MR. MACDONALD:

When Mr. MacMunn, the director of finance, informed the minister that

he couldn't bestow such tangible gifts, did the minister not then write

to Mr. MacMunn and say: "Surely this is a case of the tail wagging the

dog"? What were you saying when you wrote that?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

In view of the tail to the question which now emerges from the member,

that turns out to be a topic the auditor-general is investigating. I

will be very happy, following the release of her report, to discuss

that with the member publicly in this chamber. For that reason, I take

the question at this time on notice.

MR. MACDONALD: Has the minister been interviewed by Erma Morrison, the auditor-general, with respect to the Xerox photocopier?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

I have taken the question as notice, but as the member should know, as

this is a matter of public record that has been well reported and

released, referred to her by me were all of the items raised by the Vancouver Sun and that is one of them.

MR. MACDONALD: Did the minister refer this matter of the Xerox photocopier to Erma Morrison by a letter specifically mentioning it?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

If the member has read the material I released at the time I wrote Mrs.

Morrison requesting her to undertake the inquiry, he would see that I

specifically sent to her, and asked her to kindly inquire into, all of

the material delivered to me by the Vancouver Sun .

MR. MACDONALD:

On the same subject to the Premier, the memorandum of Stewart Goodings,

Assistant Deputy Minister of Consumer Affairs, says his understanding

is that the original agreement with respect to the granting of the

photocopier machine was for half this amount to be assumed by the

Premier's office. So I ask the Premier: did you authorize this gift to

the Junior League, either in money or in kind?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Before I take the question as notice I will say that I can't recall if

any of my staff or I have authorized a number of things worthy of

donation. If I didn't authorize such a thing I certainly would have.

MR. MACDONALD: The Premier is taking as notice whether or not he authorized this thing. You don't remember that, after all the publicity?

[ Page 7972 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT:

He asked if my office has authorized it. I have a number of people in

my office who assist me in doing good work for the people of British

Columbia. While I cannot recall every event, I want to let him know,

most assuredly, that I believe very strongly in the good work done by

the Junior League of Vancouver. I would have made some commitment to

try to assist them. I know that the member wouldn't be asking the

question if the donation of a Xerox was to DERA, but there are many

societies that work for the benefit of British Columbians. I am on

record very firmly as trying to help them help people.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members will please remember to answer only within the scope of the question.

MR. MACDONALD:

I have a supplementary for the Premier. I don't know whether any of

your authorizations are before Erma Morrison or not, but I'll ask the

question anyway: did you know that the Junior League hadn't even

applied for this thing? There are many organizations who do good work

in the province of British Columbia who make applications to the

government for grants. This is the first time in recorded history that

somebody has suddenly received a gift that hadn't even been applied

for. Did you know that, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I can't respond, as I've taken that particular part as notice. But I

can say that I do spend a lot of time assisting societies and groups

that assist British Columbians. I get out there, visit with them and

try to help them help people. I don't wait to be asked. I get out out

there and help the people get on with the job of working for others.

MR. HOWARD: Just like BCRIC!

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I see the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who was quite contrite this

morning about things called across the floor, is back in form.

MR. BARRETT: What a sleazy statement!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Is that the same member...

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: ...who was on his feet this morning....

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. I have to ask the hon. Minister of Energy to come to

order. The Speaker is on his feet. So that all members will be advised

and not caught by surprise, the same rule that applies in committee

will apply in the House: when the presiding officer is on his feet,

there will be silence. In the absence of that silence, the offending

members will be asked to leave the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, in general, our government will seek to try to assist

organizations very strongly, no matter what part of the province or

what part of the city of Vancouver they're in.

EXPENSES OF MINISTER OF ENERGY,

MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to questions taken as notice

yesterday in the House. On Wednesday afternoon the member for Skeena

asked me a series of questions dealing with an official government

visit to New York by me and a senior official of my ministry, notably

my deputy minister, on June 11 and 12 of 1980. The purpose of the trip

was one of the questions. The trip was made four months after the

announcement of B.C.'s energy policy, and its purpose was to meet with

senior representatives of financial and investment houses, energy

consultants, the province's principal financial agents, and

representatives of newspapers and publications such as the Wall Street Journal , the New York Times , Newsweek and several oil and gas journals in New York.

During

the afternoon of June 11 we met in Boston with senior executives of

Arthur D. Little, an international energy consulting company. On the

evening of June 11, after our arrival in New York, my deputy and I

attended a working dinner meeting with officials of the Canadian

consul-general's office in New York. This dinner was also attended by

an investment house representative and an energy consultant.

the morning of June 12, we had a breakfast meeting with the media

representatives I have already mentioned. This was followed by a

meeting with Salomon Bros., a New York financial institution which acts

as one of the province's banking agencies. We next attended a luncheon

meeting with Lehman Bros., Kuhn Loeb, another major financial

institution and provincial banking agency. In the afternoon of June 12

we met with representatives of McKinsey and Co., another large

consulting firm.

Throughout these meetings we were

accompanied by Mr. Nicholas Coolidge, a U.S. consultant, Mr. Peter

Restler, who is now with Lehman Bros., Kuhn Loeb, but was with another

financial company at that time — I've forgotten the name of the company

— and by either Mr. Paul Theberge, the deputy consul-general in York,

or other senior consular officials, depending on the meetings we were

attending. In addition, the senior official of my ministry, Mr. Roy

Illing, my deputy minister, held separate meetings with representatives

of other U.S. financial institutions and oil and energy companies.

would like to deal now, specifically, with other matters raised

yesterday by the member for Skeena: the expense involved in the use of

a limousine and a visit to a Broadway theatre.

In regard to

the limousine, upon our arrival at New York's La Guardia Airport about

5 p.m., which was one of the questions asked by the member for Skeena,

I did not take a limousine to the hotel. My deputy and myself travelled

to our hotel by taxi. We were met by consul-general staff at the hotel,

where we discussed and confirmed our itinerary while in New York. This

was followed by the visit to the theatre which was mentioned and the

working dinner which I referred to earlier.

My deputy

minister and I and the other participants who travelled to the meetings

I have outlined did so in a limousine which was provided by the

consul-general. As many as six people at a time were involved in its

use. I did not order this limousine, and the

schedule of meetings to

which it took us had been prearranged by the consul-general. It was my

understanding that the organization of transportation and other

services was normal practice by the consul-general in New

[ Page 7973 ]

York

for visiting government missions. I was not aware until yesterday in

question period of the cost of the limousine or the fact that it had

been paid for by my ministry. No bill or voucher to authorize payment

ever came to my attention. My deputy minister was unaware of the cost,

and no bill or voucher to authorize payment ever came to his attention.

examining the matter, following the questions raised by the member for

Skeena, I learned that it is normal procedure between the provinces and

the federal External Affairs department that services provided by the

consulate-general are billed back to the province in question. This

bill for limousine service was handled under this procedure.

wish to assure the House, in answer to the question, that had I ever

seen the bill, I would have checked the cost against that of other

modes of transportation, and if the cost was justified by the service,

bearing in mind the tight

schedule of meetings we attended and the

number of people who were in attendance, I would have approved its

payment. If the cost was not justified under the same procedure, I

would not have approved the payment. However, the opportunity to make

that decision was not available to me.

Regarding the second

matter on the itinerary, following the end of the June 11 afternoon

meeting at our hotel I was advised that through the consul-general's

office arrangements had been made for me, my deputy and other members

of the party to which I've already made mention to visit the theatre.

The theatre visit was followed by the working dinner meeting which I

have already mentioned.

As in the case of the bill for the

limousine, I was not aware that the cost of the theatre tickets was to

be charged to my ministry. I was not aware of the cost of the tickets,

and no bill or voucher to authorize payment ever came to my attention.

No bill or voucher to authorize payment ever came to the attention of

my deputy minister. The cost of these tickets was included in the

billing submitted by the consul-general to the government of B.C. As in

the case of the limousine, I was not aware until yesterday during

question period of the cost of these tickets, or that we had been

billed and had paid for them.

I want to assure the House

that had I been advised of this matter, I would never have authorized

payment, and neither would my deputy minister. I would have paid the

cost of my ticket, my deputy would have paid the cost of his ticket,

and the office of the consul-general, I would hope, would have paid the

cost of the tickets for the other persons who attended the theatre. I

did not arrange for the tickets, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to say

that quite clearly.

An expenditure for theatre tickets, in

my view, is not a proper expense for government to meet, and I would

not have authorized it under any circumstances.

While these

expenses were processed and paid by my ministry, particular attention

will be paid in the future to ensure that all expenses charged to my

office will be personally reviewed by me. I thank those members,

despite the way in which it came to the House, for that information

that will allow me to do that in future. If the practice of ministerial

responsibility is to be applied in this case, then I accept that

responsibility. But I must repeat that neither I nor my deputy was ever

made aware of the costs, the billings or the fact that the accounts had

been paid.

Finally, in answer to those questions, Mr.

Speaker, it is my intention to repay the government for the cost of my

theatre ticket; it is my deputy's intention — freely offered by him —

to repay the cost of the ticket to the theatre that was incurred in his

name. This is in keeping with the belief that I have that the cost of

those tickets was not a justifiable use of government funds. In this

regard I also intend, either by myself or through one of my officials,

to write to the consul-general in New York and ask that they pay for

their tickets as well.

MR. HOWARD: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, relating to the answer just given by the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Please state the matter briefly.

MR. HOWARD:

The question of privilege is basically that the minister has given to

the House information which is not in accordance with the facts as

outlined in official government documents. Let me refer you to them to

lay the groundwork for a motion I intend to move, if Your Honour finds

that I do have a prima facie case of privilege.

The first

one is a Telex. A code at the top says NYK025. I checked with the

communications centre of the government of the province of British

Columbia, and NYK is the code for New York. It was addressed to CNGNY,

which I'm advised is the consul-general's office of the Canadian

government in New York. It is stamped: "Received, 11 June 80, 1448,

CNGNY." The text of the Telex says:

B.C. MINISTER ENERGY, MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES VISIT JUNE

NEW YORK 9 JUNE. B. WARBURTON, DIRECTOR, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND SMALL BUSINESS

DEVELOPMENT, HAS PROVIDED FUNDS AND SPENDING AUTHORITY TO COVER COST OF HOST

AT LUNCHEON, DINNERS, RECEPTIONS, MEETING ROOMS. LIMOUSINES, ETC, FOR SUBJECT

VISIT. PARTY INCLUDES HON. R.H. McCLELLAND, MINISTER, R. ILLING, DEPUTY MINISTER.

R. ILLING WILL APPROVE PAYMENTS UP TO BUT NOT EXCEEDING THE $5,000 (CANADIAN)

AUTHORIZED FOR THIS VISIT. ADVISE VOUCHER NUMBERS AND MONTH OF ACCOUNT AS SOON

AS EXPENSES INCURRED. INSURE ALL VOUCHERS IDENTIFIED AS "MINISTRY OF ENERGY,

MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES."

Then there is a code. At the bottom of the last portion of that

Telex, which I will table, appear the letters AFFP 5622. AFFP 5622

relates to a telephone number here in the November 1981 edition of the

government directory. The directory indicates the location of that

telephone number as 1117 Wharf Street. In 1980 the number was assigned

to the magazine Beautiful B.C. ,

published by the Ministry of Tourism. The government Telex supervisor

says that that number is no longer valid. There is another number that

has replaced it. That other number is also that of the Ministry of

Tourism's Beautiful B.C.

There

is a memo dated December 12, 1980, which is also in the file of

documents, to Mr. R.R. Davy, Director of Finance and Administration,

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Buildings:

"Re:

visit of the minister, Hon. R.H. McClelland, and the deputy minister,

Mr. Roy Illing, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, to

New York, June 1980.

"Further to our

discussions and my memorandum of June 13, I am attaching External

Affairs invoice...for a certain amount of money covering expenses

incurred by your minister and deputy minister while in New York. The

amount of $1,298.91 coincides with and includes the hotel rooms of the

minister and the deputy minister, the limousine at five

[ Page 7974 ]

hundred and some dollars and the tickets to 'Sugar Babies.'"

won't go on and read the whole amount, but it refers to vouchers, how

to deal with them, how to pay the bill and so on. It's signed by Brian

Warburton, director of administration.

In discussion with

the Canadian consular office in New York, I'm advised by Mr. David

Adam, whose name appeared on the "Sugar Babies" bill, that the

consul-general's office in New York is not an agent of any province,

that it does not act for any province or any ministry and that it has

no budget to cover provincial visits. It normally does not handle

arrangements of a social nature, such as "Sugar Babies," and does so

only upon a specific request, which would come.... Mr. Adam was not

able to tell me from whom, but he said: "It could come from the

minister or somebody representing the minister."

Mr.

Speaker, I submit that there is sufficient information there to

indicate, especially inasmuch as the minister in his closing remarks

said that he accepts full responsibility for the activity, that he has

brought to the House information which is misleading and not in

accordance with the facts as identified by the documents to which I

have referred.

I submit that the minister, operating through

Nick Coolidge, whom he identified as having a consulting firm or

something in New York — the person who used to be associated with the

firm of Kidder Peabody up until a couple of years ago, a person whom

the Premier used whenever he went to New York, a person whom the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) apparently used whenever they

went to New York for purposes of the provincial government....

They were acting on the instructions and with the knowledge of the minister.

you find that I have a prima facie case of privilege, I intend to move

that a special committee of privilege be appointed to consider the

answers given today in response to my question.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, the Chair has been very lenient in the

length of this statement. I hope that is not an affront to the House,

and certainly it is not meant to establish any precedent. It has been

allowed in this case, and I take full responsibility.

We will review the matter and the motion and bring a decision back as quickly as possible.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

MR. GABELMANN:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon the member for

Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) was advised by the Minister of Transportation

and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) that this particular bill would not be

called this afternoon. Because of that commitment and that promise by

the minister, the order of business as presented by the House Leader is

completely out of order, in my view.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. That is not a valid point of order in this House. That

is a matter between Whips, and the House has no interest in it.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I'm happy to make some general statements regarding Bill 4, Motor

Vehicle Amendment Act, 1982. This bill is an expression of the

government's concern over the number of accidents which cause death and

injury on our highways. To meet this concern the government appointed a

task force of senior public servants from the ministries of

Transportation and Highways and Attorney-General and senior officials

of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. It was called the

Motor Vehicle Task Force, and was to study in broad aspect the causes

of motor vehicle accidents and make recommendations that would result

in the reduction of the number of accidents. This carnage on our

highways resulted, in 1981, in 859 killed and 44,033 injured, with

costs to society of millions of dollars.

Bill 4 is a result

of some of the Motor Vehicle Task Force recommendations. When the

enforcement situation was examined by the task force, it found that

great concern was expressed by the police and the police community with

regard to the point system and its effectiveness. This is the system

whereby a driver who violates a traffic rule receives only demerit

points on his driving record as punishment. While this system is an

effective constraint on the good drivers of the province, it is

ineffective in controlling the poor driver. The police indicated that

they felt the ineffectiveness with many drivers when enforcing the

traffic rules on the highway. The poor drivers were aware of it, and

showed this in their driving habits, which were an example to the young

drivers of our province. Approximately 100,000 persons on our highways

in British Columbia are considered bad drivers. This bill contains

strong measures for the control of drivers who often violate the

traffic rules. The procedures that the bill will allow will cause the

average good driver who commits an offence to be recognized and given a

traffic violation report, which would result in points on his driving

record. For the average good driver, that is enough. The poor driver,

the one with violations, would, when recognized, be treated

differently. He would be given a ticket that would result in a fine and

points when convicted. You could be given a notice to appear in court,

and not pay the fine out of court. If convicted, you could be sentenced

to a fine, to jail, or be prohibited from driving.

It is the

intention of this bill to give much more authority to the police to

bring poor drivers into court. The courts are given more scope in

sentencing, particularly with regard to prohibiting a person from

driving. It is designed to affect the high-point driver, who is

involved generally in more serious accidents, and whose habits affect

the standards of driving by his example. We are all concerned with the

young driver, and I am thinking of the 16- and 17-year-olds. While many

of this age are good drivers under parental control and an asset to

their families, there is a need to control young drivers. This bill

will give more allowance to patrol the driving of this group by the use

of short-term probationary licences, and by imposing restrictions on

the use of their licences.

The motor vehicle department

procedures will be such that the probationary licence will be closely

monitored, and at the first variance from good driving habits, action

will be taken against the driver.

Other provisions of the

bill that will affect the poor driver are: mandatory jail and fine if

convicted of driving while prohibited; impoundment of the vehicle for

24 hours if found driving while prohibited, whether with a friend's car

or one's own; mandatory two-month prohibition if convicted of a traffic

offence where a person has a record of 15 or more

[ Page 7975 ]

points;

mandatory six-month prohibition if convicted of a criminal code

offence, such as impaired driving. Mandatory three-year prohibition if

convicted of failing to stop for a police officer who is required to

pursue the driver. The bill will allow police to prohibit driving for

24 hours where alcohol has been consumed. This would also apply where

drugs affect driving ability. The bill will establish a new offence of

excessive speeding — 30 kilometres an hour over the posted speeds, or

driving without due care and attention. Conviction will result in a

minimum fine of $100.

In each case, the court will be

advised of the person's driving record when considering sentence.

Through these measures and others in the bill, it is my expectation

that we will give the police and the courts the authority to control

the drivers of the province. We expect a high level of enforcement.

This control can result in an improvement in the standard of driving

among the general public, but particularly the poor, high-point

drivers. The result will be a reduction in death, injuries and other

costs to our society.

Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.

MR. LORIMER:

I regret that this bill was called at this time, after the indication

given to our critic on transportation, the member for Mackenzie (Mr.

Lockstead), that it would not be brought up today. He is unavoidably

away.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. That particular debate is not in order at this time.

MR. LORIMER: I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting, on behalf of....

MR. SPEAKER: That's an acceptable motion.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

On a point of order, is it for himself or on behalf of the member? You

can do it whichever way you want to, but indicate clearly.

MR. LORIMER: On behalf of the member for Mackenzie, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

OFFENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The amendments which are before the House in this bill are principally

consequential to the amendments to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle

Amendment Act, Bill 4, which has recently been introduced by my

colleague. The Motor Vehicle Amendment Act provides that a peace

officer who apprehends the driver of a motor vehicle for infractions of

that legislation may issue any one of several different forms of

process for a traffic-rule violation. Bill, 3, the Offence Amendment

Act, is being specifically amended to deal with two of those forms of

process.

The first form of process is the voluntary penalty

ticket which will permit the violator, in the circumstances described

in the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, to pay a predetermined fine out of

court, in lieu of a court appearance. Of course, that leaves to the

person who has been apprehended the right to deny that he or she is

guilty of any offence. But if, rather than defend, the individual

wishes to pay the fixed fine, this will be permitted.

Under

this Offence Amendment Act, this form of ticket may, however, be used

for any offence under any provincial statute for which a voluntary

penalty is appropriate, as well as for traffic-rule violations of the

Motor Vehicle Act. I might offer to the House some examples of offences

for which voluntary penalty tickets might be appropriate under other

statutes: consumption of alcohol in a public place, fishing without a

licence, and driving a motor vehicle with a faulty muffler. Matters of

that kind might be appropriately prescribed under the Offence Act as

those for which voluntary penalty tickets can be issued.

The

second form of process created under this bill is the appearance

notice, which will, when served upon an alleged offender, oblige that

offender to appear in court in order to plead to the offence charged

and, if found guilty by the court, to be sentenced. The appearance

notice is designed to be used in the more serious traffic violations

under the Motor Vehicle Act and for a number of other provincial

statute offences where there is either a power of arrest given in the

statute or where, by reason of the nature of the offence, it is deemed

inappropriate for the offender to be allowed to pay the penalty out of

court.

There are some offences for which the Crown concludes

that the offender should be obliged to appear in court to answer to the

charge. Examples of offences where the use of the appearance notice

might be appropriate are: driving a motor vehicle while one's licence

is suspended, driving without automobile insurance, and the killing of

a prohibited wildlife species under the Wildlife Act. This is the

nature of the offences for which we believe the offender should be

obliged to make his answer in court.

There is another

provision of this bill I would like to mention, and that is an

amendment which will permit the court to imprison a person who fails to

pay a fine that has been imposed under the Motor Vehicle Act within the

time which the court may allow for the payment of such a fine. It is

well appreciated that it has been the practice in recent years not to

imprison for the default in the payment of fines, but our concern with

respect to motor vehicle offences, as my colleague the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has indicated, is of such

a degree that we believe that if the financial penalty is imposed and

the person fails to pay, that person should be obliged to face the

prospect of imprisonment.

There is another amendment that

will, I know, be the subject of some discussion. We are making it clear

that where a minimum fine has been established under the Motor Vehicle

Act, the courts cannot impose a fine lower than the minimum. Examples

of offences where minimum fines are established are: driving without

insurance, $250, and driving while a motor vehicle driver's licence is

suspended, $300.

It may be argued that the imposition of

minimum fines is inappropriate and that we should leave the right to

make a decision as to what the minimum fine might be to the court,

bearing in mind all the circumstances. I can understand that argument,

but it is the government's position with regard to Motor Vehicle Act

offences that if the court wishes to exercise a discretion, it will do

so above a fixed minimum. For too

[ Page 7976 ]

long

we have allowed the drivers of vehicles in this province to treat the

motor vehicle rules with some disdain and blithely ignore the very lax

penalty system which has been in place.

My colleague the

Minister of Transportation and Highways referred to the point system.

We have high-point drivers in this province as a result of a number of

offences, and they virtually ignore the rules of the road and, when

apprehended, ignore the penalties which are imposed. I would prefer not

to have to deal so sternly with this kind of offence, and I look

forward to the day when a government may see fit to modify the

stringent provisions. But until the drivers of this province understand

the implications of their conduct upon themselves and upon others who

are lawfully entitled to use our streets and highways, these minimums

will apply. And we wish the courts to understand the seriousness with

which the government views these offences.

Mr. Speaker, so saying, I move second reading of Bill 4.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, in view of the adjournment of further debate on Bill 4 —

and this logically follows after it — I move adjournment.

MR. SPEAKER: Just so that we are clear, it is Bill 3.

MR. MACDONALD:

Yes, but in view of the adjournment that has taken place with respect

to the debate on Bill 4, I move adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,

MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

(continued)

On the amendment to vote 28: minister's office, $212,539.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 28

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

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

Journals of the House.

On vote 28: minister's office, $212,539.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a very simple question in

committee. Here he is on Broadway, sitting in the musical burlesque

"Sugar Babies." Did it ever cross his mind that the theatre company

wasn't giving those tickets gratis? Who did the minister think was

paying for them?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman,

in answer to the question, I've said in this House that the system

under which those tickets were approved was faulty, and I must

admit.... I'll tell the members again, as I told the press a few

moments ago, that when I was asked whether or not I wished to attend a

theatre, I said: "Yes, that would be nice." I was asked which show to I

would like to go to. The show in question was named and I said: "Yes,

I'd like to go to that show, because an old friend of yours, I'm sure,

and one of your old favourites, Mickey Rooney, star of the Andy Hardy

shows, was in that show, and Ann Miller, a favourite singer and dancer

from the great MGM musicals of the fifties." I chose that show as the

one I would like to go to.

Perhaps I was naive, Mr. Chairman, but I assumed that someone else was paying for those tickets.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I'll answer the question, because I have no fear that I have done

anything wrong. Obviously that assumption was incorrect. At the first

opportunity to see any voucher for theatre tickets, I acted immediately

with instructions that the government would not pay for those theatre

tickets. I might have had that opportunity sooner; if the members of

the public accounts committee had brought those vouchers forward

several weeks ago, we could have acted much sooner.

Also, in

answer to comments tossed across the floor by certain members of this

House that someone is blocking members of the public accounts committee

from having vouchers, I want to say categorically that this is not

true. I would like the chairman of the public accounts committee to

stand up in this House and say whether any member of the public

accounts committee is not able to get vouchers when they are asked for

in the proper year. If there is anyone, I'd like the chairman of the

public accounts committee to make that statement in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I would remind hon. members that we are currently on vote 28, the

administrative responsibility of the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources. What takes place in any other committee is not of

concern to this committee at this time.

The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, under....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. The Chair did err in recognizing the minister, not

recognizing the fact that the member had not finished his line of

questioning. I would ask the Minister of Universities — to help the

Chair in this case

[ Page 7977 ]

— if he would yield to the second member for Vancouver East so that he can continue his questioning.

HON. MR. McGEER: I would be delighted, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MACDONALD:

That is so gracious. I am going to listen to the speech of the minister

of defence. I know it is the same one he has been giving since he

joined Social Credit, but I enjoy it every time it's given. I'll stay,

I promise. If not, I'll listen to it in my office.

The

minister said, about sitting in the theatre: "Maybe I was naive." He

has also told the committee, "I assumed someone was paying for the

tickets," which is a pretty logical assumption, I guess, if you're

going to a show. At the time of that visit, who did you assume would be

paying for the tickets?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would

like to help the committee as much as I can, but I am in a bit of

difficulty. We are apparently discussing vote 28, which has to do with

the estimates of the minister for the year 1982-83. There is a place

ordered by this Legislature to ask the kind of questions that the

member wishes to ask; it happens to be in the public accounts

committee. Those members, for some reason, have chosen not to use the

public accounts committee for that purpose. If they continue to say

that someone is blocking the appearance of vouchers atPublic Accounts ,

as they are.... The people on the other side of the House who belong to

the public accounts committee are the only people who are blocking

vouchers from coming forward to the public accounts committee. I ask

again, for the good of the House, if the chairman of the public

accounts committee would stand in this House and say that anyone has

been blocked from having the proper vouchers come before the public

accounts committee. I know that that chairman is too responsible to

make that kind of statement, because it isn't true.

Mr.

Chairman, I would like you to help me and rule whether or not —

especially since the matter is available for canvassing in question

period and in the public accounts committee — we shouldn't get on with

the business of talking about the estimates contained in vote 28.

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order, I have a question relating to the statement that

the minister just made and its veracity. He said that the members in

the opposition who are on the public accounts committee are the only

people blocking vouchers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD:

That is an accusation against the members here who are on that

committee and should not go unchallenged, Mr. Chairman. You permitted

the member to make that accusation, and it is an absolutely false

accusation. Let me show you why it is absolutely false.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. members, again I would call to all hon. members'

attention that matters involving another committee of the House are not

appropriately discussed at this time under vote 28. I appreciate the

comments of the member for Skeena on his point of order, but the point

of order itself is out of order because, again, it refers to another

committee's deliberations. I would caution all members that if we are

to conduct the business of this committee we must return to vote 28,

the administrative responsibility of the member under that vote.

Complaints or otherwise of members about another committee's functions

or activities are not a matter of debate at this time, either from the

minister or from the members.

The second member for Vancouver East.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The Premier was on his feet.

MR. MACDONALD: The Premier will have his chance.

Mr.

Chairman, I think that the minister was not listening to your ruling,

because he was the one who deflected this off into a discussion of the

public.... I asked a simple question. You assumed that somebody was

paying for the tickets. Who did you assume that somebody to be? It's a

simple question.

The minister has confessed to naivete, but

I don't know whether anybody can go to a Broadway show, where the

tickets cost money, and assume that somebody's paying for it and not

know who that somebody is. What's the answer to that simple question?

Who did you assume was paying for the tickets when you sat there? Even

if you're engaged by the show and entertained by it, at an intermission

you might scratch your head and say: "Hey, that's a nice show. Who's

paying for it? Who's paying for my ticket?" Would you answer that: who

did you assume was paying for the show?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I made that explanation in the House during question period. It really

has nothing to do with my estimates for this current fiscal year.

MR. HOWARD: You're asking for more money.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, we've dealt with that. There was an amendment to that motion. It was defeated.

MR. HOWARD: We're asking to reduce it, you numbskull.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, we canvassed certain matters this morning. The member for Skeena....

MR. HOWARD:

I'll show how gracious I am, which is more gracious than that minister

was in the committee, where he makes the most foul accusations knowing

he can get away with them. Certainly I'll withdraw the word "numbskull."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: I didn't know he had one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, it's awfully interesting that those kinds of comments

come across the floor just hours after the Leader of the Opposition

stood in this House and made such an impassioned plea for members not

to say things like that across the House. It shows up the

[ Page 7978 ]

sham, the hypocrisy, the showbiz of the members on the opposite side.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On a point of order, the member for Rossland-Trail.

MR. D'ARCY:

We have heard the minister several times in the last few minutes say

that his travel is not relevant under vote 28. I'd like the Chair to

rule: if his travel is not relevant under vote 28 — even though an

amount of $42,700 is included — then the entire debate on the amendment

to reduce his travel allowance that we've had for the last two or three

days was out of order. I would like the Chairman to rule on whether or

not ministerial travel — that minister's travel — is relevant for

discussion under vote 28.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, continuing with the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please, hon. minister.

Hon.

members, in response to the question of the hon. member for

Rossland-Trail on the point of order, the travel of the minister is

canvassable under this particular vote. Nonetheless, the Chair has no

knowledge of what takes place outside the House, in other committees.

The members, again, are guided by the responsibility, which they must

share, of their knowledge of what is taking place outside this

particular committee.

MR. D'ARCY: On the same point

of order, my question was whether or not it was relevant for discussion

within this committee. I, too, have no knowledge of what goes on in

other committees.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the travel of. the minister is canvassable under vote 28.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I assume you mean the travel which will be paid for under

the sums which are available for discussion in this committee. I would

be out of order in answering the question, then, but I will answer the

question.

From time to time I ask people out for dinner. We

go out for dinner and I pay the bill. Sometimes I would take them to a

movie. We go to the movie and I pay the bill. Sometimes, Mr. Chairman,

we may even go to a live theatre performance — at my invitation — and I

pay the bill. I assume, perhaps naively, that when someone asks me out

to the theatre, they might pick up the bill.

MR. MACDONALD:

Is the minister's answer that, in this particular case, the Canadian

Embassy was going to pay the bill? Is that what you're telling me?

You're nodding your head. Is that what you assumed? Somebody else would

be paying the bill. Who?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr.

Chairman, we are talking about an event which took place some time ago.

I don't have full recollection of everything that has happened on every

trip I've ever taken, nor do I have full recollection of the

conversations which took place at that time. I do recollect that a

member of a group of people said to me: "Would you like to go to the

theatre this evening?" I said: "Yes, it would be very nice." I was

asked: "Would you like to go to this show?" I said: "Yes." We went, and

I was under the assumption that the tickets would be purchased and paid

for by someone else. I assumed I was a guest of the person who asked

me. I'm sorry, but I just cannot remember which person in that group of

people asked that question. I think that's a pretty common assumption

to make.

MR. MACDONALD: Did it ever flit across the minister's mind that the taxpayers of British Columbia might be paying for the theatre tickets?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, you know I gave a very full statement in the House during

question period because those questions were asked at that time. I

honestly feel that those questions are out of order in this committee,

but obviously the Chairman doesn't agree with me.

It never

crossed my mind that the taxpayers of British Columbia would pay for

those tickets. I would not have authorized the taxpayers to pay for

those tickets had they ever come across my desk. Now that the ministry

was billed I will not allow the taxpayers of British Columbia to pay

for those tickets, because I don't think it's right. I will not allow

it.

MR. MACDONALD: I ask you again who you assumed

was paying for it. You can't go to a show and not know who your host

is. The minister knew perfectly well that this bill was coming back to

be visited upon the taxpayers. You won't tell the committee who you

thought your host was. Who suggested going to the show? Was it you? Who

suggested "Sugar Babies"? Did you have anything to do with picking the

show? I say the minister is worse than naive when he spends taxpayers'

money and doesn't know that the taxpayers are going to be soaked for

it. That's what happened, and if these vouchers hadn't turned up, this

whole thing would have been buried. How much of this goes on in the

government of British Columbia? They spend the taxpayers' money, and

then they say: "Well, I didn't know that it was going to be charged to

the taxpayer." That's worse than naivete.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I suppose there will always be some controversy over

international travel, particularly if it pertains to attracting capital

or business or if it pertains to political contact between the province

of British Columbia and other countries, but it's an important part of

government today. The way in which those visits are developed,

utilizing the offices of the federal External Affairs, is a very

complicated procedure. How they handle their affairs is not something

that would be easily brought to the attention of the minister.

was a little puzzled, because these trips are always very time-wearing,

both in time change, briefing and busy schedules. I'm surprised at the

opposition who scoffed when the minister said that he might have been

naive in not knowing who would pay for the tickets. The Leader of the

Opposition was here then, and I know he did international travel, as

well as some of the other members who were ministers in the former

government. I can only assume by the way they scoffed that if any such

items appeared on their expenses when they were cabinet ministers, they

certainly wouldn't say they were naive. They were calculated as part of

their plan to charge the taxpayers for those affairs.

I only know that I know my Minister of Energy, Mr. Chairman, and I accept very much what he says in this

[ Page 7979 ]

House.

I have been on trips myself representing the people. It is not the

easiest part of government, as much as it may sound glamorous because

most people associate travel with their holiday. Travelling is one of

the hardest things you do as government. The very busy schedule, the

preparation, the travel and the time changes are very difficult, along

with the other arrangements that are offered to a minister by

embassies, consuls or other government agencies. It would not be up to

him to make those sorts of determinations. He would take the

schedule

and consider who was asking the question. I think the consul has

changed in New York now. I think it is Ken Taylor, who is well known in

diplomatic circles, having served as ambassador to Iran. They have

ambassador rank in New York — equal to ambassador on the protocol

level. You would expect very different treatment where the federal

government representative has that type of designation and

classification. Although he is a consul, it is with the equivalency and

protocol of an ambassador. New York is considered that important. For

is very important. Which it is.

So to an employment-building

and economic-creation ministry such as Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources. I do know that our Minister of Energy made a very good

impression in New York. I do know that he travelled to New York and

explained to the financial community and those interested in ways in

which our country could develop that British Columbia had an energy

policy. One of the questions that was asked was: "Is British Columbia,

a growing province...."

We are already well known by some, but not by enough.

Sometimes their general impression of the country is the federal

government and the financial difficulty it has. So we must continually

remind them there is this province in Canada, and show them why we have

a triple-A credit rating and why we should maintain it. That is

something you continually work on. It is worth a lot of money to our

people — in savings and in financing the expansion of this great

province. I know that they were very impressed that here was a province

with a fairly clear-cut statement on energy. They said: "Why doesn't

your national government have one?"

You have to explain the

difference between their states and their federal government and our

provinces and our federal government. They're two different political

systems that have developed differently, ours being a federation and

theirs, of course, having a strong central government with very limited

power in the states. They don't understand very easily that the

resources are owned by the provinces. It is something we must keep

reminding them, because they have confused and mixed messages.

They

heard the former Premier of British Columbia say that he would give

away the oil and gas in this province to the federal government if they

would nationalize it. In most parts of the world — in financial

communities, in development circles and among those who have the

expertise — those are words that strike fear in their hearts that there

is no opportunity for the private sector. It is necessary that

responsible ministers go there and give the message. In this province

we have a government that believes in private enterprise. We had a

government that didn't, and we have a party that is still opposed to

private enterprise and wants to be government again. We have to qualify

it and let them know that there are people such as that in this

province who would attain political power. It is important.

find it a little puzzling, to say the least, that a former minister of

the Crown and a former leader in that other government would laugh and

very seriously question the minister when he said he might have been

naive. That means, of course, that rugby games and trips, or any sort

of entertainment that they undertook, were not by accident or naivete,

but a deliberate attempt on their part to charge the taxpayers.

These

trips are very difficult, and the activities in which a minister may be

involved in order to promote good will and understanding may extend

beyond the normal seminar or meeting.

MR. MACDONALD: Mickey Rooney isn't a banker.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

While Mr. Rooney is short in height other people are short in other

things, Mr. Member for Vancouver East. However, one thing Mickey Rooney

has in common with the second member for Vancouver East is that they

both seem to be very durable. Their careers seem to keep being revived.

Mickey Rooney's was revived by Broadway. The second member for

Vancouver East's career was revived and protected from Bob Williams by

his leader. It helps to have powerful friends in show business — to

last, when you have meagre talent and Mickey Rooney as a....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm saying that it's very important that

British Columbia continue to make their presence felt if we're going to

continue to build this province. It was important when the economy, to

all intents and purposes, was booming. It's even more important now

that the world economy is in a recession. The North American economy is

very much a part of that recession, and the Canadian economy is in the

most difficulty it has been in since the 1930s. It was a time then when

British Columbia right now would be much worse off than we would have

been if it had not been for extensive marketing, attraction of

business, job creation business and expansion of our economy by visits

such as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has made

and must continue to make if we're going to continue to do the job that

people expect from the government.

I suppose there will

always be those whose minds cannot see that we have a greater purpose

than to roll around and talk about saving or wasting hundreds of

dollars, as the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) is

suggesting. He talks about restraint, and his mind can grasp that he

wants to save hundreds of dollars here and hundreds of dollars there,

and that may be the extent of his vision. At the same time, he's part

of an opposition in this House that has opposed a restraint program

that will save the people of this province hundreds of millions of

dollars in the years to come, which will grow into billions if we can

contain the cost of government to the taxpayers. It is a clear example

of two sets of visions, two sets of attitudes and two types of members

in this Legislature who want to be government — one who deals in the

smaller amounts and who cannot raise his sights and goals to deal in

the overall economy and to try and save the taxpayers money to the

extent of hundreds of millions of dollars, and so as aggressively

opposed inside and outside this Legislature a restraint program that is

designed to do that

[ Page 7980 ]

that

was developed because of the downturn in the Canadian economy and the

North American economy. It's not the cause of the downturn, it's the

result of it. Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources is one of the keys to ending the difficulties of the

recession by aggressively attracting development to our province in

these key areas of energy development that will fuel our industries and

create jobs for our people. He supports, at the same time that he wants

development, a restraint program that will save the people hundreds of

millions of dollars in their taxes, yet we see that critic over there

from Vancouver East, whose vision can only reach the level of a hundred

dollars here and a hundred dollars there. He says he's out to save the

people money at the same time he opposes the most aggressive plan of

restraint that's available in this country — one that's being supported

and asked for in other parts of Canada as necessary.

I think

it's a message that the people should see very clearly. Yes, I guess

charges of extravagance, phrases such as "Sugar Babies" or "Broadway

Bob" or something are glamorous. They make good telling after hours,

but at the same time I would hope that the member can raise his sights

and perhaps then change the negative attitude that they've had and that

he has had towards opposing the restraint program. If you're for

restraint in nickels and dimes and dollars and hundred-dollar bills, as

I am, then don't look so foolish as to oppose a major restraint program

that will save the taxpayers billions of dollars — hundreds of millions

of dollars — over the years to come.

We have a task in this

province — it's a difficult task because right now, people are hurting.

And when they think of waste, the people will understand someone going

to lunch, buying a plane ticket, or staying in a hotel room. The one

thing they can't understand is a group of people they elected to go

down to Victoria to solve their problems but who spend their time on

nonsense or playing golf or are absent from the House, who oppose and

are not prepared to deal with the major issues of the day. They're

starting to wonder. They're saying, no wonder the country's in bad

shape, because here we have the dominant opposition party in British

Columbia, the New Democrats, and look where they concentrate their

efforts in British Columbia. No positive alternative; no programs; no

support at a time when people should be coming together.

Then

they look to Ottawa and they see the same party, the New Democrats

there, who gathered together with the Trudeau Liberals to try to force

on Canada in a unilateral way a constitution that wasn't correct,

wasn't constitutional. The process would have given a veto to Ontario

and Quebec. They supported that unilateral action here in British

Columbia, right in this Legislature. Well, they were stopped. But they

look and they see this same group. This is the same group that

supported the federal government — the Trudeau Liberals. When the Clark

government was going to put up the oil and gas tax — yes, the price was

going to go up 19 cents — they combined with Trudeau to throw them out

of office, so that together, one on one side and one on the other, they

could put up the price of oil many times more than that 19 cents.

Today,

if people are mad at the federal government for no policies, remember:

they wouldn't be there without the cooperation between Trudeau and

Broadbent and Barrett and Macdonald and all the rest who defeated the

Conservatives in the House and put the Liberals back in office.

They

see here in British Columbia the same sort of effort: no policies, no

planning, negative criticism. Yes, government should be accountable.

And yes, we'll take our lumps where we've made mistakes. A government

will make some mistakes. But I would hope sometime in this Legislature

we'll get down to the big issues, Mr. Chairman, that the people are

expecting us to resolve, because there are too many people out there

hurting and expecting someone to act positively. While this may be good

fodder for the National Enquirer and some of those magazines, this type of action is not much comfort to people who are looking for positive results.

know this: the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is one

of the most positive members of this Assembly and our government. He

has worked hard to create jobs for people. We're discussing his salary,

so I want personally to tell you how important a role he plays in this

province. He's hard-working. He works hard at his portfolio in a

ministry that is very complicated and complex. He's fighting off the

difficulties that we are having as a province where we own the

resources, yet we have been throttled and thwarted by the national

energy program, the nationalization of the industry that was advocated

or supported by the NDP in setting up PetroCan so they could put up the

price at the pumps to pay for any new gas station they decided to buy.

Of course, it was what you call back-door socialism. The NDP and the

Trudeau Liberal Party have been together on this. But it's created

great problems. It's hard for us to defend our oil and gas rights and

fight for development and jobs in the drilling industry, up in Fort St.

John and in the northeast, when we go back east and they say: "Look,

you may be the government, but the NDP were government once and they

say they're going to be government again." At a national energy

conference on television in front of all the people of Canada, the

present leader of the New Democratic Party offered to give British

Columbia's birthright, the oil and gas rights, to Prime Minister

Trudeau. He offered to give them away if he would nationalize them.

Mr.

Chairman, this minister has fought that liaison and loose coalition of

NDP here and Prime Minister Trudeau on the federal level through their

federal leader. I can remember when we fought it. That member for

Vancouver East used to call us Ottawa-bashers.

I can

remember when we had an important energy conference. Why, they were so

thick that they had a special little meeting — something that never

happened when governments met government. Mr. Lalonde went down the

hall from a government meeting to meet with the NDP caucus. He said:

"It's just that we're old friends." Real friends. Now I'd like to hear

you say that again, Mr. Member from Vancouver East. That's what they

said then, Mr. Minister of Energy. It certainly made his job more

difficult. This Minister of Energy will have to travel a lot to carry

the message of what British Columbians really want, because that

message has been bluffed by that New Democratic Party, both inside and

outside our country. This minister has done a lot of good. There are a

lot of jobs in British Columbia now, and there will be a lot more in

the future, because of the efforts of that minister.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, we weren't exactly on the vote the whole of the time the

Premier was speaking, but I can't resist answering one or two points.

[ Page 7981 ]

We're

not talking about small sums of money. We're talking about extravagance

on a very large scale; we're talking about extravagance in public

relations and publicity paid for by the taxpayer for the partisan

benefit of the government, running to maybe $25 million, and that's not

small change. We're talking outrageously high travel expenses on the

part of this government, particularly in a time of restraint. There is

one for $59,000 in a single year. How can you spend it? What do you do,

funnel it out the back of a jet? I can't understand it. If the Premier

were a leader worthy of the highest office in this province, he would

set an example himself in a time of restraint; his colleagues would set

an example. How can you ask somebody who is a clerk typist in the

government service to exercise restraint when the government ministers

are spending extravagant amounts out of the public trough on hotel

rooms, wine and all of these other things? You are setting a very poor

example of restraint, and the Premier is supposed to be the leader in

the province of British Columbia. What kind of a leader is that? We're

not talking about small things; we're talking about setting an example,

and this government is setting a very poor example. If we want a sound

economy in this province, if we want an exercise of restraint, and

certainly we do in many sectors of our economy, then the government

must be worthy of setting a proper example. Otherwise, the people of

British Columbia are simply going to say: "Throw the rascals out."

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to expand on a question asked of me earlier

today, in a previous session, by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea)

and the member for Port Alberni (Mr. Skelly). In regard to new ideas

and projects for energy in British Columbia; I think it's important

that the public understand there is activity in British Columbia, that

we are actively searching for new ways to provide the self-sufficiency

that we need in energy supply over the years. Also it is important that

we build on our strengths. Those strengths include a marvellous

endowment of natural resources in this province, ranging from water to

coal, oil, gas, renewable wood resources, all of which can be tapped in

many better ways for the future.

A number of projects

completed in the last fiscal year will help us, we hope, to reach some

of those objectives. I mentioned this morning the wood-waste wet-cell

burner in the lime kiln at Port Alberni — some $200,000 on behalf of

the provincial government. It was a joint effort by the Canadian

government, the provincial government and the company involved. The

Victoria municipality's waste co-generation study was done last year

Vancouver's solar hot water system for co-op apartments was designed

last year; the Vancouver Energy Information Centre and energy-efficient

housing renovation demonstration, which Mayor Harcourt of Vancouver,

the good friend of the member for Vancouver East, and myself officially

opened, and which Mayor Harcourt has praised publicly; a program for

small hydro at Knight Inlet University of Victoria's solar heating for

their pool and sports centre; I mentioned earlier today — incidentally,

that was a $140,000 program by the government — the Meager Creek

geothermal development; the Port Alberni health-care home solar hot

water program; the Surrey municipal energy management and control

system.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

There have

been a number of energy information displays around the province. Some

members of the House may have visited one of the schools in their own

constituencies and seen the mobile school energy education project.

It's widely used and accepted. In fact, one of the schools in my

constituency, Langley Secondary School, held an energy week not long

ago, which I had the opportunity to attend, and they used the mobile

school energy-education project to very good advantage,

Then

there's the Energy Fair which was held two months ago — or something

like that — at Robson Square, which the member for Vancouver East's

friend, Mayor White, helped me officially open and praised.

An energy-management seminar for regional municipalities. Some of you may have

seen the booklet we put out called, "Free and Easy: Low- and No-Cost Household

Energy Saving Tips," which was a best-seller that we passed out to homeowners

around the province.

We've

done a number of government energy audits to help government operations

improve their efficiency in energy use. Last year we went in to three

colleges, two BCBC buildings, a hospital and 500 schools, audited their

energy use and made suggestions on ways in which they could be more

efficient in using energy and so save not only money but also the need

for developing precious energy sources.

We have a number of

projects which we are doing in this fiscal year with the money that

will be made available to me. I mentioned a bit today about our solar

domestic hot-water program. That is a program in which we have

installed demonstration projects in 100 homes around the province. They

are in Victoria, Cranbrook, Nanaimo, Vancouver, Penticton and Fort

Nelson. They are being monitored as to the ways in which savings have

been achieved as a result of those hot-water systems. They will be

extremely valuable to the government in developing new programs for

hot-water heating by solar power.

We have done a number of

demonstration projects of low-energy housing in Victoria, Vancouver and

Prince George. That has been going on for a couple of years. I might

just say that B.C. Hydro is involved, to some degree, in some of these

low-energy houses. I had the opportunity to sort of officially open one

of those houses in Langley not too long ago, in which the person —

through his own inventiveness, along with help from B.C. Hydro and

other people, including our Ministry of Energy — was able to build a

house in which.... The first winter he was in that home, although he

has a natural gas furnace, he never used the natural gas once, because

he had built enough efficiencies into that home that he provided the

heat and a very comfortable home all winter long without having to tap

a precious natural resource.

We are doing a windmill program

up in Fort St. John. A number of small hydro projects, including one at

Nimmo Bay and one at Glacier Park.... I think that that one has either

recently opened or it is about to open in an area — the Rogers Pass —

that has much difficulty in getting any electricity, let alone the kind

of electricity that most of us in this room take for granted.

have a greenhouse conservation project at Hammond Bay. This year we

expect to complete a housing-renovation manual so that people can learn

how to renovate their homes in order for them to be mote

energy-efficient. We have one

[ Page 7982 ]

information

centre project hoping to be opened in five communities in British

Columbia: Victoria, Nanaimo, Port Coquitlam, Cranbrook and Dawson

Creek. There will be another small, 35-kilowatt hydro demonstration at

Hasty Creek. We have done a study on the possibility of district

heating using coal at Tumbler Ridge. We are in the design phase of a

small hydro system for the Christian Valley community. We are in the

design phase for a solar program at the Penticton Art Gallery. Of

course, we will be continuing the program that I mentioned we did with

the mobile school energy-education project. We will also be doing a

number of mobile industrial audit programs.

MR. KING:

What's this nonsense? All you do is spend money all over the world.

You're throwing money away like it was going out of style. Go back to

"Sugar Babies." That is all you know.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Are you against all these things, Mr. Member?

MR. KING: I am against you squandering public money.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

We will be doing a number of industrial audit programs which will

complement the government programs that I mentioned earlier. We will

also be continuing to do energy-information displays in various parts

of British Columbia. We will be developing a solar design manual for

the use of the general public, to help them in their needs, and also a

building manual for commercial operations, so that commercial

establishments can have some guide about ways in which they also can

make renovations that will allow them to be more energy-efficient. We

are doing an energy map and a kit for teachers in our schools which we

hope will be ready this year. We hope as well to be giving some

guidelines to the government purchasing commission on ways in which

they can alter their purchasing requirements to make sure that they

purchase only energy efficient materials. We'll be doing further

studies on wood waste utilization, because as I mentioned earlier

today, wood waste energy now provides over 20 percent of all of the

energy in this province.

The Queen Charlotte Islands

wind-farm project will be going ahead, as will a number of other

manuals including a manual for people who might be interested in

individual applications of small hydro, and a wind-energy manual which

will be available for people who might be interested in individual

applications of that kind of energy.

I thought it was

important that I bring that information to you, since two members of

the House asked those questions about where we might be going with some

of the alternative programs.

MR. HOWARD: I had

intended to make some comments about the foolish whimpering of the

Premier, but he has hit and run, as he usually does. He spoke and left

the chamber, so I won't bother with dealing with the inanities that he

put forth. If he were here, I would have.

The minister — by

accident, so he says — discovered that he went to a Broadway burlesque

show and didn't know who paid the bill. Had he known that it was going

to be him, or the taxpayers of B.C., he wouldn't have gone. Then he

said he was going to pay back to the people of B.C. whatever it cost

for that show. Then he went on at great length and in great detail to

blame all of the excessive squandering of public money on somebody else

— anybody else. He didn't care who. He didn't know who. Maybe he didn't

want to know. But he blamed it all on somebody else. It was not his

fault.

Let's take that statement of the minister at face

value — at fair value — and say that it is correct that he went to New

York for a one-night stand; went on business; did not know how much it

was going to cost; did not know who ordered the limousine; did not know

who arranged to buy the tickets to go to "Sugar Babies." Put those two

figures together. Take the cost of the limousine which the minister

didn't use, but which rocketed around New York on June 11 for ten and

three-quarter hours, presumably with somebody in it other than the

chauffeur. Put that together with the cost of the "Sugar Babies"

tickets which the taxpayers of B.C. have paid, and you have an amount

of $920.26 blown, squandered, disappeared in one night. No idea about

it, says the minister.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

was the one right in the forefront of a meeting held in another place

in this building that tried to block access to find the very vouchers

that disclosed this.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That is a lie.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ask the hon. minister to withdraw that comment, please. The Chair heard it.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, in the interests of parliamentary procedure and parliamentary practice, I will withdraw that statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I will now remind the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) as he

continues his debate that we are on vote 28. I will ask all members of

this committee not to refer to the deliberations and actions of another

committee. I so rule.

MR. HOWARD: How did you know, Mr. Chairman, that we were talking about another committee meeting?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, are you challenging the Chair? I am simply stating that we

are discussing vote 28. I would ask the member to be relevant to that.

MR. HOWARD: I will be as precisely relevant as was the Premier.

Accepting

the minister's statement as he gave it — that he didn't know all this

was going on — presumably, the way I see it, the fact that he was a

minister for six years would indicate that he didn't know what was

going on all through those six years. In all his travels throughout the

world, doing whatever it was he was doing, he must have engaged in

squandering thousands and thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money.

Will he pay that back? Will he conduct an inquiry to find out much he

squandered, how much he owes the people of B.C.? Will he do that?

Because it obviously was not just this one isolated one-night stand in

New York that's involved. If, as he says, he didn't know who arranged

all this, who did it — it just happened — then it obviously has

happened for the past six years with that minister alone.

When we add on top of that, Mr. Chairman, the fact that we've got a lot of other world travelers over there.... The

[ Page 7983 ]

Minister

of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) spends

half his time in Japan and the other half in Australia. The Premier is

in and out of New York, and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

was in New York. At the time the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources was in New York on that one-night stand, his buddy

the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), his buddy the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), and his buddy the Minister of Environment

(Hon. Mr. Rogers) were living it up in Paris, not knowing what was

going on or who made the arrangements.

Taking the minister

at face value as to what he said, if it is correct, how much of the

taxpayers' money has this entire cabinet squandered on personal living

over the last six years? It's enough to keep the hospitals open, enough

to engage in a program of providing jobs for the unemployed in this

province that the Premier seemed to be so concerned about a while ago.

It was the first time he has exhibited any interest in that subject

matter, but he showed it. Thousands upon thousands of dollars that

could have been available for programs for the people of this province

have been squandered on limousines, shows, luscious living, fine wines,

and trips to Arizona or wherever. We're trying to establish an

atmosphere in which the government can show some restraint and set an

example.

The Premier, a while ago, Mr. Chairman, tossed to

one side the proposal that we made to reduce the money for the

minister's office.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We had a vote on that.

MR. HOWARD:

We had a vote on it, yes. I noticed how you voted, too, Mr. Minister.

You voted to spend the extra money. You didn't vote for restraint. You

voted for squandering extra money; that's the way you voted.

The

Premier tossed it to one side; that doesn't matter. The Premier said:

"I don't give a damn about the pennies, the nickels and the dimes. I'm

worried about the hundreds of millions." I want to tell you, Mr.

Chairman, that any school kid that learns anything about money in

school or anything about money at his parent's knee when he's a child

learns the simple fact of life that if you pay attention to the pennies

the dollars will look after themselves. The Premier may not care about

the pennies. The Premier may not care about the $7,900 in the

minister's vote that's padding. The Premier didn't care last year and

the minister didn't care last year when in this very chamber, Mr.

Chairman.... You'll remember because you conducted many of those votes

in this very chamber. The opposition, the New Democratic Party,

concerned about restraint more than a year ago, knew what was happening

to the economy in this province, and tried to warn the government to

cut back on some of its squandering.

We moved motions that,

if accepted, would have saved the people of this province $82 million.

To the Premier, who's not here, who's become a hit-and-run driver — $82

million — that's what $7,000 here, $900 there, and a few hundred

thousand dollars here and a few million dollars there adds up to.

That's what it added up to last year — $82 million that the Premier

didn't care about. He said: "That doesn't matter." That's chicken feed,

as far as he's concerned. Well, I don't doubt that it is, in his mind.

He's prepared to spend $1.5 billion subsidizing the Japanese steel

industry in the next few years, so what's $82 million to the Premier?

It means an awful lot to the unemployed.

In this year's

budget, in the estimates of all of the ministries, there is close to

$100 million in padding — in excessive amounts of money put in there

for such things as office furnishing, lavish living, wining and dining,

travel expenses and all the rest. These guys opposite have got the

unmitigated temerity and gall to stand up and say that this is a year

of restraint. "This is a year of restraint," says the Premier. "I want

to restrain myself," says the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources. He doesn't know how. Stand outside the hospitals and talk to

doctors and nurses and say: "I want to restrain myself. I'm sorry that

I went to see 'Sugar Babies.' I'll give you back the money." Will you

give back the rest of the money?

I notice the minister was

gleefully endorsing the idea that he should pay back his ticket to

"Sugar Babies." He didn't say anything about the Cadillac. The Cadillac

cost five hundred and some dollars, and he never used it. The Cadillac

went to La Guardia airport, the itinerary says. The Cadillac was

authorized by the Telex that was sent by the government.

MR. BARRETT: He says it wasn't so.

MR. HOWARD:

Well, he didn't see it. No wonder he didn't; he was suffering from jet

lag. He got off the airplane at La Guardia — it's a small airport — and

he didn't see any limousine. He got in a cab and went downtown. That's

okay. But the limousine was out there, authorized by his government.

The limousine took with it a couple of people from downtown New York. I

don't know where the limousine went, but it went on a hit-and-miss

program around New York for 10 3/4 hours. Now that's a lot of

sightseeing. The minister authorized payment for that. Why doesn't he

pay that back?

Mr. Chairman, the minister just doesn't owe

the people of British Columbia the cost of one insignificant ticket to

"Sugar Babies," for which the scalper price was $50 or something of

that sort; he owes the people of this province thousands and thousands

of dollars for padding his accounts — oh, excuse me, for not knowing

that his travelling accounts were being padded, and being careless

about it. Once having been faced with the fact — he says he didn't know

all this was going on — then I would assume that he would be quite

prepared to pay back to the general public the rest of the money that

he's inadvertently milked out of them.

If we just take the

cost of the limousine in New York, which the minister said he didn't

have anything to do with, doesn't know anything about and didn't

authorize — the same as he didn't know anything about or authorize the

"Sugar Babies" thing — just for that one trip alone, in my opinion, he

owes the people of British Columbia $920.26. That's what was paid out

on his behalf, unknown to him, for something he didn't use.

MR. KING: Big Spender Bob.

MR. HOWARD:

He's Big Spender Bob as long as it's somebody else's money. They

wouldn't call him Broadway Bob in New York; they'd call him Second

Avenue Bob. That's where all the bums are. Broadway Bob is too elevated

a nickname.

Mr. Chairman, the combination of those two

amounts of money comes to $920.26. I submit that if the minister is not

prepared to pay that back out of his own pocket, then the funds

available to him should be reduced by that amount.

[ Page 7984 ]

Accordingly,

I move that vote 28 be reduced by the amount of $920.26 — limousines

and "Sugar Babies." I hope the minister will support it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to indulge in the same kind of rhetoric that

the member before me has used and the kinds of words he's used, whether

they're parliamentary or not, but I just want to make a couple of

things quite clear. I made a rather lengthy statement today in question

period regarding this matter, which was in the 1980-81 public accounts.

That's probably where it should have been made, and that's why I made

it there. I don't intend to expand on that during committee stage,

because there are a lot of other things about the ministry that I'd

like to talk about and I'm sure members would like to ask about.

In a very short response to the member for Skeena, I do want to remind you to please read Hansard

regarding that statement. That member will find that I did not blame

anybody else for anything I have ever done. I take responsibility for

the actions of the ministry. I would like to say as well that actions

have been taken to rectify any faulty procedures which may have been in

place in my ministry and they will be rectified. The member asked if

there were other times that this happened — whether payments were made

that I was not aware of. I can assume that if there were other areas in

which someone else was given the authority through those procedures to

authorize payments.... I don't know whether there might be another

occasion, but I can only suggest that it is doubtful because we have a

procedure in this Legislature which allows us to scrutinize vouchers of

expenses by ministers. One reason that we have this matter before us

now is that we have the opportunity as members of this Legislative

Assembly to demand vouchers — not ask for them but demand them — and

they must be submitted to the member who asks for them. I assume that

has been done in the past by other members. I assume that they were

very carefully scrutinized and looked at at some other time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I could ask the minister....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking to the need for the reduction of my salary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and relate the remarks to the administrative actions of the ministry.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

There was an awfully wide latitude allowed in here by the member who

spoke previously. He talked about the need for the reduction of the

salary of a minister of the Crown, namely myself. One of the reasons he

chose to move that motion was that he said there was squandering of

public money in the past. I am saying that not only has there not been

squandering of public money in the past, but there hasn't been

squandering of public money at any time, certainly not by myself. I

have answered that question fully.

I must assume — because

we are all honourable members and are diligent in our duties — that the

members of the public accounts committees of the past have looked very

carefully at the vouchers of the past. Should there have been another

situation such as this, I am sure they would have come across it and

brought it forward in any way they chose to bring it forward I know

they don't choose to use the public accounts committee in the manner in

which it is supposed to be used, but they would have found some way to

bring it forward.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If I

could just comment.... Earlier in the committee, with this Chairman

attending, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) made reference to

another committee. The Chair commented on that and the hon. member for

Skeena did discontinue his speech with respect to the affairs of

another committee. The Chairman must advise the committee that if we

can be relevant and stick to the administrative actions of the vote

before us — or in this case the amendment — the committee would be well

served. Discussion of the workings and deliberations of another

committee really cannot be allowed in this particular Committee of

Supply. I will advise the minister that the member for Skeena did

discontinue his speech on that subject when advised to by the Chair.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could get a bit more of your guidance on that

matter. The member for Skeena also made mention of that committee on

several other occasions, but I don't think that is the point I wish to

ask you to advise me on.

The committee is being asked to

approve a motion which asks for a reduction of salary. In speaking to

that motion the member for Skeena — the mover of the motion — made

quite lengthy reference to expenses made by myself in the past.

MR. BARRETT: That is why the motion is here.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

That is correct. In discussing the motion surely you don't mean to tell

me or any other member of the committee that we're not able to talk

about the procedures that are available to the members of the

Legislative Assembly....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Leader of the Opposition please come to order. Will the minister please finish his statement.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I am just asking if it isn't relevant that we can discuss all matters

that deal with the way in which we monitor the money that is spent in

this government on behalf of the Legislature during the time of a

motion asking us to consider a reduction of salary because of some

expenditure of money in the past. That is all I am saying, Mr.

Chairman. Surely we must be able to refer to those kinds of things that

are in place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. minister has

brought information to the Committee of Supply with respect to his

administrative actions. It is quite in order for the committee to

debate the administrative actions of the minister and of the ministry

and, I guess, to make passing reference to another committee, but

discussion of the deliberations of that committee would not be allowed

in this Committee of Supply. I'm

[ Page 7985 ]

sure all members recognize the parameters of the debate that's allowed in here.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I have finished my comments, Mr. Chairman. I intend to vote against this motion.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, I just have a very brief comment. I'm very pleased that

the minister reiterated here in the committee what he said earlier

today during question period. I'm not going to allude to that, because

he said it here again and that's the focal point of what I'm getting at.

said he accepts full responsibility for what took place within his

ministry. Historic standard practice by all that's beautiful and good

about our parliamentary system is that a minister, having been found to

have administered a department where something inappropriate or wrong

took place — whether with the minister's knowledge or not — something

which especially involved the fundamental question of spending of

taxpayers' money.... When anything of that nature takes place, and when

the minister doesn't have to but voluntarily accepts full

responsibility, as the minister said he did for that inappropriate

action, no matter who was to blame or who was at fault, the decent

thing to do would be for the minister to tender his resignation.

History

shows that that occurs in other jurisdictions where the same

parliamentary system prevails, and it should prevail here. That would

be the honourable, decent and respectful thing to do, and I'm sure the

minister is honourable, respectful and decent enough to do that. I'm

only relating it here because we don't have an opportunity in the House

to put that question to him. Once having said that, I'm sure the

minister will forthwith or at the earliest convenient opportunity

tender his resignation to His Honour.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, just before you recognize the member for Point Grey, I'd

like to respond. I would say in response to that member that I have not

at any time said that any member of my ministry did anything wrong. I

would like to make it very clear that I don't think that any member of

my ministry did anything wrong. What I have said — and I would refer

you again to Hansard and the statement that I made earlier

today — was that there was a system in place. I do not agree with that

system once I learned the full extent of how that system operated. It

will be changed; it has been changed. There is a strange concept

involved by the member for Skeena who would almost insist that someone

would resign from an administrative position or a ministerial position

because he had found that the system was faulty; and taking action to

correct it is not grounds for resignation. I certainly have no

intention of resigning; I do intend to continue to do my job to the

best of my ability. I'll do it for a long time, Mr. Chairman.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, in the government's financial control....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I think....

MR. HOWARD:

It is a point of order. The minister said he didn't think anybody in

his ministry did anything wrong. I'm submitting that they did. I'm

submitting that the minister has given inaccurate information to the

committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, one moment,

please. That is not a point of order. The member is entering into

debate, which he has every opportunity to do in committee. Unless the

member can state that a rule or a standing order has been offended....

MR. HOWARD:

Some signing officer in the minister's ministry approved those bills

for expenditure and was required to check with the deputy or the

minister about it. If that didn't happen, that's a breach. The minister

should accept that responsibility.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

member, you have entered into debate. That is not a point of order. You

will be allowed to continue in debate in this committee.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Chairman, we seem to have two separate issues to deal with this

afternoon. I hope the member for Skeena will stay, because I've got

some fairly significant remarks to make to him.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Please proceed.

HON. MR. McGEER: We've got a non-confidence motion before us.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister continues.

Interjection.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I'll ask the hon. member for Skeena to discontinue his

remarks — please be seated, hon. minister — and all other members to

cease interrupting a member who has taken his place in debate.

The hon. Minister of Universities, Science and Communications continues.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Chairman, we have here a question of vouchers, for which a

non-confidence motion has been placed before the House, in terms of the

minister's salary. We have another much larger and more significant

question which needs to be dealt with this afternoon; some hon. members

who have spent many years in this House might have cause to consider it

as well. It is the question of decent conduct on the part of hon.

members of this House, whether on the opposition side or government

side. Most members who have served for any reasonable length of time in

a legislative assembly or a parliament will come to sit on both sides

of the House, as have many of us, including the Leader of the

Opposition and some senior members of the New Democratic Party. The

House erodes when members on

[ Page 7986 ]

either

side of the House, be they in government or in opposition, abandon the

obligations of decency and civility, and the traditional procedures of

the House.

I would have thought that the member for Skeena,

who has not spent many years in this House but has had experience in

other parliaments, would have been too embarrassed and ashamed to put

forward that motion, just as he is too embarrassed to be in the House

at the present time to hear some reflections on what is proper in this

Legislative Assembly.

Every single member of the House who

submits an expense account, whether in opposition, in government, or as

a minister of the Crown, is going to be held responsible. That is known

at the time any voucher is submitted. Vouchers are open in a free and

available way to members of this House. It's a right and a privilege;

it is not something to be abused, as the member for Skeena has done,

and as the Leader of the Opposition knows full well. If we are to have

a decent, civilized and honourable House, I would say that the Leader

of the Opposition, first of all, has got some cleaning up to do in his

own caucus.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the amendment on vote 28, please — the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

HON. MR. McGEER: When false accusations are made, as they have been by the member for Skeena....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I'm sorry, the minister will have to withdraw that

remark; it impugns the honour of another member. Will the minister

please withdraw.

HON. MR. McGEER: What was that remark?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

It was the imputation of false accusations assigned to another member.

I must ask the minister to withdraw any imputation of dishonourable

motive. Will the minister please withdraw.

HON. MR. McGEER:

They are accusations, Mr. Chairman, that in my opinion are false, they

may not be false in his opinion, but they are not in accordance with

the facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. I will

have to ask the hon. minister to withdraw any imputation of

dishonourable motive against another member. I'm sure the minister is

well aware of that. The House can be of two or three contradictory

opinions, but we cannot impute.... Will the minister please withdraw.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Very well, Mr. Chairman, but let me say again that the member for

Skeena should have been embarrassed and ashamed to bring forth the

accusations which he has made with respect to the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources, who this afternoon in the House gave

explanation attached to the vouchers that were strong-armed from a

protesting civil servant in contradiction to the orders given by the

comptroller-general. We cannot have members in this House strong-arming

civil servants. That is not a civilized way for a Legislative Assembly

member to behave. If a civil servant acting under his instructions

explains to a member of this House what he must do to be a civilized

member, then that member is honour-bound to behave and respect the

government of British Columbia; maybe not the members of this House,

but the traditions and proprieties....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will ask the member for Skeena to come to order. The member for Rossland-Trail has risen on a point of order.

MR. D'ARCY:

The member for Point Grey is not imputing but is clearly stating that

the member for Skeena physically assaulted a civil servant in this

province. I want him to withdraw that statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

If the hon. minister has stated that, it would be unparliamentary. Will

the minister please withdraw any imputation of false motive or

dishonourable conduct, if the minister has imputed that.

HON. MR. McGEER: You know I didn't impute such a thing, Mr. Chairman. Of course not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister withdraws.

HON. MR. McGEER:

But the kind of behaviour that took place, regardless of how one wishes

to describe it, is not acceptable for a member of the Legislative

Assembly. Because that kind of behavior, if pursued by every member of

the House, would lead to chaos and an inability of democracy to

function. I can hear from the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition

that he condones such tactics. What embarrasses me is that we would

have a whole opposition over there that has so forgotten its

responsibilities and traditions as an opposition....

MR. BARRETT:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with an amendment,

not allegations of behaviour of separate members. If we are on that

category, when was the last time you punched a photographer?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. You've made your point of order. The point of order is

well taken. I will ask all members of the committee, particularly the

member for Skeena and the Leader of the Opposition, to please come to

order and not interrupt either the Chair or the member who has taken

his place. I will remind the hon. Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications of standing order 61, which states that we must be

relevant to the specific clause or item under discussion when we are in

Committee of Supply. The specific item before us now is an amendment, a

reduction of salary in vote 28. I would ask that the hon. minister

please contain his remarks to the scope that would be allowed in such a

debate.

HON. MR. McGEER: The thrust of my remarks, of

course, in saying that we will reject the amendment, is that it is

without factual basis. The matter would not have arisen in such a way

as to embarrass the member for Skeena had he been prepared to follow

the reasonable and honourable traditions of the House. I would have

commended to the Leader of the Opposition that he explain to the caucus

what those long traditions are, but I gather that such an explanation

is unlikely, because it appears to me that the Leader of the Opposition

condoned and perhaps even encouraged that.

[ Page 7987 ]

Of course all ministers' vouchers are available.

AN HON. MEMBER: Even yours.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Even mine, and I hope you will go through them carefully. I see the

member for Victoria nodding. He actually obtained one of them, if I can

digress for a moment. Before it even reached my office it was in the

hands of the press. However, that is one way of getting the vouchers

that come into your office drawn to your attention: via the fences in

the opposition, who release them to the press.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the amendment, please.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, I don't know what term you would use for the member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), the member for Victoria or the member for

Skeena (Mr. Howard). One thing is fairly clear: the vouchers are all

there. They're all available to the members. The members who submit the

vouchers must remain accountable for all of the expenditures. But

sometimes — and the member for Victoria would know this — a little bit

of embarrassment can be saved if they bring it forward in the

traditional and civilized way and understand the explanations before

the accusations are laid. That probably isn't something the member for

Skeena can understand. But it is the tradition of the House, and I

would once more appeal to the Leader of the Opposition to recall those

traditions — although I'm not sure he ever sat on the public accounts

committee — and to commend them to all the members of the House. As the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) said earlier today, perhaps that's

something we will undertake to do on our side of the House.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. BARRETT:

On the amendment, I want to say how much I enjoyed the sanctimonious

lecture from the non-sanctimonious member who's spending his last few

hours with us today. We notice that his replacement is sitting in the

gallery. I hope that the bad behaviour of that minister is not learned

by the replacement, who is far more able to replace the minister in

terms of courtesy and generosity.

In speaking to this

motion, this is a traditional amendment that I remember being debated

most skilfully, most brilliantly — and most thoroughly researched — by

the member from Point Grey when he used the vouchers against Mr.

Gaglardi over a trip to California. Who was it, Mr. Chairman, that

snuck the vouchers into the House to depose that minister but the

member from Point Grey? I sat in shock and horror when that minister

used those vouchers in that way against that minister. Was I shocked!

Was I disappointed! But he was a Liberal then.

HON. MR. McGEER:

On a point of order — to correct — Mr. Chairman, in all the years I sat

on the public accounts committee, I have never stolen a voucher, I have

never photocopied a voucher, I have never received a voucher stolen by

somebody else, improperly obtained a voucher, or brought a voucher into

the House. I did inspect them. I did debate them very severely. But I

never stole them, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order,

please. Hon. members, if that accusation had been made, the Chair would

have instructed the member to withdraw the accusation. However, the

Chair heard no such direct accusation.

MR. BARRETT: I

never suggested where he got the voucher from. I assumed that all

vouchers were public property. How do you steal public property? Only

when something is trying to be kept secret does the opposition do its

duty by going in and making sure those vouchers see the light of day.

That's why we're here today.

I find it interesting that it

was that minister, when he was a Liberal, who vilified that hon.

Minister of Highways, the member for Kamloops, Mr. Gaglardi, with

vicious personal attacks. But now the minister turns his back not only

on Mr. Gaglardi, but on the Liberal Party and his own memories. I find

it hypocritical. But I'm not calling him a hypocrite, because that's

against the rules. I find it hypocritical for that minister to get up

in this House and lecture the opposition for behaviour that he was an

expert at when he was in opposition.

I was young, an

ingenue, in those days. I was starry-eyed. I believe that university

professors only stuck to the facts and processes of the facts. When he

was down there with his four Liberals, he used to be up there screaming

and arm-waving about Gaglardi's trip to California. Did you forget that

day, Mr. Member — through you, Mr. Chairman? Do you forget that day you

came running in after the phone call you made to California on the

vouchers? I was here in shock at your behaviour. But I excused it

because you were a Liberal then. I thought that's the way Liberals

operated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member,

somewhere along the way, I think we've strayed a little bit from vote

28, and it's the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources whom

we're currently canvassing.

MR. BARRETT: That's

right. We strayed when that member got up to speak. He put me out of

order. Mr. Chairman, will you please call him to order and tell him to

stop making statements that are getting me out of order.

Now

that I'm back in order, Mr. Chairman.... It's just a little moment of

history and humour to remember that that minister, when he was a

Liberal backbencher, did a knife job on Gaglardi that was unparalleled.

It was a little bit much to hear that sanctimonious pap from him,

telling us how to behave in opposition when he set the lowest standard

of behaviour against that hon. Minister of Highways.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT:

I'm sorry. I won't talk about it anymore. I warn all photographers and

reporters. Look out! He's got a mean right. He thinks it's funny. He

comes in with a boxing robe after he punches somebody out and lectures

us. Too much formaldehyde-sniffing.

Mr. Chairman, there is a

very simple way to deal with this amendment. The minister came in today

and said he didn't know who authorized this. The motion is to deduct

the amount of money that it cost for the New York trip. There is a

difference of opinion that we're dealing with here. I have a proposal

to make that can clear this matter up, or at least go a long way to

clearing it up. This is my proposal. The minister has said earlier in

his statement.... Where did he go?

[ Page 7988 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: He's probably gone to the movies.

MR. BARRETT: Well, he hasn't gone to a show. We'll just wait a minute until he comes back.

Mr.

Minister — through you, Mr. Chairman — I've got a suggestion to make

around this amendment. You claim that when you sat in this Broadway

show you assumed somebody else was paying. Did you ever ask whether or

not it was the federal government that was paying? If it was the

federal government that was paying, are they not supported by

taxpayers? So is it not true, if you try to blame the federal

government, you are still using taxpayers' money? It never occurred to

you when you were sitting in the show to ask who was paying? Did you

think it was being paid for by some charity group? Did Mickey Rooney

invite you? That naive statement you made saying you thought a federal

department was paying — did it not enter your conscience and sense of

responsibility that the taxpayers would have to pay for it if the

federal government was paying for it?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I didn't say that.

MR. BARRETT:

Of course you didn't say that. You're trying to slide out of any

responsibility. Is the minister telling everybody in this province that

he went to this show, he sat there watching the show, and he never

asked who he thought was going to pay? You mean you go anywhere and

don't ask who's paying? Suppose it was a lobbyist who paid. Suppose it

was a major oil company who took you out and compromised you. Wouldn't

you think, as a responsible minister, that the first question you

should ask is: who's paying for the tickets? Isn't there a sort of

naivete in the minister assuming that people are falling all over

themselves to take him out. You're a likeable person. I'm sure a lot of

people would like to take you out — somewhere. Mr. Chairman, don't you

think it's incumbent in the minister's lexicon of questions to ask

who's paying for these tickets?

The minister came in this

House today and tried to leave the impression that all of this was

arranged by Ottawa. It was arranged by Ottawa — at the request of the

provincial government. My friend the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has

read the telegram that was part of the file. Did the minister not read

this telegram before he read his statement in the House? This telegram

was the authorization from the provincial government to go ahead and

spend money on luncheons, dinners, receptions, rooms and limousines.

Mr. Chairman, who was it in British Columbia who authorized the

expenditure of money for limousines? It wasn't the federal government

that phoned out here and said: "Do you fellows authorize us hiring a

limousine for the minister?" It was a telegram signed by the provincial

government, and it says in here: Warburton, Victoria — a deputy

minister in the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development.

Here it is right here; here's the telegram.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: He's not a deputy.

MR. BARRETT: He's not a deputy. What is he? You seem to know what he is.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Of course I know what he is, but you don't.

MR. BARRETT:

Okay, you tell me what he is. Did you talk to Mr. Warburton? Did you

ask Mr. Warburton to make these arrangements through this telegram? You

seem to know who he is.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I read the telegram. That's how I know.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, he sent the telegram. Did you read this telegram today?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes. Did you?

MR. BARRETT:

Yes, I did. Was this your first knowledge of the telegram — today? Mr.

Chairman, he read the telegram. The telegram authorizes the limousine.

Who requested Mr. Warburton to send this telegram? How did Mr.

Warburton decide to send this telegram? Isn't that a key question?

MR. LEA: I'll bet he was telephoned.

MR. BARRETT:

I'll bet he may have been telephoned. From where did Mr. Warburton

receive his instructions to send this telegram? Who informed Mr.

Warburton that the minister and the deputy minister were going to New

York? Mr. Chairman, aren't those valid questions?

If the

minister is attempting to leave the impression with this House that it

was the Canadian consulate who made the arrangements for the limousine

and bought the tickets for "Sugar Babies," the Canadian consulate must

have gotten an instruction from somewhere. They did. The instruction

came from Mr. Warburton. Who requested Mr. Warburton to make these

arrangements for the federal government to go ahead and spend the

money? That is a problem the minister did not deal with in his

statement.

I will tell you how we can handle this. Mr.

Warburton can be called to the bar of this chamber in a time-honoured

tradition when there is this kind of dispute. Have Mr. Warburton stand

right there at the bar of the chamber, through special motion of this

House, and we will ask Mr. Warburton, at the bar, who ordered him to

send this authorization for the minister to spend the money.

HON. MR. McGEER: Do it in Public Accounts.

MR. BARRETT: We can't discuss that here. I'm not a member of Public Accounts.

I want to stick to the rules. You are trying to get me to break the

rules after you've been telling everybody to obey them. Shame on you!

And you are a university professor, with tenure. That is using guile. I

am not a member of that committee.

I heard the minister make

his statement in this House. He said that Ottawa made all the

arrangements. We know that. We also know that after he made that

statement and left the impression that it was Ottawa's idea for the

limousine and the show and that the minister didn't ask who was paying,

we discovered that the minister conveniently forgot to mention that

there was on file a telegram from Mr. Warburton instructing them to

allow funds to be spent in New York specifically for limousines, among

other items. The federal government didn't decide on his own to hire a

limousine. They hired a limousine on a specific request from Mr.

Warburton. Let's get to the bottom of it. Let's call Mr. Warburton to

the bar so the

[ Page 7989 ]

non-members of the public accounts committee can ask Mr. Warburton directly in this House who ordered him to send this telegram.

support this motion, because the minister is attempting to hide behind

civil servants and the Trudeau government — there is not much to hide

behind there these days. He is attempting to put the responsibility on

everybody else but himself

MR. MACDONALD: He can't hide behind Mickey Rooney.

MR. BARRETT: He could almost hide behind Mickey Rooney.

Mr.

Minister, you are one of the most clever, brilliant, skilled,

articulate and heavyweight debaters and political operatives of Social

Credit. How come it took you 24 hours to think up the answer and the

answer was that it was all Ottawa's fault? "I had nothing to do with

it. If I'd known about it before, I would have cleaned it up." If you

thought up the answer in 24 hours, then stand up and tell us that you

have no objection to Mr. Warburton's appearing in front of the bar of

this House answering questions.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Sit down and I'll answer.

MR. BARRETT: Write them down. Stay calm. I have a few more questions.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You don't want the answer?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I do, but last time I got deked out of having the floor.

While

you are in the mood to answer, will you answer who instructed Mr.

Warburton to send this telegram? Did you check that out? Don't ask

McGeer for help. You'll get into more darned trouble than anything else

with that guy advising you.

MR. LEA: Who authorized the $5,000? A civil servant? Baloney.

MR. BARRETT: Yeah. Does this civil servant have the right to authorize $5,000 on a guess that the minister wants to go to New York?

One question at a time, because I know it is complicated for the minister. Who ordered Mr. Warburton to send this telegram?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

There were a number of questions raised. One was about whether members

should be going out for dinner with other people; whether or not

anybody ever goes to dinner or anywhere else and someone else pays for

the dinner. I know that some of the members opposite have been out for

dinner with the Council of Forest Industries. The Council of Forest

Industries bought their dinner. Did they want favours from buying those

dinners for you? The Employers Council bought dinners for you; did they

want favours from you? I think the mining industry wanted some favours

from you; they needed it desperately.

Mr. Chairman, one of the questions was: when did I know about the telegram,

and how come it took 24 hours to answer the question? The question was given

in question period yesterday. I answered it in question period today. I don't

think that any member of this House has given any faster response to a question

taken as notice in question period than I gave to you today in this House, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. HANSON: It was wrong.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, the answer wasn't wrong. It wasn't what you wanted to

hear, I agree, but it was a correct answer, and it was a fair statement

of the facts.

As to the matter of when I knew about that

telegram, the first time I saw that telegram was after it was raised in

question period yesterday. I've said that in my statement, and it's the

truth. Mr. Chairman, the telegram is a standard telegram which has been

sent, I'm sure, on a number of other occasions under the same

conditions. It does mention limousines, and I explained that in the

statement I gave to the House. It does not mention theatre tickets

anywhere in that Telex.

As far as I know — and we'll attempt

to jog people's memories a little bit more — the Telex came about as a

result of a discussion between my deputy and another member of the

public service who was at that time working in the Ministry of Industry

and Small Business Development. My deputy had never seen the Telex

before, and neither had I. It was standard operating procedure at the

time, as I mentioned earlier today, that the consul-general's office or

the embassy in some other area where a minister or members of the

public service may have been travelling.... Some Canadian dollars would

be authorized to pay accounts achieved on behalf of a visit. That's

what this Telex did.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I

want to thank the minister for his answer. As I understand it, the

minister has informed this House that the telegram came about as a

result of a conversation between his deputy and somebody in the civil

service — it may have been Mr. Warburton — who produced this telegram,

which is standard practice. Is that correct? So we agree on that.

Did

you talk to your deputy about arranging for going to New York? Did your

deputy tell you: "We're going to New York, boss, and I'm going to check

with Victoria"? Or did you tell your deputy: "Make arrangements for us

to go to New York"?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr.

Chairman, I think all of those answers are contained in the statement

that I made. If it requires some elaboration, I'd be happy to elaborate

on it. Obviously I would have talked to my deputy before the two of us

went to New York. That goes without saying. My deputy and I did not

talk about the arrangements which we would have in New York, except

that my deputy asked me specifically — if I recall correctly; you know,

it's a while ago — for my suggestions about the people we should be

seeing in New York, the meetings we should be having, the media who

should be at a meeting we had — as I mentioned in my other statement —

with a number of people from the New York Times and Time magazine and

others, and we talked about that. It's my deputy's recollection — and

I'm sure it happened this way — that we talked with a member of the

public service in the Ministry of Industry and Small Business

Development about how the arrangements should be made in New York, and