1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 1977

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3397 ]

CONTENTS

Matter of privilege

Abuse of freedom of speech by Leader of the Opposition. Hon. Mr. Fraser ––

Mr. King –– 3398

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Pharmacare benefits. Ms. Brown –– 3398

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Highways and Public Works estimates.

On vote 146.

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3402

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 3402

Mr. Lea –– 3403

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 3406

Mr. King –– 3407

Mr. Barrett –– 3409

Mr. King –– 3411

Mr. Barnes –– 3412

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3416

Mr. Davidson –– 3418

Mr. Barber –– 3420

Mr. King –– 3421

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3423

Mr. King –– 3424

Mr. Lea –– 3424

Mr. Lloyd –– 3425

Mr. Nicolson –– 3427

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3428

Mr. Wallace –– 3430

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3431

Presenting reports

Report of the task force on opportunities for women in the engineering profession

in British Columbia. Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3432

Ministry of Economic Development annual report for year ending March 31,1977.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 3432

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture) : Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are two gentlemen from the city of Penticton, Mr. Jim Sewell, the city clerk, and Mr. Alan Kenyon, the mayor of Penticton, who hosted a beach party on the Skaha Lake beach last Tuesday evening which 2,000 people attended after the successful application of 2, 4-D in Skaha Lake.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert) : Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the House to join with me in welcoming three visitors from Prince Rupert who are in the gallery today, Don and Frances Kimura and their lovely daughter.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing) : Mr. Speaker, constituents visiting the Legislature today, and in the gallery, are Mr. and Mrs. Lantinga of Galiano Island, and Mr. and Mrs. Victor Card and their daughter, Mrs. McLean. I would ask the members to make them welcome.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce today a grandmother from Fanny Bay, near Courtenay, Marg Lunam, who is on her way back home after having spent a night in the Tacoma city jail for protesting the construction of the Trident missile base at Bangor, Washington. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming her.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests) : Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today are very good friends of mine, and ~former neighbours, from the city of Kamloops, Mr. and Mrs. Tak Maeda, accompanied by their son Glen and daughter Sheree. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat) : Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today from the constituency of Cowichan-Malahat is Mr. Ken McEwan, president of Local 1-80 of the IWA. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming him.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works) : Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of personal privilege.

One of the most sacred rights enjoyed by members of this Legislature is the right to carry out the privileges of a member without having these privileges infringed upon in any way, inside or outside this Legislature. In order to carry out these privileges, a member of this assembly must be free from false personal abuse, both inside and outside this House.

In this morning's Colonist there is a report of charges made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) which states that my action in hiring so-called relatives was "shabby, dirty and it stinks. It's too bad you don't have more daughters." This report, Mr. Speaker, which is recorded in the Blues, for which you have responsibility, is now a part of the record of this assembly and must not go unchallenged. This House and the people of British Columbia have a right to know why I was not in a position to talk about it last night.

I have never replied to these charges since they were first made in the Tuesday News, a newspaper circulated in my constituency, and reported in the Williams Lake Tribune, another newspaper circulating in my constituency. They were referred to in The Vancouver Sun in Allan Fotheringham's column, and now given the dignity of repetition by the Leader of the Opposition in this assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I have not responded before nor did I last night, because they have such grave consequences for my family that I had to discuss it with my family.

The facts are that I have an adopted daughter whose name is Bonnie Joy and she has never wanted anyone to know the story of a person who once lived in that house. The story of that person started in 1958, when I was mayor of Quesnel. A social worker came to me at that time with the problem of a girl who was then 14; her name was Louise. The social worker told me that this young girl needed a home; she was from a broken family. The social worker asked me if there was anything I could do to find her a home. I asked the social worker to send her to my home to have a talk with my wife Gertrude.

We decided to take charge of this girl and she lived with us while she went through high school, and we put her through business school. During her time in high school she met a boy called Don Larsen. They were married and have subsequently separated.

Mr. Speaker, quite a few people in these buildings have known this story for many years. The Leader of the Opposition could have known it as well, because I would have told him if he had asked me. The Leader of the Opposition was once a social worker, Mr. Speaker; he should have more regard for the personal life of people than anyone else.

Mr. Speaker, I have raised this point of personal privilege in the House to set the record straight because it affects my personal privilege as a member of this assembly.

Later, in Committee of Supply, I'll be asking the Leader of the Opposition to apologize to me and to the public of British Columbia, not so much for the damage he has done to me but for the damage he does to the jobs of thousands of people in the , province who try to do their best for foster children.

Sir Erskine May, page 74, 18th edition, describes one of the privileges of a member to be freedom of

[ Page 3398 ]

speech. He says: "It is the duty of each member to refrain from any course of action prejudicial to the privilege which he enjoys." Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition clearly has abused his privilege of freedom of speech and, in doing so, has interfered with my privilege as a member of this House.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan) : Mr. Speaker, the minister's statement is one that will be related to the Leader of the Opposition when he arrives in the chamber in about an hour's time. Certainly he'll be made aware of the statement that the Minister of Highways and Public Works has tendered with the House.

The issue, as far as the opposition is concerned, is not one of the minister's daughter. It is a matter of a close political confidant being transferred from the position of the minister's executive assistant to a line position in the public service of this province, apparently without competition.

Before any allegations were made, the minister was directly questioned as to the veracity of reports in this chamber. which is the chamber provided for the public's business to be done. The minister failed to respond at that time. 1 wish that he had sent a note to the Leader of the Opposition, if there was some personal reason for his inability to answer at that time.

An attempt to cloud the issue involved by recounting the tragedy of a young girl who required foster parent assistance begs the question that the opposition is directing its attention to, Mr. Speaker.

I'll decline further comment until the Leader of the Opposition returns to the chamber.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. members, speaking to the matter of privilege raised by the hon. Minister of Highways and Public Works, it is a matter that 1 would have to take under consideration. It would seem in the remarks made by the hen. minister that it is more of a matter of explanation of his particular situation with respect to questions posed to him. But, in any event, anything that has to do with the privileges of the members of this House is something that, I have said before and I will repeat today, concerns me greatly.

1, as the Speaker of the House, take these things into consideration and I'm guided by whatever advice I can get from the Clerks at the table and from the relative references that we have before us, which are namely Beauchesne and May and other decisions of this House. 1 intend to do that same thing with respect to the hon. minister's statement of privilege.

Oral questions.

PHARMACARE BENEFITS

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard) : Yesterday, in responding to a question I asked on June 17, the Minister of Human Resources revealed that under the new $100-deductible Pharmacare plan, 80,000 families, or approximately 300,000 people, were going to lose benefits which they had enjoyed under the previous Pharmacare plan. I wonder if the minister would tell the House whether he is prepared to restore to those 80,000 families the benefits which they previously enjoyed.

MR. SPEAKER : Does the hon. minister wish a clarification of the question?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources) : Mr. Speaker, I'm guessing that there's an assumption expressed by the hon. member that I really can't answer. She's basing everything here on some assumption that I'm not aware of, and I'll take the information from the Blues when it's recorded as such and respond to it later.

MR. SPEAKER : Would the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard try to restate the question in a manner which doesn't address itself to an answer in the question that's being stated?

MS. BROWN : I will try to be very simple. In the response tabled yesterday, the minister revealed that under Plan B, the Pharmacare programme, 80,000 family units, or approximately 300,000 people, stood to lose the benefits which they previously enjoyed under the original Pharmacare programme. The Plan B cards have been recalled and that has been cancelled now that the $1 00-deductible programme is in place. I'm asking the minister whether he is prepared to tell the House that his government is willing to restore to these 80,000 families, all of whom have incomes of less than $1,000 a year, the subsidy which they enjoyed under the previous Pharmacare programme.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : The information provided by the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, in advance of the question is completely erroneous, completely misleading and totally ignorant of the facts.

MS. BROWN : A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I am willing to accept that they probably are erroneous and ignorant. So if I may read the erroneous and ignorant statements filed by the minister, it says: "There were approximately 80,000 families. . . .-

MR. SPEAKER : Order, hon. member. Would you state your supplementary question?

MS. BROWN : Mr. Speaker, the minister said the statement which I made was erroneous and ignorant.

[ Page 3399 ]

I'm merely clarifying for the House that the erroneous and ignorant statement came from the minister's office. It was tabled in the House yesterday and said that approximately 80,000 family units had enjoyed the Plan B programme, which was a subsidy programme. He goes on to say that "under the new plan many will benefit but some may not, depending on their cost." Is the minister now willing to restore to those 80,000 family units the subsidy which they enjoyed under the previous Pharmacare programme?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, certainly a number of changes were made in the universal Pharmacare programme. It's accepted and generally recognized to be a tremendous improvement and has developed for us the best such programme anywhere in North America.

But to elaborate on the point which is being raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, let me say this. Previously the eligible Plan B recipient was responsible for payment only of the dispensing fee portion of any prescription. This represented a subsidy by government of approximately 50 per cent of total prescription costs. Families with extreme drug needs, however, faced an exorbitant expense since one-half of their cost remained their own responsibility. For such families, expenses for drugs, et cetera, are not limited to the annual $100 and 20 per cent co-payment.

A small but undetermined number of former Plan B recipients will not benefit from the new programme. They can be expected to voice disappointment with the new programme. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER : There are 300, 00W

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Assuming an average prescription cost of $6.30, we have calculated a break-even point for former Plan B recipients. An individual purchasing 2.5 prescriptions per month would face an expense of $8.25 per month or $99 per year under the former Plan B. The necessity of one additional prescription per month would represent an annual expense to the individual of approximately $40. The same individual under universal Pharmacare would reach their deductible of $100 within approximately six months, and this would represent their previous annual expense.

The necessity of the one additional prescription, however, would establish eligibility after only 4.5 months. After that time, Pharmacare would provide payments of 80 per cent of all drug expenses, including ostomy supplies, supplies for diabetics, et cetera, rather than only drug items.

The expense for additional prescriptions to such an individual or family under universal Pharmacare can be presented on the basis of some experience, but it certainly would indicate that those with large drug expenses - and these are the people we are attempting to assist through the universal Pharmacare programme - will benefit tremendously. In addition, there is assistance available through the GAIN legislation to allow the ministry to provide medical needs, including drugs, where these needs could not be obtained due to a lack of funds.

So we are certainly of the opinion, and have provided every assurance required, that the needy will be assisted through the universal Pharmacare programme. I know that you can take any good programme and begin picking holes in it by playing with numbers and picking out isolated situations. But, Mr. Speaker, if the member wishes more detailed information with respect to the Pharmacare programme, we would be pleased to provide it to the member through the office.

MS. BROWN : Mr. Speaker, I have a supplemental for the minister. Under the Pharmacare Plan B last year the government paid out $995,000 in subsidies. That is the tiny, little minority that the minister is telling us about - $995~000.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Would the hon. member stick to the supplementary question?

MS. BROWN : I am, I am sticking even closer to it than the minister did in giving his speech.

MR. SPEAKER : And drawing conclusions at the same time.

MS. BROWN : Under the present $100 deductible, Mr. Speaker, the 80,000 families would now have to pay out $9 million before they could start to benefit from the new $1 00-deductible plan.

My question to the minister is: now that it has been brought to his attention that his plan is going to work a hardship on 80,000 families in this province with an income of less than $1,000 a year, is the minister prepared to restate the subsidy programme, or is the minister going to allow these people to spend $9 million so that his department can save $995,000? Are we having another instance of the poor supporting the rich in this province? Is this what we're getting from this minister?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Again, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation where the hon. member is playing with figures in order to mislead the public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Withdraw!

MR. SPEAKER : A point of order by the hon. member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA : I would ask the minister to withdraw

[ Page 3400 ]

that statement that the member for Burrard is trying to mislead anyone.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education) : She is!

MR. LEA : I'd ask the Minister of Education to withdraw his remark too in saying: "She is."

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, the figures as presented....

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition) : Withdraw!

M R. SPEAKER : Hon. minister, the term "mislead" is one which

offends the member of the House who has raised a point of order. I would say

that it would be parliamentary to withdraw that phrase.

MR. LEA : I would also, Mr. Speaker, ask that the Minister of Education withdraw his remark.

MS. BROWN : What did the Minister of Education say?

MR. SPEAKER : One moment, please. I can only recognize one person at a time. I happen to be recognizing the hon. Minister of Human Resources.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I'll withdraw the word "mislead, " but I certainly think that when we use such statements in the House, and when we play with figures, as has been done just now, it certainly can confuse people. She would have us believe that suddenly the populace will go from a usage of $950,000 worth of drugs to $9 million worth of drugs. We don't foresee anything like that. It's certainly ridiculous to assume that this would be the case.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay) : Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary question, the minister had previously stated, with regard to n on-pre scrip tion items where a physician would request in writing that they be provided under Pharmacare for valid medical reasons, that if in fact the physician wrote to Pharmacare the permission would be granted. Is the minister aware that numerous persons have followed that procedure and the request in writing by the physician has been rejected?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think I wrote the hon. member from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) a letter, and I listed those particular items for which the physician could make application. The discretion, of course, is still with Pharmacare.

However, we are getting requests, as I think the hon. member may be aware of, for items far beyond and much removed from the list which was provided. I guess perhaps that's nothing new; that probably happened previously. We're dealing with these requests as they come in.

MR. WALLACE : Mr. Chairman, would the minister correct the impression he originally left that the discretion would be with the physician and not with an employee of government and Pharmacare? For example, the letter relates to a lady who suffers from colitis and she happens also to be on guaranteed income supplement. She requires these certain bowel preparations which the physician in charge has said is required for valid medical reasons and which, apparently, Mr. Speaker, are not on the minister's selective list.

Could I just get the record straight? When the minister earlier on said that physicians' requests in writing would be honoured, he said they would only be honoured if the requests were on a special selected list which the minister's department has drawn up.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss this'with the member. I'll give him examples outside of the question period of those items that we are receiving requests for. They're all over the board, I assure you. We're dealing with specific items; we're not dealing with all items.

If the question is "are we providing the benefits for that particular list" - yes, we are. If the question is "are we providing assistance for all items requested by the physician?" - no, not all items.

MR. WALLACE : Mr. Speaker, there's obviously misunderstanding as to the fact that there is a list,

whereas previously the minister left the impression that any doctor could ask for any preparation. Would the minister care to table this selected list with the Legislature for clarification of the members?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Well, Mr. Speaker, I certainly never intended to leave the impression that all items would be provided for simply at the request of the physician because even the physicians do not agree on all items. We know, for example, from the existing controversies that some physicians support the use of certain vitamins while the majority, including the B.C. Medical Association, do not support that particular product. So even among physicians we do not have full agreement on what items may or may not be of benefit to people.

So it wasn't ever intended to include all items regardless. The list is available from Pharmacare. As a matter of fact, I'm sure that all doctors in the province have been mailed this particular list.

[ Page 3401 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Would you table it?

Interjections.

MR. KING : Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House Leader would be kind enough to indicate to the opposition when we might expect Motion 13 to be called.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General) : When the government decides.

MR. KING : When the government decides? That's the usual arrogance we can expect in this House, is it? No co-operation whatsoever.

HON. MR. GARDOM : Would you like to debate it?

MR. KING : Yes, indeed.

Interjections.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo) : Is that an offer?

MR. KING : Call it; we'll debate it.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, to clarify the rules of procedure for question period, 1 made the observation in the last two weeks that where statements are clearly unparliamentary to the knowledge e of the Speaker, the Speaker on his own motion asks in many cases, not in all cases, members of the opposition to immediately withdraw without a point of order being taken by the other side of the House.

I've noticed the exact different procedure when ministers making obviously unparliamentary statements are not required by the Speaker. 1 would think that either the Speaker is going to wait in all cases for a point of order to be raised by members of the House or, as often as he can, with a certain balance on either side of the House, ask by his own motion that the member withdraw.

To complete my point of order, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) on two or three separate occasions made statements that were critical of the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) that were clearly listed in the oldest editions of May as unparliamentary. He called her ignorant; he called her a number of names. The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) called clearly across the floor that she was twisting the truth.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. LAUK : May 1 just complete? The Minister of Mines called across the floor that she was twisting.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) was not required to withdraw his comment when he said: "She W' - that is to say, twisting or not telling the truth or misleading.

AN HON. MEMBER : Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER : Could I explain this point to all of the members of the House who seem to be at one time or another overly sensitive about something that may have been said and at other times are completely prepared to take the opposite point of view and ignore what has been said on the floor of the House?

Today in debate in the question period, the term "misleading" was used by the hon. Minister of Human Resources. The rules that I have before me say that the word -misleading" is not unparliamentary, but....

MR. LEA : He said "deliberately misleading."

MR. SPEAKER : One moment, please! If the minister had said "deliberately misleading" that would have been a statement that could have been very much.... Well, the term "deliberately misleading" has been held to be unparliamentary in this House on other occasions. 1 heard the word "misleading" but I did not hear the words "deliberately misleading." 1 presume the Blues will show if that is there or not.

But when the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) asked for a withdrawal, it's the custom of the House to withdraw the phrase even though it may not necessarily be offensive to all of the members of the House.

MR. LAUK : Mr. Speaker, apropos of what you have just said, the minister stated, and 1 think the Blues will show, that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard "played with figures to mislead." That was the phrase he used.

MR. SPEAKER : 1 think perhaps, hon. member, we can both take a look at the Blues and determine it at another time, but 1 did not hear a statement of "deliberately misleading."

MR. LEA : On a point of order, during question period, Mr. Speaker, I got up and said "Point of order." You said that you'd recognize the minister and he would have his place. That is clearly against the rules of this House for you to do that.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. member, you'd already asked the minister to withdraw a remark that he made on the floor of the House. He was up on his feet at that point of time, replying to what you said was a point of order. Now we can't have two

[ Page 3402 ]

members on their feet at one time.

MR. LEA : Mr. Speaker, the minister had already withdrawn his remark and I was on my feet asking that the Minister of Education withdraw his. You told me that you would let the minister finish his statement, and that is clearly against the rules of this House. You should have recognized me on a point of order. I thought I would wait until after question period to bring it up.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. member, if the Minister of Education in any way said anything, it certainly wasn't as a result of being recognized because he wasn't on his feet.

MR. LEA : I wasn't talking about the Minister of Education. I mean, when I was talking about the Minister of Education, the Minister of Human Resources over there....

Mr. Speaker, I believe that you have a little trouble with your right ear.

MR. SPEAKER : The hon. member obviously enjoys what opportunity he can gain for himself to abuse the rules of the House by quite often using points of order which are not points of order.

MR. LEA : I didn't use one.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. member, there is a rule that says there should be some decorum to the manner in which the members address themselves to the business of this House. I hope that you will be guided by those rules, as well as everyone else.

MR. LEA : I hope you will too. Be nice.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HIGHWAYS

AND PUBLIC WORKS

(continued)

On vote 146: minister's office, $158,130 -

continued.

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr. Chairman, I just want to pursue what I said earlier at the start of this session. As an hon. member of this House, I now ask the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) to apologize to this House for the remarks he made last night, which are clearly an abuse of his privilege of freedom of speech and an abuse of my privileges.

Don Larsen never was my son-in-law; he is not now my son-in-law; and 1 guess he never will be my son-in-law.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, 1 notice that the Leader of the Opposition is not now present. Perhaps the minister would like to ask for that apology when the leader returns. Is that agreeable to the c committee? I have recognized the Provincial Secretary.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary) : Mr. Chairman, in getting to my feet in this debate on the minister's estimates 1 would like to refer to some comments that were made earlier in the debate by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) . At the time he made the charges in the House, part of it was facetious and 1 have to say 1 enjoyed his remarks about the flying carpet and so on. But 1 do want to put the record straight and 1 do think it should be made straight.

First of all, the intimation was left with the minister and also with this House that in my office, at the time that we became government, a very extravagant renovation was done, including a carpet which cost, in the member's words, I think - I haven't the Blues to refer to at the moment.... I think he said that I chose a carpet that was more expensive than one that would have been provided through Public Works, the ministry which we are now debating. I'd like the record to be made straight, Mr. Chairman, because the intimation was left that my extravagance cost our taxpayers money.

In fact, the record is exactly the reverse. First of all, let me say, too, under the plans drawn up during the 1972-75 regime, all ministers were to occupy space - that is, during the previous NDP government - in the main legislative buildings and that all offices were to be renovated for ministerial use. Those renovations were planned and were continued under the present administration. The space that was occupied by my office was not started until the last regime, but the plan was continued, the same plan that was left with the present government by the same artisans who were hired during that time.

The carpet that was removed from my office in 1976 was laid in autumn of last year. It was laid originally in the fall of 1965, and the carpet previous to that was laid in 195 1. The member yesterday said that a brand new carpet that had been laid during the previous Provincial Secretary's administration was taken out as it if was a brand new carpet. That carpet dated back, Mr. Chairman, to 1965. It was not a brand new carpet. It was slated to come out under the former NDP administration. It was taken out during this administration according to the same plan that had been established by the former administration.

The present carpet in my office was purchased at

[ Page 3403 ]

a cost of $1,479. The so-called Rattenbury carpet, which was referred to by the member for Vancouver Centre, would have cost $1,648. In other words, the choice that I made - which, if you will pardon me saying, I thought was a more tasteful carpet, and I think that is my prerogative - cost less money to the taxpayer of this province than the carpet that was slated by the previous government to go in. That carpet is being used in another office in the legislative buildings.

May I also say for the record, Mr. Chairman, that that whole record, which took 15 or 20 minutes of our time, with some hilarity in this House yesterday - it afforded a few laughs - really doesn't add very much to the House when you consider it comes from a representative of the NDP, which formed the government in the previous administration. In 1973, that same government, through the Attorney-General's office, moved into an office in the Pacific Centre. When the party occupying that office didn't like the colour of that brand new carpet, he had that carpet removed.

Now I must say, Mr. Chairman, that that was certainly a far different picture than the one presented yesterday by the hon. member and I would suggest that that member would apologize to the House for the misinformation.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The statement of the Provincial Secretary will be taken as a correction of statements made yesterday by the members in debate on the vote.

MR. LEA : Mr. Chairman, yesterday in this House, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) brought to the attention of the Minister of Highways and Public Works the fact that his ex-son-in-law had been promoted rapidly within the ministry by order-in-council to a position that's usually held by a civil servant. It was a newly created position, but if you look at the duties, a comparable position is in almost every department, I'm sure.

There was no reference in the Leader of the Opposition's speech to the minister's family, other than the fact that the minister had hired his ex-son-in-law - and I believe it was his son-in-law at the time of the first hiring - but that's neither here nor there.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please, hon. member. Just for clarification, I think in the statement that the minister made just at the opening of committee today, an explanation was made that under the circumstances, it's not a son-in-law or ex-son-in-law. It could not possibly have been. Therefore, I would like the member not to pursue this particular matter, particularly if it's injurious.

MR. LEA : I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman. What was your explanation again? Now I don't quite understand. What was your explanation? Would you tell me again?

AN HON. MEMBER : Did you listen?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The Chair listened to a statement made when the committee came to order this afternoon. The explanation that the Chair heard was the opposite to the kind of a statement the member is presently making. "Ex-son-in-law" - it's a phrase that can be injurious and is not correct. So I would just like the member not to pursue that particular phrase.

MR. LEA : Mr. Chairman, I believe that the minister, in making his statement, dragged his family into something which the family had previously not been dragged into. I believe that and I find that that is the shameful part.

AN HON. MEMBER : You have no shame.

MR. LEA : I have never in my life seen anything like what I've witnessed here today in this House. I have never seen anybody or any government sink to that low for political purposes. I just have not.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Under vote 145, please.

MR. LEA : That is under the vote. We're talking about the administration of this minister's office and quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I never expected to hear that minister use those kind of tactics. I don't know whether it was forced on him by that cabinet but I sure never expected to hear it. What we have here is a government and a minister trying to get out from what is politically embarrassing - to take one's relatives into his administration and promote them rapidly when civil servants aren't even given a chance to compete for those jobs. That's what we're dealing with. We're not dealing in whether or not....

First of all, I would like to say that what the minister said today in his statement moved me, because of the past. I think the minister should be commended as a human being for what he did. Both he and his wife should be commended for it. But now, to come into this chamber for political purposes and say it doesn't matter what I do now that I'm a minister because years ago I was a humanitarian, is absolutely false. It's a false premise and it's trying, in my opinion, to divert attention from what the real facts are.

The real facts are that Don Larsen was put in a position by this minister through order-in-council, a position that should normally have gone to competition through the civil service. That is what's at stake here, not whether the minister is a good guy or a bad guy.

[ Page 3404 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. On a point of order, the member for North Okanagan.

MRS.- P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan) : I may just ask for guidance, but at the moment I'm rising on standing order 43 where, if a member persists in irrelevant or tedious or repetitious debate, he should be asked to desist.

I would also, as a member of this House, seek your guidance in the right order upon which to rise in which the personal privileges of a member would be protected. My reason is that I feel that the member from Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) is continuing to abuse the privileges of this House. He's attacking a member of this House in an area that relates not to his duty as a minister but in a way that is offensive and disruptive to his family. The member for Prince Rupert has failed to realize that this is not a matter of political expediency. There are very serious consequences that might result from continual persistence and abuse of a member's privileges.

MR. CHAIRMAN : May I just reply to the member for North Okanagan? Under standing order 43, the directive pertains to irrelevance or tedious repetition. The Chair by practice in this House has been very lenient in days gone by and, as a matter of fact, has established somewhat of a precedent in determining when tediousness begins. The Chair would continue to do that if that luxury was invested in me by the House. I have tried on a couple of occasions to perhaps narrow the scope of tediousness. However, the House governs itself by its own practices and I would be very, very happy to follow the guidance.

As regards to remarks made by any member in this House, every member accepts the responsibility for statements made in this House, whether they be true or untrue or whether they be assumptions or whether they be injurious. Every member takes the responsibility for his own statements. The member who now has the floor is fully cognizant of that.

MR. LEA : I would like to use an analogy to prove my point. It probably makes me look like a good guy because I have an adopted daughter. Does that mean that if I were a minister of the Crown, I could appoint her husband and it wouldn't be considered patronage of my son-in-law? Is that what it means? That isn't the issue and no one on this side of the House raised it. The minister himself raised it.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that to show that I think the minister raising it hasn't proved that he isn't in error; it proves that he is. I would, as one member, like to drop it at this point because it is not the issue. The only reason I mentioned it is because the minister mentioned it. The minister mentioned it in his statement. I would like to drop it and just deal with the facts. I don't want to muck-rake.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources) : All you want to do is muck-rake.

MR. LEA : Mr. Chairman, 1 won't even ask him for an apology.

HON. MR. CHABOT : 1 wouldn't give you one anyway.

MR. LEA : Mr. Chairman, this government has found itself in the embarrassing position of a minister hiring relatives in his office and promoting them in rapid order. That is what we've found, and to get out of that political embarrassment....

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health) : Mr. Chairman, 1 must demand that the Chair call for an apology from that member who has lied on two or three occasions in this House about the matter which has been cleared up beyond any doubt.

Mr. Chairman, he deliberately insists on saying that a member of the executive council hired a relative when it's absolutely true and beyond any doubt that the Minister of Highways never hired any relative. The person in question was never his son-in-law, never once, and that member stands there and continues to insist on spreading lies throughout this House. He must be called to account for that.

MR. CHAIRMAN : With great respect. Hon. minister, the phrase that "the member lied to the House" is unparliamentary. The Chair cannot determine as to the validity of this statement, only the unparliamentariness of the statement. I must ask the minister to withdraw the statement that "he lied to the House." If the minister will withdraw that remark, then 1 will deal with the point of order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : On parliamentary grounds, Mr. Speaker, 1 will withdraw that statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN : On the first point of order, the statements being made by the member for Prince Rupert are the full responsibility of that member. It has already been drawn to the full attention of the committee that perhaps the term "relative" is not applicable in this case. However, if the member continues to use that term, then he must carry the responsibility for the use of that term.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : On a further point of order, is it not true that in this House, under the rules that we are supposed to work by, an Hon. member's statements must be accepted as fact?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Yes. All members are honourable members and every Hon. member's

[ Page 3405 ]

statement is taken as fact in this House. Every member also must take the responsibility for his own statements.

The Minister of Mines on a point of order.

HON. MR. CHABOT : My point of order was covered, but I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that you would insist that other members accept statements made as being factual and not allow them to abuse statements made by members of this House. This House will be disorderly unless you maintain some semblance of order and make that member respect statements that have been made in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN : On that same point of order, I would like to remind hon. members that the Chair is in no position and has no authority to act as a screen for the veracity of statements made in this House. Every member accepts the responsibility for his own statements.

On a point of order, the member for Fort George.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George) : Mr. Chairman, may I have some clarification from you? Standing order 40 (2) says no member should use offensive words against any member of this House. I would say that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) is using offensive words when he indicates that a relative has been hired. I would ask him to withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN : In bygone sittings of this committee, standing order 40 (2) has been interpreted to mean individual words that are offensive -unparliamentary words. If the ruling is to be changed or interpreted in other ways, then that can be changed not in the committee but in the House by substantive motion. I would encourage the member for Fort George to do so.

MR. LEA : Mr. Chairman, what we have here is a government desperately trying to hang on to semantics to try and beat what is a legitimate political charge. Semantics! I think I know that minister a little as a human being and I doubt whether there is any way in this world that the minister doesn't think of that girl as his daughter, and she is in fact his daughter. I would, Mr. Chairman.

And I don't think there's anybody in this province who wouldn't understand that if you raise a child, that child marries, and then you bring that person that child married into government service with quick promotion over civil servants, that is a legitimate political charge. And to try and get out of this charge with semantics and drag people into it who shouldn't have been dragged into it is entirely the responsibility of the minister. I will take no part of that responsibility. That is the minister's responsibility and the minister's conscience.

The fact of the matter is that Don Larsen was promoted within that department by order-in-council into a position that should have been put out for competition to the civil service. That is the fact of the matter. Whether we're going to argue semantics or not is another matter.

The government, knowing they were in political trouble, went into caucus and decided that in order to get out of this they were going to use these kinds of arguments. I say the shame is on them. To do this for political purposes to that minister is deplorable, absolutely deplorable. And no party would do that; no political party would do that. Only a coalition would do that - a coalition that did anything for power and now obviously will do anything and say anything to stay in power. To bring that kind of argument into this House that that minister brought into this House, I consider to be a shame.

The fact of the matter is that Don Larsen went over the heads of people who should have had the opportunity to at least compete for that position. That is the only point that we should be talking about. That argument put forward by the ministries nothing but a red herring.

The political morality is the same. Mr. Larsen maybe should have the position. From what I know of Mr. Larsen, I think he's a competent person. But that isn't the point. The point is that there should have been others allowed to compete for that position. They were not allowed to compete for that position, and it appears obvious that the reason they were not allowed to compete is because of the long-standing relationship between the minister and Mr. Larsen. The long-standing relationship between the minister and Mr. Larsen is the reason that no one was allowed to compete for that position.

For this government to come in here and actually put forward the argument that the minister put forward to me is the biggest shame that I've had to sit through in my five years in this House. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the minister in his heart of hearts knows what I'm saying and agrees with what I'm saying.

I can't believe the, minister did it of his own will. I believe there was a decision made by that group over there, and the -minister is now the pawn. He's done something in this House Mr. Chairman, that I don't think I would want to do or you would want to do.

A government that is that desperate to bring in that kind of argument and then stand up on points of order and argue about semantics.... To me, that is the cheapest of tricks. Yes, they're caught with their fingers in the political cookie jar but, for God's sake, handle it like decent, adult human beings.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. Back to vote 146.

[ Page 3406 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that those of us on this side of the House would have been able to restrain ourselves and not reply to the scurrilous personal attacks which are being made in this House, not just last night and not just today, but for some time now, by a few members opposite. However, I feel that things have now gone past the point of being able to turn the other cheek -if that's the right phrase - and that some defence, in order to restore a little decorum to a chamber which is noted, I guess, for frontier democracy sometimes, is necessary.

One of the best friends I have, Mr. Chairman, in the whole world is the Minister of Highways. This is a man who came to public office 30 years ago or more, whose father before him had given of himself to the public of British Columbia in an elected capacity. The Minister of Highways, Mr. Chairman, has performed his duties since his election to government, some 18 months ago, in a manner which is beyond reproach and which is acknowledged by many people in this province, inside and outside of government, as the best that this province has known in its history.

For 20 years, the Minister of Highways was mayor of Quesnel and a former president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, and never once has there been a touch of scandal connected with this man, this minister of the Crown - never once. In fact, Mr. Chairman, it was exactly the opposite. There has been praise and plaudits, richly deserved, for this Minister of Highways, not only from his colleagues in the government but also from members of the opposition parties, and certainly from members of municipal councils all over British Columbia.

It's shameful, Mr. Chairman, that arguments were advanced last evening in this House by the Leader of the Official Opposition. They have now been recognized as beyond good taste and irrelevant. So we see today, in an attempt at defence by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) and the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , an attempt to change direction.

Those two members now say that the issue - at least the member for Revelstoke did, and I assume the same from the wrap-up of the member for Prince Rupert - is not anybody's son-in-law, but rather an issue that close political confidants have been appointed to positions within government without competition. If that's the case, and if that's the argument that's now being advanced by the opposition, Mr. Chairman, it's even more spurious than anything they've done before.

Before I cite some examples, briefly, Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate there is no semantic game being played in this House today. There is no doubt that the Minister of Highways' son-in-law has never been appointed to any position in government because, in fact, the Minister of Highways has no son-in-law. He has never had a son-in-law. We all hope that it will be his good fortune to have his adopted daughter provide him with a son-in-law at some time in his life. But, Mr.

Chairman, we must clear up once and for all that the man in question is not a son-in-law of the Minister of Highways in fact, in name, in fancy, or in any other way. The members opposite do nothing for the dignity, decorum or business of this House by continuing to allude to a person in the public service in this manner.

The person in question is a member of the minister's office - an employee of the minister's office. Traditionally in governments all over North America - at least, certainly in Canada - employees at the senior level in the minister's office are not open to competition.

I'd like to cite some names from the past of people who have been appointed to high government positions in much the same manner. Before doing that, I would agree with one comment that was made by the Leader of the Official Opposition last night. He said: "Executive assistants live and die with the government and the people appointed to those positions must have some close liaison and close affinity with the minister responsible." That only makes good sense. We agree with that statement and everybody in government today does, I'm sure.

Let's look at a list of people who were given fairly broad responsibilities in terms of government - far more responsibilities incidentally, than a simple executive assistant. I could start with the Minister of Public Works in the previous government, who appointed an administrator 6 named Richard D. Pollard - no competition; and an executive assistant named Jim C. Greer; the Minister of Highways appointed two administrative assistants - Dan Miller and Wayne Harding - both at $16,000 and $17,000 a year, with no competition.

There was an order-in-council passed by the previous government in 1972, in which all administrator 6s - who were, presumably, civil servants - were reclassified as ministerial executive assistants and their salaries increased substantially.

The former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources appointed one Norman Pearson as a special consultant to the minister in 1972 at $19,560; a subsequent order-in-council in 1974 appointed that same person - a very close political confidant of the minister - as an associate deputy minister at a salary of $30,000 a year! There was no competition, Mr. Chairman, whatsoever.

Another close political confidant of the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources was one Mason Gaffney, appointed to a very high position in government with a high salary.

MR. BARRETT : It wasn't a political appointment at all!

[ Page 3407 ]

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East) : Get your facts straight!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : There was no competition.

One Hart Horn was appointed by the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources in the previous government as an administrator 6 at $16,000 per year. He was reclassified by an order-in-council in 1972 as an executive assistant, and later on he was made an associate deputy minister, with no competition - an associate deputy minister in the civil service!

AN HON. MEMBER : Right. They're all orders-in-council; every deputy minister is.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : That's right. With no competition he was made an associate deputy minister. He was a very close political confidant; in fact, he was the mouthpiece for the previous Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

One Clay Perry started out....

MR. KING : On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we're debating the estimates of the Minister of Highways ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh!

MR. KING : ... and I would suggest that the Minister of Health be called to order and asked to direct his remarks to the department under consideration.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Your point of order is well taken. In debate in this committee and in this entire parliamentary session, members on both sides of the House have used more examples of what they are purporting to be the case under a vote than they are permitted to do so, I was on the verge of drawing to the attention of the minister who now has the floor the fact that there is an end to the number of illustrations that can be permitted. We are under vote 146 and your point is well taken.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I realize the need to relate the debate to the minister's vote. I believe I am doing that in terms of replying to criticism of the minister which has been raised, not just last night but today, in terms of so-called political appointments.

I wish to make only a couple of more examples because it's very important to know that it's not unusual, Mr. Chairman, for ministers of the Crown to appoint people, without competition, to positions in their own ministerial offices. There were maybe two more examples that 1 should give. 1 could talk about

Vic Parker, who was a close political confidant, again, appointed to a position very high in government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Order!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : One Clay Perry, who started off as an executive assistant, was later appointed to the civil service, directly from his position as....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Back to the vote.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Marc Eliesen, who was given not only responsibility for his department, but also....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please.

MR. KING : I indicated earlier, Mr. Chairman, that I think the Minister of Health should be confined to discussion of the vote before this House at the moment. The Chair indicated that that point was well taken, and still the minister is being allowed to wander all over the realm of government. If that is the ruling of the Chair, Mr. Chairman, then the opposition is free to consider the estimates and the administration of each and every member of the executive council.

MR. CHAIRMAN : 1 draw to the attention of the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan that when he stood on a point of order, his point of order was well taken and drawn to the attention of the member who had the floor. That order was addressed to the attention of the minister again just a few seconds later for the second time.

I would remind the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan that on a similar occasion yesterday, a member of the opposition was called to order six times and did not comply. Therefore, 1 doubt that unfairness can be charged to the Chair.

I would ask the hon. Minister of Health to return to vote 146, the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Highways and Public Works.

MR. KING : A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I would draw to the attention of the Chairman, quite respectfully, that unfairness was his own phraseology, not mine. If the shoe fits, Mr. Chairman, that's beyond my control.

MR. CHAIRMAN : That is an attack on the Chair. 1 ask the hon. member to withdraw that. Would the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan please withdraw that?

MR. KING : 1 am quite prepared to withdraw, Mr. Chairman. 1 would ask the Chairman of the

[ Page 3408 ]

committee to please refrain from justifying his application of the rules on the basis of some alleged misconduct by the members of the opposition that has nothing to do with the application of the rules now. I think the Chairman should withdraw that unfair imputation.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The matter of fact is that all members have a responsibility to obtain to the rules of the House and it is the responsibility of the Chairman to attempt to do so, with some difficulty, I might add.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Mr. Chairman, I just ask for guidance from you for a moment. On two occasions today, in the response to the statement by the Minister of Highways by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan and in the debate by the member from Prince Rupert, both alleged that the issue at stake under these estimates today was the appointment of a so-called close political confidant to a position without competition.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that I am completely within my rights to draw to the attention of the House in this debate that that is not an unusual situation, that it has happened in the past, and that I have the right to make a few examples of that kind.

Mr. Chairman, it's difficult to keep up in this debate because the members opposite keep changing their charge. Unfortunately, they're not exactly sure of where they stand at the present time but I believe I'm on good ground in pursuing this course.

But I won't much longer. If I could just make two more examples of this kind of approach that has been made in answer to the debate which was made in the House by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan and the member for Prince Rupert, I draw to your attention one Marc Eliesen, who was appointed to the position very high in government without competition and who not only had the responsibilities that were given to him but also....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. I must ask you now to return to vote 146. 1 think that we've allowed sufficient illustration.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Too bad I saved the best for last. The last two examples were the very best, Mr. Chairman, and I will return to the vote. The other, of course, is Mr. Jim Rhodes, who had no qualifications except that he was a former roommate of the former Premier.

Mr. Chairman, last night on the debate on this estimate....

MR. CHAIRMAN : I think the hon. minister is abusing the authority of the Chair. I would ask the minister to return to 146.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Last night in the debate, the Leader of the Opposition referred to $400,000 of taxpayers' money which was spent for a firm of consultants to make recommendations to the Minister of Highways and Public Works about the employment of senior employees of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation. The Leader of the Opposition attempted to tell this House that part of that $400,000, or all of it, had been wasted because of the minister's appointment of a person in his own office.

I must remind the members, Mr. Chairman, that obviously the Leader of the Opposition never did read the order-in-council which appointed one Don Larsen to that position and which was made fully public in May of this year.

MR. LEA : It had to be!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : That's right, and that's why you had the opportunity to discuss that within the House at that time. There was nothing secretive about that appointment, as the member from Prince Rupert has pointed out. They have to be made public, and it was made public last May, Mr. Chairman. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition didn't have the interest of the House at heart to take the time to read that order-in-council or else he would have known that that person was not appointed to the British Columbia Buildings Corporation but was appointed to a position within the ministry in the minister's office.

And for him to conclude, as he did last night, that in some way that could be connected to a study done of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation is not only nonsense but it shows the gross incompetence of that leader of the official opposition and obviously his $80,000-a-year consultant who used to be in his place in this House.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : No, $80,000 was just one payoff. That was enough.

AN HON. MEMBER : Was it public funds?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : We don't know!

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Mr. Chairman, that is another example of someone getting a pretty high position to pay off his leaving to make room for the official Leader of the Opposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. This is off the vote.

[ Page 3409 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Yes, it is. I was distracted by the members, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LAUK : On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it is not only a breach of the ordinary unparliamentary language rule in the committee for the minister to have made that comment, but to reflect on how any member obtained his seat in this House, or to have any scurrilous and unfounded suggestion in that regard. This could be grounds for a committee of privileges to investigate and, when the facts found, for one or the other member to resign his seat.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I didn't detect the point of order.

MR. LAUK : The point of order is that the minister has made totally unfounded charges in an attempt to shield the Minister of Highways and Public Works. He is trying to avoid the issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. 1 think the statement was made by the Chair earlier that each member accepts the responsibility for his own statements in the House.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston) : On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, as the minister has proceeded to keep away from the topic I feel it my duty to report to you that when you mentioned having had to call a member of our party to order six times, the minister showed contempt for the House by saying "four more to go, " because you had already called him to order two times. 1 heard that and 1 think it is borne out by his behaviour in proceeding in this manner. 1 would urge you to call for the minister to show respect for this House and to take a more serious attitude in keeping with his position.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you. I would commend to the House the practice of seeing how few times we can be called to order and not how many.

AN HON. MEMBER : Hear, hear!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Mr. Chairman, I will wind up my place in this debate very quickly and I will stay to the vote. I'm very serious about this debate. It is one of the most serious items that has ever come up for discussion in this House. The outcome of it will probably be felt in British Columbia politics for many years to come;

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) is obviously showing his true colours now, Mr. Chairman, by laughing ...

MR. KING : Claptrap!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : ... at what last night was called a very serious matter, what today was called a very serious matter, and what I contend has very serious implications for the future of this House, Mr. Chairman. I would commend you to take note of the member for Revelstoke-Slocan's laughter.

MR. LAUK : You're a terrific actor, Bob!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I just wish to say that the 18 months or so achievement in terms of highway development and maintenance in this province and the development of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation and the public works programme, still in its infancy, is also one of the most important developments that has happened in British Columbia politics for many years now, and I don't recall anyone in political life in this province for whom I have a greater regard than the Minister of Highways and Public Works of this province, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Just before I recognize the Leader of the Opposition, who now has the floor, I think at this juncture, if the committee would permit, it might be a good idea to cite Beauchesne, who says in his 128th paragraph:

"A personal attack by one member upon another is an offence against the House in the person of one of its members which, on account of the respect due from every member to the character and the dignity of the House, as well as the importance of preserving regularity in the debates, calls for the prompt interference of the Speaker."

The Chairman has had a great deal of difficulty in trying to determine whether the debate essentially was an attack upon a member or whether it was an attack upon his administration. If it is an attack upon his administration, it is in order; but when it is an attack upon the individual, it calls for the immediate interference by the Chairman. I trust the committee will keep this in mind.

MR. BARRETT : I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Just one moment. You caught me off guard. I'm not sure if a point of privilege is allowable in committee. Would the hon. Leader of the Opposition just allow me to check up on one of the things I don't know? (Laughter.)

We are not aware of a precedent for this, but if the member would like to make a statement, I think that by agreement in committee we could do this. We can't even ask leave in committee.

MR. BARRETT : Okay. Mr. Chairman, it's

[ Page 3410 ]

appropriate in committee in terms of the rules that I enter into the debate because it is in order. The reason I raise the question of privilege is because I want to refer to other statements made that are relevant to the debate on the matter of privilege, and I think they are in order in any event under this vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Does the committee agree? We can't ask leave. Agreed.

MR. BARRETT : Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to inform you and the House that I have carefully read the statement prepared by the minister and I carefully reviewed my statements last night.

I would like first of all to recall, Mr. Chairman, to the House, in case there is an over-grievous sense of offence about the nature of debate or the minister's response, that two years ago in this chamber I was attacked as having given my brother-in-law an ICBC appointment when in fact that was not true. That was never withdrawn. In fact, my brother-in-law was a Socred supporter and had been in the insurance business for 25 years. The upshot of that vicious attack was that the Socreds lost a good supporter.

Secondly, the Premier stated that I had hired relatives and friends on the BCR. It was never proven and he never apologized when he was in opposition.

Thirdly, in terms of the minister's pious statements about personal attacks, let him explain a present court case that he's involved in.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to say this: the minister rose on a question of privilege to point out that his son-in-law was not his legal son-in-law but married to his foster daughter. The relationship is now clear. But why he would raise it and define it on his terms is beyond me.

The same point I made yesterday is equally clear. I made it clear yesterday that order-in-council appointments are made by all administrations. They came under verbal abuse by the former Social Credit administration, and I call that hypocritical in light of what I discussed last night.

What was particularly mentionable about last night is what I repeat now and I say again: the relationship is now clear, but why the minister would raise it is beyond me. You chose to do that. The same point I made yesterday is that the minister has made a pathetic attempt to use his foster daughter as a shield. The fact remains that the minister has hired a person once married to his foster daughter and, further, has through his ministerial power influenced Larsen's appointment to a highly paid civil service position. That's a fact. Wild accusations of me hiring my relatives were never substantiated. What I'm repeating are facts emphasized by the minister.

Mr. Minister, I say again: this is nepotism. It is a gross abuse of power,

and we will be not silenced in bringing this shameful behaviour to the attention

of the people of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. members, the Leader of the Opposition has now replied to the request which was made by the Minister of Highways earlier in committee today. I think I would draw to the attention of all committee members that statements have now been permitted on both sides of the House. This question has now been referred to the Speaker of the House for consideration and it may well be inappropriate for us to continue this particular debate any longer in committee.

Would that meet with the approval of all committee members and could we now return to vote 146?

AN HON. MEMBER : No!

MR. KING : I'm not on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, but I do not feel that it's necessary to restrict the debate in committee in the area of the minister's jurisdiction. I, in regard to comments I made yesterday, have been named by the minister and other government spokesmen, and I certainly request and expect from the Chair the opportunity to respond, to enlarge upon and to clarify statements which I made yesterday. I see no reason with respect to any question of privilege for me to be proscribed from dealing with the areas of the minister's administrative responsibility, and that's what 1 intend to direct my remarks to.

MR. CHAIRMAN : May 1 just respond? The concern of the Chair is the fact that the matter has been placed before the Speaker of the House and it is for his consideration. 1 would not like the committee to be charged with having carried on a debate on a matter that could be perhaps considered to be sub judice. 1 need some direction at the Chair, but it appears that this is a matter now for the Speaker to consider.

MR. NICOLSON : On a point of order, there is no matter of privilege before the Speaker because whatever was raised today was not raised at the first available opportunity. It would have had to have been raised last evening after we came out of committee, which would have been the first opportunity.

That rule has been used many times in this House. It has prevented many other matters of privilege from being pursued by this House&, and it's quite clear. It's so clear that I'm sure it's understood by each and every member of this House. I think it is so obvious that for that reason the Speaker did not even bother to draw it to our attention.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, I think the member knows that matters which occur in the

[ Page 3411 ]

House are not matters to be discussed or are not matters of concern for members while we are in committee. They are two separate entities. As a matter of fact, in the reverse, the House is not even knowledgeable as to what happens in committee even though we are the same members. Therefore the question of whether or not it could have been brought up at the earliest possible moment does not apply.

It occurs to me that perhaps the newspaper accounts which are knowledgeable to committee are a part of the matter to be considered on the whole question of privilege. I would not like our committee to be responsible for having discussed matters that would perhaps prejudice a matter presently before Mr. Speaker.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

MR. KING : Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Minister of Highways and Public Works' office vote, I wish to refer again to the policies that the minister has pursued in terms of engaging staff. I wish to refer specifically to Mr. Don Larsen who was hired apparently through order-in-council without competition at the minister's sole discretion. I want to re-emphasize the remarks I made yesterday, Mr. Chairman, and put forward the point of view that it is a deplorable situation when a political lieutenant of the minister is charged, in the minister's own words, with a phase-out of 800 employees under the Public Works

section of that ministry. Eight hundred employees now find their employment with the British Columbia government in jeopardy. And who is presiding over the demise of employment security for all of these loyal civil servants - British Columbia citizens - but the political lieutenant of the Minister of Public Works, appointed at a cushy salary, without competition. Mr. Chairman, it is certainly in violation of the spirit of the practice in the public service realm of this province.

No one would criticize the minister for engaging Don Larsen or any other Social Credit supporter, whether or not there's a family relationship. As an executive assistant in his office, no one on this side of the House would criticize that, although 1 would draw to the attention of the House, Mr. Chairman, that the Social Credit Party when they were the official opposition on this side of the House took every occasion to attack and to criticize executive assistants to the former NDP administration. Hansard bears record and witness to the irresponsible attacks that were made by that very minister and his colleagues against executive assistants under the former administration.

But be that as it may, we find no argument with ministers of the Crown appointing executive assistants to do their work in their office, to assist them with constituency matters, to run political errands, or as is apparently the case at least in one instance, to shine the minister's shoes. That's permissible.

But when a minister arbitrarily appoints such an executive assistant to a senior position, particularly one which involves organization of the phase-out of the Public Works department and at least the jeopardy of the employment security of perhaps hundreds of British Columbia civil servants, then I say that is too much, that is completely unacceptable, and I suggest that it is completely politically immoral.

I want to say to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that the family relationship is a matter that doesn't really alter the situation. I suggest that if it were a direct family connection, the proposition would be more aggravated. It's not a family member - fine, we accept that. I don't think it was necessary for the minister to make a dramatic presentation in the House to explain that. He could have simply done it through a note to the opposition if it was a sensitive matter such as he suggests. But it doesn't alter the question of the impropriety of the appointment of Mr. Larsen.

I want to assure the minister and I want to assure the government, Mr. Chairman, that the opposition has no intention of accepting what apparently is some emotional family situation as justification for the misconduct of that minister in going beyond the public service and appointing a political cohort - a political flack, as the Socreds used to refer to them -to a sensitive position, to a senior position that is undefined. It's undefined other than the minister's brief description in this House.

The minister did indicate that one of the duties would be to assist in the phase-out of the Public Works section. I still ask the minister for a precise definition of the functions that Mr. Larsen is assigned to perform. It's a very handsome salary. There are around 100,000 unemployed British Columbians in this province who would appreciate employment at half that salary today, Mr. Chairman. We've witnessed on the TV in the last few days line-ups of hundreds and hundreds of young Vancouver people vying for jobs that may be available at the PNE. That's an indicator of how desperate the employment situation is in this province.

Well, when the Minister of Public Works appoints someone who has a close relationship - both political and otherwise - with the minister, then I think at least he has the obligation to provide this House with a complete description of the functions to be served and fulfilled by that person. He has an obligation to assure this House that at least there is a valid position there and valid functions for that individual, and that the province is receiving value for the disbursement of that man's salary. All we have from the order-in-council is an indication that he's some kind of - I forget the precise term - liaison officer, or

[ Page 3412 ]

some such term. It's a new position in any event.

What are the terms of reference? Is that position going to obtain after the phase-out of the Public Works

section of the minister's department is completed, or will the job terminate then? Will the job at that time, after relinquishing the phase-out responsibilities, become simply a political PR position for the minister's re-election? These are valid questions. After all, $29,000 of the taxpayers' money for a salary I think at least deserves a detailed explanation in this House.

The minister has been extremely recalcitrant about offering information on the purpose of this position and the functions of the individual involved, and I hope lie will give a full assessment to the House so that we may understand precisely Mr. Larsen's functions.

I'm interested not only from the point of view of value from the Public Works ministry, but also from the point of view of whether or not a new precedent has been set, a new position established in the public service, which will be followed by other ministries. I have no objection to useful roles for public servants, but I would hate to see the public service of this province politicized to the extent that the taxpayers' money was being utilized to do the political bidding of any minister of the Crown. This is a very serious matter and it's a legitimate concern. It's one that the opposition has an obligation to clarify in this House. It's certainly one that the minister should answer.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre) : It's been quite an afternoon. I don't intend to belabour some of the questions that have been before us, Mr. Chairman, but I am a bit concerned about the progress that we're making on this ministry. We're still dealing with the B.C. Buildings Corporation, the public service, the transfer of Public Works staff to the B.C. Buildings Corporation, and we've got a lot of work to do. We've got a lot of questions concerning other facilities in the Highways and Public Works ministry.

I know it's mid-summer and many of us have families, and I would like to do my best to facilitate the expeditious procedure of interviewing this minister about his various areas of responsibility so that we can carry on with the people's business and deal with the reams of questions that are before us.

I must say, though, that the minister's insistence that the Peat Marwick and Partners study, which was commissioned last November and which was apparently terminated at the end of May, is going to remain confidential is doing very little to assist those of us on this side of the House in scrutinizing the present status of this new Buildings Corporation.

We found, after many laborious hours quizzing this minister last night, that Peat Marwick and Partners had submitted a bill for $396,551.25, which I must say is a pretty hefty bill for providing consultation to make decisions about transferring staff from the Public Works department and creating a new facility that will encompass those duties, in addition to some others. None of this has to do with any capital costs - just consultation and advice. Last evening the minister indicated that he has reserved for himself the right to selectively accept the recommendations from these experts.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Now I've done a bit of arithmetic in trying to get some idea about what that $396,551.25 means to the people of British Columbia. I asked the minister in a rather impassioned plea last night to provide for the House the specifics, to give us not necessarily names but numbers of consultants who were involved, to tell us how many of them were required at the various levels of professional consultation. He mentioned lawyers and he mentioned engineers and various people who may have been involved, suggesting that they were paid $29 to $75 per hour for this consultation.

That was supposed to be between the period of November ... say November 1. It may have been in the middle of November; I'm not sure of the exact date. But it was November, 1976, to May, 1977. By my calculations, if you were to include all of the hours, you'd have something like 5,088 hours. If you took a 24-hour day, 7 days a week for 7 months, you'd have 5,088 hours. I'm asking the minister to indicate how we relate that large number of hours to the $29-to-$75 range that he suggests those consultants were paid.

Was there only one consultant paid that much per hour, two consultants, three consultants or four consultants? Were they all paid collectively or individually or how? 1 would like to understand what it actually cost and to see whether they were working on a 24-hour-a-day basis, on an 8-hour-a-day, or on a 16-hour-a-day basis; 7 days a week, 5 days a week or what.

We have no idea of how those moneys are being paid out. We have nothing to relate to. The minister suggests that there has been a study and that they have information to relate their questions, but they do not feel that these should be made available to those of us on this side of the House. 1 must submit, Mr. Chairman, that this disappoints me, because I would like to feel that we on this side of the House can participate in the decisions that are being made to create this new Buildings Corporation.

I feel that these decisions affect the economic status and the future of this province. We're being asked to endorse a corporation that will be given a mandate to expend upwards of $200 million of public funds by creating a debt that does not have to

[ Page 3413 ]

be accounted for in the general revenue of this province. We are being asked to go along with a plan that will see some 800 public servants left in abeyance in terms of their protection or their security during this transfer of public employees to non-public employee status when they go into the employ of the new B.C. Buildings Corporation.

These questions are vital to those of us on this side of the House. They are important to the people of the province of British Columbia to understand. I think the magnitude of the question of the impact that the B.C. Buildings Corporation is likely to have on the people of British Columbia is completely confounding. I don't think that most of us have even begun to appreciate what is happening. We've had some examples of how things can get out of hand simply in trying to scrutinize the minister - I don't wish to belabour this - on the simple question of making an appointment for an assistant. It's no big deal. It's been going on as long as there have been politicians.

If there is this much difficulty in trying to come clean on simple appointments, be they by order-in-council or otherwise, what knowledge have we of what is going to happen to these some 800 public servants? I know this is not a particularly popular issue as far as most people are concerned. I've said this before and I've been accused of having made this speech before, Mr. Chairman. In fact, those people on that side of the House have found occasion to ridicule me for standing up here and defending the public service day after day after day, saying: "You are becoming redundant and repetitious and you have a one-track mind. There are other matters that have to be discussed."

I'm asking the minister again to relate to the questions I am asking so that we can get on with other things. He has failed to give any satisfaction or any kind of assurances other than those that he can soft-shoe around from time to time, depending on the kind of situation in which he finds himself.

I'm still getting phone calls. We canvassed one last night about the Ashmore case. The minister felt we should not use the name but just deal with the position, but I had another phone call as well from a person in a supervisory position. He applied for a job with the B.C. Buildings Corporation and did not withdraw his application, incidentally, Mr. Minister, as you suggested that there were no applicants. There was at least one applicant. I can provide you with those facts. But I'm not going to deal with names; it's not necessary. We'll talk about positions.

This particular person was interested in the position of manager of information services at the B.C. Buildings Corporation. He is presently working as a public servant. You sent a memo out advising all public servants that they should apply for positions that would be posted and they would be given special opportunity. They would be given first opportunity, I believe is the way it was put, on a merit system of some sort. There is some kind of scheme that the public service has of evaluating the competence and various levels of skill that the public servants have.

Before the positions that they were given first privilege to apply for would be open to the public, they would be so advised that no one had qualified or how many had qualified and so forth, Mr. Chairman, and then they would go to the public. This was to be part of the concession that the minister was making for public servants who are in the Department of Public Works to ensure them that their best interests would be considered and they would be given an opportunity before opening up the jobs to the public. That sounded reasonable, and I think most public servants would be willing to co-operate and would accept that aspect of this whole transformation.

Many of them were quite surprised to find that they were just being given courtesy letters acknowledging receipt of their applications, being told they would be given serious consideration and being advised later they had been given serious consideration but that they would be withholding any final decision for a while until they had gotten a few more applications from the public. What we're getting is a snow job really, Mr. Chairman - I hope that's not unparliamentary.

But that's really what is happening. I think most of the people in the public service are just as afraid today as they were when the minister made his announcement last November that he intended to reorganize the public service. At that time he didn't indicate just how much reorganization he had in mind, but really what he was saying was that he was going to wipe out the public service and replace it with a private organization under the guise of a public corporation.

It is not a public corporation in the real sense. It has the mandate of the public to use the public's money to do private business. That's really what the B.C. Buildings Corporation is, MR. Chairman. It is not going to be serving the public's best interest when it first of all destroys the protection that public servants have under the Government Employees Union. They'll now have to go and recertify themselves and form another union. They're no longer public servants.

We don't know what may happen when that Buildings Corporation board decides they want to make some other changes. They may decertify them - anything could happen. They're already doing it with Notre Dame University. They're doing it through attrition, by slowly destroying the confidence and the morale of the people in the public service. There is a very definite political move to destroy the credibility and the good faith and the morale in the public service. This is the thing that

[ Page 3414 ]

bothers me. 1 would like the minister to tell me why he is so ruthless in dealing with these people. What crimes have they committed?

There obviously is an attempt on the behalf of this government to discredit the public servant. With all due respect to the minister, when he talks about those people on the crews who are only putting in two hours working on highways ... and there are other examples. We have had complaints by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) as well attacking the public servants. These things are not by accident, Mr. Chairman. There's no accident. It's deliberate; it's planned. They hope to get the support of the redneck reactionaries out there who don't like the public servants because they see them as a bunch of people who are trying to get something for nothing.

It has been a deliberate scapegoat system that they've created. They have put the tag on the tail of the public servant. The public servant is in a defenceless position. They are not able to come forward for fear of being struck down, for fear of being reprimanded, which will happen the first time one stands up and starts trying to be heard. The squeeze is on - it's hush, hush, quiet, whisper around the corners.

These are the things that concern me, and this is why I've been persistent. This is why this is the fourth time I've stood up and made the same speech without a word in the press, Without one word anywhere, because there doesn't seem to be any interest in the public service or the people who are in the middle as this group over there is destroying them. They're going to turn everything over to the private sector, Mr. Chairman - and I say "everything" with full knowledge of what I'm saying.

Their interests will be in the real estate business, in the construction business, in the maintenance business and there will be no organized labour getting those jobs. There will be no interest in the little people; that'll be big business, big money, all on the backs of the public here of this Legislature. We will be endorsing that $200 million that they will be spending to get fat themselves and pay off all their political debts.

There's no question about it in my mind, I've asked this minister to start standing up and answering questions. He seems to rely on his good nature and his smiles. There's no doubt, as the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) pointed out, that he's an admirable person. But we want answers.

This is a time of economic disaster. As the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) pointed out, unemployment is at its highest, youth are discouraged, and they have very little faith in the system. People are getting their education, learning their skills, graduating and finding they can't be placed in the work force. The opportunities just aren't there. All we're getting is political mumbo-jumbo and promises, while the rich get rich and the poor get poorer. It's not a funny situation anymore. I think we have to stop, stand up and make some demands. We're going to have to start demanding.

Imagine $396,551.25 being spent on consultation fees for people who are disguised - we don't know who they are - to give advice, to rob the public service, to create a situation that we're going to endorse so that they can make more money. We don't even know who these people are! Who are the people from Peat Marwick and Partners? Who are they? Where are they? How many of them are there? What were their positions? We have a right to know and we should demand to know. The minister stands and talks about his privileges in this House. What about the privileges of the people of British Columbia? Don't they have a right to know what that money was spent for?

He's saying that it's private and it's going to be kept secret and that these documents are the privilege of the government who won the last election on December 11,1975. Those on this side of the House have no right to scrutinize. What arrogance! Perhaps "despicable arrogance" would be a better term. That's no disrespect to the man personally; it's the position he's in. If he's going to hold that position, he has to come in here and give account of himself the same as all the rest of us have to do. The people of British Columbia are looking for leadership, and they have a right to get it. They want open government.

That Premier is talking about open government. When does it begin? Tomorrow? We want it today. We want to know why it is that he says that document is confidential. Why can't we have it?

What is the idea of spending the money for advice and then coming into the House and going through the charade of debating estimates with no facts? Where are the facts? That's a business government over there. All those people have business ventures of one sort or another. They know the value of actuarial information and surveys and documents to support decisions and feasibility studies and all kinds of considerations before you put money on the table, yet they want us to approve something without any facts.

Mr. Chairman, I think that that's a mockery and a sham. Rather than go along with that I will just say that if the minister wants to use his big majority over there to vote himself his salary, let him go ahead and do it, but I can't endorse it because I have no confidence in someone who is going to stand up, look at me and tell me: "We want you to understand that we just can't provide you with the information, although we spent a large sum of the public's money to pay for it. It is just not available - it's confidential."

[ Page 3415 ]

1 would like the minister to equate that confidentiality that he feels he has a right to with the privileges that he was saying we do not have a right to in terms of discussing things that are happening in his department and decisions that he has made. It's fine to talk about piety and personal privilege - "Don't attack me, I'm your nice guy.'.' - but I'll tell you there are 2.3 million people in the province of British Columbia. What about them? Do they have any rights?

There are only 55 of us in this House. All of us have a responsibility and a duty, but we are unable to perform because we are being stymied. We're being denied information, and it looks as though that is a practice that has gone on for a long time in this province over the years. But the minister himself two days ago said there are still some honest people left. He was complaining because someone was attacking some of his colleagues, Perhaps he is an honest person , himself and perhaps he is well intentioned, but in the world of politics intentions don't count.

As we all know, we meant well but the people were thinking.... Look how they were thinking. You see the government we have, Mr. Chairman? It just goes to show you. I'm sure many of them were saying afterwards: "You know, we had second thoughts, but it's too late." It only counts in horseshoes. You know, when you come close with a second guess but it's no good. For the next five years you have your government, you have your raises far above the Anti-Inflation Board recommendations ...

HON. MR. GARDOM : Order!

MR. BARNES : "Order!" the Attorney-General says.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Back to vote 146 please, hon. member.

HON. MR. GARDOM : You can stray a little.

MR. BARNES : Mr. Attorney-General, I would like to have you stand up and answer my questions, because I don't think I'm going to get any answers.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, vote 146, please!

MR. BARNES : I don't think I'm going to get any answers from that minister. I don't think he's going to even mention Peat Marwick and Partners when he stands up. I'm sure that he will not be trying to break down that $396,551 as I've suggested, because by my figures there are 5,088 hours in that period of time that he claims that consulting firm was engaged. You know, even if they were working 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for seven months, there wouldn't be enough money paid at $75 an hour to equal that much money. That's why I'm asking the question. It just doesn't add up.

Now you're going to have to give some kind of explanation. You could have been paying $75 an hour for 5,088 hours and you still wouldn't spend that much money, and you're telling us that we shouldn't be asking any questions and we should say: "Well, leave it confidential." We want to see how many people were involved. Let's know what it took. What did you spend all that money on? You know, if you spent that much money on advice, how come the public servants are so upset?

Mr. Chairman, someone asked the other day why Mr. George Giles, the Deputy Minister of Public Works, was not on the floor. I suggest that Mr. Giles isn't on the floor because he disagrees with some of the things that were happening and some of the things that that consulting firm were prepared to do. It's my information they were planning to fire those 800 people and Mr. Giles tried to defend them. It was because of the efforts of persons like him that we at least have a transfer programme going, because they were going to do the ruthless thing and just get rid of them altogether. I'm sure that the minister will stand and tell me that is erroneous and not true.

Also, I understand that a Mr. Don Skillings, who was going around the province preaching about how to get ready for this transfer in all the different districts in the province, has now left the firm. Why did he leave? Was he happy or unhappy, or what? I don't know, but there are a lot of questions and we'd like to know what's going on. We'd like the minister to stand up, start answering some questions, and come clean. This is politics, Mr. Minister. You're a nice guy and I'm a nice guy. As you know, I had lots of friends, Mr. Chairman, as a football player, and everybody loved me. Look at that wonderful smile we have over there from the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. GARDOM : I didn't love you.

MR. BARNES : I'm sure everybody is in good shape, but business is business, Mr. Chairman. We all have a duty and a responsibility to come in this House and do the people's business above board. If that Premier is going to talk about open government, people's government, then he should start doing something about making sure that the models we have to work around and the institutions we have to rely upon are going to be open and we're going to have access.

I can tell you right now that there is nothing in that legislation that guarantees the members of this Legislature - at least those on this side of the House - the right to scrutinize what's going on with the B.C. Buildings Corporation. We have about as much chance of scrutinizing the B.C. Buildings Corporation as we do of scrutinizing B.C.

[ Page 3416 ]

Hydro, which has something like a $4 billion debt -that's more than we spend on our whole budget in this province.

The same thing could happen with this one if we don't watch it. The people are going deeper into debt and we're telling them we're going to balance the budget right off the backs of the people, MR. Chairman. That's exactly what's going to happen here. When the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) suggested that we're sitting on a powder keg, he knew what he was talking about. When I dubbed that minister the "Baron of Pork, " I knew what I was talking about. If he doesn't see himself as the Baron of Pork, he doesn't know a porkbarrel when he sees it. That's exactly what the BCBC is, or perhaps it's something else. Maybe it's the unemployment agency for the Social Credit Party.

The questions that the member for Revelstoke-Slocan was asking about those tenders have not been answered. Public tenders are not required; it may be done if it pleases the minister. So we're talking about accountability; we're talking about stewardship and scrutiny. We are asking them to enshrine in the legislation those protective clauses that will guarantee that the people's business will be taken care of and that they will be protected. We don't have that in that legislation. The minister knows what we are talking about and he doesn't intend to provide it. I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN : You have one minute, hon. member.

MR. BARNES : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's right; I always get the claps because they feel I'm speaking more redundantly and saying nothing of importance. Well, I tell you that time will tell, because the people of British Columbia are going to be able to know what this government has been doing; they've made a lot of bad fiscal mistakes.

I will close by saying that although they think they're getting away with the cost of running the Public Works ministry by putting all of the burden on to the BCBC - hiding it that way - they are still going to have a lot of backlash from the kinds of things they are doing with the Vancouver Resources Board and Notre Dame University, and in other programmes affecting people's lives. They are going to learn something about what humanity is all about. I don't think that they think in terms of people; they think in terms of units or of dollars. But people are involved.

People have been looking for the leadership that that government promised to give. The government, by default, has come out and said: "Leadership is to beat them to death so that when we quit, they begin to feel good. So we jack up the ferries; we jack up the social service; we jack up their taxes; we jack up their income taxes."

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, we are debating vote 146.

MR. BARNES : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. They do all that in the name of trying to be fiscally responsible and balance the budget. What they're balancing are very limited, select-group budgets for those people in the minority, at the expense and to the detriment of people who were sincerely looking for leadership.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to stand up, answer the questions and come clean, because we know that we could go on forever. All we want is a reasonable attempt on his behalf to give us an opportunity to scrutinize the Peat Marwick and Partners report. Perhaps we can then get on with some of the other questions in his very vast department.

HON. MR. FRASER : That was a very interesting discourse we got from the second member for Vancouver Centre. That's the fourth speech he's made since Monday. They get better each time, Mr. Member, but they don't change much in content. It's obvious to me you don't want any answers. You've been getting answers and you don't want them. You take the answers you get and twist them.

I would like to make some observations, though, on a few remarks about fiscal mistakes you just made in winding up. I would like to advise this House, Mr. Chairman, that the reason we're over here and you're over there is the fiscal mistakes you were part of from 1972 to 1975. The NDP assumed power in 1972 with the treasury full of money. You were kicked out by the people of British Columbia in 1975, $400 million in the red. Don't ever forget that's why you're sitting over there, and you're going to be there for a long, long time.

Your people shovelled the people's money out of the back of a truck, and you can bet we're trying to look after the people's money. That's what we're elected to do and we're going to do it.

Getting down to some of the few newer questions you asked, you mentioned George Giles. I discussed George Giles last night. I reported to you. Why do you bring him up?

MR. BARNES : I was here.

HON. MR. FRASER : Well then, you got an answer last night. Why do you repeat that? What kind of marks do you think you're making there? It's in the record - and you should have been in your seat -what I said about him. I'm the one who decides who comes in here for estimates. I don't have to take orders from you, Mr. Chairman, or anybody else over there. I decided that Mr. Giles could look after the

[ Page 3417 ]

department and that's what he's doing; that's where he is.

Let's deal with the facts instead of the fiction that's been thrown around here about jobs. "Everybody's going to lose their jobs." You realize that 1,100 jobs are being looked after through BCBC. I've said that since Monday, Mr. Chairman, to this member, and ...

MR. BARNES : There are 2,300 people involved.

HON. MR. FRASER : ... you insinuate that there won't be any jobs. There will be 1,100 jobs there and you know that. Why do you keep on insinuating that there won't be any jobs there? I want to get the record straight here. I want to tell you that 1,000 of those will be represented by the union of those employees' choice, and you know that, too.

MR. BARNES : Will they be public employees?

HON. MR. FRASER : That is the choice of those employees and you know that. Don't start fuzzing up the waters on that. Mr. Chairman, the other 800 who have been batted around here have been guaranteed government jobs. You know that. I've said that and this government will live up to that commitment.

The other statement he just made, Mr. Chairman, was that this was a private corporation. I want to make it quite clear that he's mixing up the waters there, again. He knows it's a public corporation, owned and controlled by the people of British Columbia. It has nothing to do with any private corporation at all.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, the hon. minister has the floor.

HON. MR. FRASER : You've had two hours asking questions. Would you take two minutes to listen to a few answers? You asked a few questions and I didn't have the answers. I've got some of the answers. I know they won't be satisfactory to you, but I'll give you what I have.

Peat Marwick and Partners' progress report, Mr. Chairman....

MR. LAUK : Table them.

HON. MR. FRASER : I am going to table it through Hansard, and I don't need any advice from the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK : Oh, editor-in-chief, eh?

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr. Chairman, in reply to this member's queries regarding the consultants that were engaged by this government in October, 1976, they've been on the job 10 months. They report periodically in the areas of organizational design -get this down - manpower planning and staffing, organization implementation, job evaluation and salary programme, management information systems and mobility programme.

Regarding the numbers that were employed on there, I understand - and this will, I think, surely give you something for another speech - by Peat Marwick and Partners on this consultant assignment, there were a minimum of three to a maximum of 10.

MR. LAUK : What did they say?

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr. Chairman, there have been many progress reports concerning the organization and implementation of BCBC which relate to the status of the project. It is not my intention to release the various documents involved as they do relate to the BCBC which was discussed and approved by this House - the principles of it - prior to the appointment of the consultants. Furthermore, they have been involved in the implementation of government policy and are not part of the government's policy-making process.

There is another thing I think I should answer, and I think the member there is concerned, regarding people. I'd like you to listen closely to this next one. Some progress reports relate to union negotiations currently underway and it would be inappropriate to discuss them. Mr. Chairman, that member knows that full well....

MR. LAUK : Delete those portions and table the rest.

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr. Chairman, no progress reports deal with personalities within Public Works nor with the government's appointment of Mr. Larsen by the normal order-in-council method.

The consultants have been providing a variety of services and were selected on merit - as I said here last evening in this House relating to organization and implementation of the B.C. Buildings Corporation. I might add in conclusion on that subject, Mr. Chairman, that their services are continuing on a more limited scale than has been in the past.

I'd just like to go on now from the second member for Vancouver Centre and deal with the remarks of the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) who spoke earlier. Mr. Chairman, I know they like to stir things up and that's what politics are all about.

Dealing with Mr. Larsen, he was appointed by order-in-council, and that side over there knows that full well. I'm sorry the government supplies them with research assistants but apparently they don't

[ Page 3418 ]

make use of it. If they do, they don't pay any attention to it because it was public knowledge a long time ago. The date of the order-in-council - if you want to check it up - is May 19; the number of it is 1672. It was made public that day or the next day, I'm not sure which. It's all right there and they should have done their research.

I just want to read what that order-in-council said.

MR. BARNES : We've got it.

HON. MR. FRASER : But I'll read it into the record because that isn't what you, the Leader of the Opposition and a few more of you say when you make public statements. You try to squirrel the waters up that Mr. Larsen is a member of the public service organization. That's why I want to read from this order-in-council about his position.

"Pursuant to the Public Service Act and upon the recommendation of the undersigned, the Lieutenant-Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the executive council, orders that

whereas the position of liaison co-ordinator . . ." The member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) didn't know that 15 minutes ago, because he said so himself.

11 * , . be established in the Ministry of Highways and Public Works and this position be designated as one requiring special professional, technical or administrative qualifications, and further orders that Donald Neil Larsen be appointed liaison co-ordinator effective January 1 at the salary range approved for programme manager 2 ... and further orders that it be approved January 13,1976 ... be rescinded." In other words, the other appointment was rescinded when this appointment was made.

MR. BARBER : Order-in-council 104.

HON. MR. FRASER : This is quite clear, Mr. Chairman, or should be. I don't imagine it will be that this appointment will be settled once and for all. This is not a public service position. This position is one of liaison co-ordinator, as stated in the order-in-council established in the Ministry of Highways and Public Works and, as such, posting competition is not required, as those members over there know full well.

Mr. Larsen, I'm happy to report, is a member of my staff and I'm proud of him. He's a local boy from the great riding of Cariboo, and he came down to the capital city and he's done quite well. I'm proud of that and so is everybody else in the Cariboo!

We didn't have to depend on other people. We have a few people in the interior, too, who are qualified - or they can prove themselves if they are not!

So I hope that clears up the remarks that were made by the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) and the member for Revelstoke-Slocan. I'll sit down and look forward to continued debate.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta) : Mr. Chairman, first I would like to compliment the minister for the outstanding co-operation which he and his staff have given to my municipalities in their efforts to solve some of the serious problems within the White Rock, Surrey and Delta areas. I would particularly like to compliment him on the Scott Road project and the Ladner trunk road project which services the Ladner area of my constituency. These have both been long neglected, and the Highways minister's undertaking of these programmes has, been a long-awaited and positive move.

But, Mr. Chairman, slightly more than a year has gone by since I first raised the issue in this House over the alarming problems facing the motorists in my area over the congestion at both the Massey Tunnel and the Pattullo Bridge. There can be no question that no other area of this province is in more need of additional crossing facilities than that area south of the Fraser. It is beyond the comprehension of the people of my area - and I represent over 140,000 people, Mr.

Chairman - that a $50 million priority was given to a ferry project, which we know today as Sea Bus, linking Vancouver and the North Shore, while nothing was spent on water crossings to service a population twice the size of the North Shore.

We in the Fraser Valley really do not begrudge the people of North Vancouver this additional service, which doubtless they can use, but, Mr. Chairman, a $50 million link to an area with half the population and less than half the need of the people in my area is questioned when nothing is forthcoming in the foreseeable future to help alleviate our problems. The Pattullo Bridge is operating at peak capacity and the Massey Tunnel is the same. Five-mile lineups and more at the Massey Tunnel are not uncommon and are certainly not going to lessen in volume in the future.

In fact, the Greater Vancouver Regional District itself has estimated that traffic in the Massey Tunnel will double within the next seven years.

MR. KING : Who wrote your speech?

MR. DAVIDSON : Quite simply, a new crossing of the Fraser must be undertaken immediately to avoid total future chaos in our traffic patterns.

MR. KING : Did Don Larsen write that?

MR. DAVIDSON : We live in one of the fastest-growing areas in the province - if not all Canada - and 80 per cent of our working people hold jobs other than in the area in which they life. To this date, neither the Ministry of Highways nor the GVRD

[ Page 3419 ]

has taken any steps to be of assistance to us. In fact, it would appear that the reverse is true. The Greater Vancouver Regional District has stated in its livable region proposal - if, in fact, the livable region proposal still exists - that they do not recommend any additional crossings to serve the Delta, Surrey and White Rock area, but bearing in mind the regional district's concern for our area in almost every other respect, it is almost in keeping with their philosophy.

MR. LAUK : What about John Reynolds?

MR. DAVIDSON : Mr. Chairman, it must not be in keeping with the Ministry of Highways. Even if an undertaking for this crossing was made at the present time, it would still take at least four or five years, if not more, to complete this project. By that time, Mr. Chairman, the situation will be totally intolerable and every additional month of delay will mean that much more of a problem for the people of my area.

The Oak Street Bridge, which also serves the people of my riding, is fast approaching a saturation point. The smallest motor-vehicle accident can cause miles of traffic pile-up and hours of commuter delay. I would trust that the minister and in fact the entire government can put pressure on both the federal government and the city of Vancouver to release the Arthur Laing Bridge for Richmond motorists to use and thus cut back on overall use of the Oak Street Bridge.

It is simply not understandable for the city of Vancouver to take such a cavalier attitude and such a parochial attitude in denying Richmond motorists the use of the multi-million dollar Arthur Laing Bridge. That bridge has to be one of the least-used bridges anywhere in this nation.

I confess at times my complete dismay with Vancouver city council's attitude towards the people who do not live in Vancouver yet contribute so markedly to the jobs and economics of that city. I wonder what would happen if every person who held a job in Vancouver and was denied access to Vancouver refused to spend their money with the Vancouver merchants. Quite possibly, Vancouver council might realize the value of providing every possible means to these people in an effort to facilitate rather than hinder the movement of people into Vancouver.

The same holds true of the attitude of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. That astute body of individuals is so blind to the needs of the people in my area, Mr. Chairman, that they fail in every possible way to support an additional crossing and they even fail to recommend the opening of the Arthur Laing Bridge for the use of Richmond motorists. The closest that over-rated body can come to is to conduct some kind of study into the use of buses over the Arthur Laing Bridge and not recommend commuter traffic in general.

Quite simply, Mr. Chairman, the people in my area are sick and tired of being treated like second-class citizens. We pay all the same bills, we pay all the same taxes, and we get nothing to help our commuting problem. You don't have to be an expert to determine that the Pattullo Bridge structure itself is not capable of standing forever, let alone carrying an additional lower level for rapid transit. We need a crossing commitment now.

The Annacis site is ideal. Rights-of-way were planned well ahead of time and the resulting traffic patterns would ease the pressure on both the Pattullo Bridge and the Massey Tunnel. Certainly additional pressure would be put on some secondary roads within neighbouring municipalities, but unless we put on barriers to our growth the situation will only worsen.

We realize that it is a project of immense undertaking, but spread over a five-year period of time it would represent but a small portion of the Highways budget. Bearing in mind the population it would serve, it would not be unreasonable. Time has come, Mr. Chairman, for the minister and this government to accept the responsibility for taking this decision, for considering the needs and requirements of the people in Delta, Surrey, White Rock and indeed even Langley and Dewdney, and commence this project immediately. Ferry traffic at the Tsawwassen terminal is increasing. Residential growth and commuter traffic is increasing, and so is the need for a third crossing.

Mr. Chairman, I must confess my surprise that more members of this House have not spoken openly in support of this crossing. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has been singularly silent. Does he not consider the fact that this is a real problem to his riding as well?

Mr. Chairman, bridges go both ways. We must not let the backward, parochial and regressive comments of some petty municipal politicians preclude the construction of a third crossing of the Fraser.

In

summary, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister to undertaken a study of traffic patterns as it relates to the Massey Tunnel and Pattullo Bridge, and to compare that to North Vancouver area and the North Shore in general and see if that statistic alone does not justify his immediate review of the situation. I would remind the minister as well that the Second Narrows Bridge, which was completed in 1960 at a cost of a little more than $24 million, seems like a rare bargain at this time. That structure is six lanes, serving, as I stated before, a much smaller population not only in terms of the present statistics but in terms of future projection of population growth as well.

Clearly, Mr. Chairman, the need is great and can only become greater. This project must be given

[ Page 3420 ]

priority consideration by the minister and must be undertaken at the earliest possible moment.

In the meantime, any attempts to provide additional rapid transit service or make adjustments to truck patterns or bus lanes can only be considered, at best, patchwork planning and will never really come to grips with the exact problem. The recent GVRD transportation committee recommendation fails, as does almost everything the GVRD does lately dealing in my area, to come to grips with the real problem. They recommend park-and-ride, trucking prohibitions, bus lanes, improved approach systems, but all are band-aid solutions when major surgery is required.

I often wonder if any member of the GVRD ever goes south of the Fraser during the rush-hour period. Their failure to support a crossing can only mean they haven't, and also that they simply do not care when it comes to the municipalities south of the Fraser.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

I urge the minister again to reject totally the GVRD livable-region proposal, just as it has been rejected by Vancouver city when it comes to their downtown federal building project.

In the meantime, pending a decision by this government and the minister to go ahead with the Annacis crossing, some recommendations could be considered as stopgap moves. Just as I stated one year ago, increasing the speed limit to 50 miles an hour in the Massey Tunnel might be a start. We have the extra lighting; we have that capacity. Removing the Vancouver city garbage trucks between 4 and 6 o'clock would be another positive move, as these vehicles and vehicles like them do not have the ability to pick up sufficient speed on the incline, and they cause many tie-ups by themselves. Park-and-ride sites and better bus links might also help, but only temporarily.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, only the thorough review and subsequent approval of a long-awaited additional crossing of the Fraser to serve the people of Delta, Surrey and White Rock and the adjacent areas will come to grips with the real problem. It can no longer be shoved aside. We need that commitment now.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria) : I'd like to talk about a band-aid for a moment, changing the subject briefly. I rose last year during the minister's estimates, made this speech, and found it's had no impact whatever, save in the riding of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) , who did spring some money for the purpose, and save for the smile and the apparent agreement of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) with the arguments I made.

They are simple. In the great cities of North America, the private automobile

has no fut