1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 9, 1975

Night Sitting

[ Page

3249 ]

CONTENTS

Supply Act, No. 2, 1975 (Bill 80). Second reading. Mr. Gibson —

Division on second reading — 3258

Supply Act, No. 2, 1975 (Bill 80). Committee stage.

section 1. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3258

section 2. Mr. Gibson — 3260

Amendment. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3263

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 3263

Report and third reading — 3264

Royal assent to bills — 3265

The House met at 6:07 p.m.

Orders of the day.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I ask

leave of the House to move to adjourned debate of second

reading of Bill 80.

Leave granted.

SUPPLY ACT, NO. 2, 1975

(continued)

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver – Capilano): The point at

which I was before the adjournment related to giving an example

of the failure of institutions that this House must be able to

trust if we are to vote supply to this government. If this

House cannot allot money to specified purposes, in the security

that it will not be used for other purposes than we are voting

for, then we're in very serious trouble because we are not

equipped as an institution to do the kind of auditing work

that's necessary to search out every byway and highway of the

government's disbursement of funds. We must rely for that on

the financial process which has been set up under the Audit

Act.

I suggest to you, Sir, that these two cases of undoubted

illegal payment of funds give prima facie evidence that that

control structure has failed in these two cases. It appears to

me — and I may be wrong — that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) has not taken those cases seriously. I believe it to

be a matter of utmost gravity.

I won't go on through all of the sections of the Audit Act,

but I'll just mention here that

section 31 states that the

comptroller-general shall report to the Treasury Board through

the Minister of Finance when any sub account has expended

moneys where there is a disagreement, basically, over an

appropriation.

Was there such a report? I asked the Minister of Finance

that. Has he received such a report, and what has he done about

it?

Mr. Speaker, it's absolutely essential that these questions

be answered. I want the Minister of Finance, on closing debate

on second reading, to answer them or else to expect that

they're going to be repeated in committee, because this whole

system of financial control by this House is fundamental to the

voting of money by this House. I say to you that unless the law

of this province, under the Audit Act, is observed, then this

House loses any ability to do what its job is — among other

things, to protect the taxpayers of this province in voting

expenditures of their money and in controlling the expenditure

of those moneys.

Therefore, I say that there is a very serious question of

control and accountability in this bill, particularly relating

section 2, and it must be resolved by the Minister of

Finance before this legislation should pass.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Quite obviously, for the sake of

people concerned in receiving salaries and payments which the

government owes them, we will support this bill.

The points that have been raised by the Liberal Member are

very valid ones. We've got so many smart-alecs in this House

that I suppose the people in British Columbia are just like

myself. They read the accusations and they read the answers,

and we're not experts on constitutional law, or the spending

and allocation of funds, and I'm pleased that we've got so many

experts in the House who can enlighten ignorant people like me.

The man I talked to in the street isn't any financial expert,

but he is concerned that he can trust government. The man in

the street, as I hear the comments, says, yes, they're pleased

that the Princess Marguerite is sailing, and the businessmen

are very happy, but the question is being asked: did the

government blunder, even with good intentions?

Well, you're all shaking your heads over there. All we want

is the answer. If you didn't make any mistakes, and you didn't

break the rules, just tell us. The Minister of Finance often

says he's just a country boy, and as far as money's concerned,

so am I. I just want the simple answers. Did the government use

funds which it had no legal or constitutional authority to use?

Just tell us. If it was done by error or mistake or ignorance,

that might be excusable also, but it is certainly nothing less

than the duty of opposition Members in this House, when

questions are raised of this nature, to ask for a simple

explanation. If, in fact, the legal power was not there, how is

it that the government could get itself into this kind of mess

and now appear to be rather slow to give us an explanation,

either how the mess or the mistake happened, or how it is to be

corrected.

Just as a very ordinary observer of issues that I don't

understand in great detail, I just say we've now got the bill

introduced to try and correct the situation. I would have

thought that the very least the government might have done was

to proceed with that bill at the earliest possible moment.

Now these are just simple, ordinary questions that I think

everybody in the province is asking, once they read the

newspapers. So we will support this bill for the obvious reason

that we have a commitment to civil servants and many other

people to be paid. But I do think that we are entitled to a

very straightforward explanation without any more messing

around or any more debate. If the Minister would just tell us

that he has got the answer ready to give us, we can even stop

the debate. But I assume

[ Page 3250 ]

that other opposition Members feel that we are not likely to

get the answers.

There is one other point I would just make. The Member of

the opposition quoted a memorandum that points out that the

government is cutting back on some of its expenditures, and I

guess we on this side of the House can't have it both ways. I'm

very pleased to hear that you are cutting back on some of your

expenditures. That's one of the basic criticisms we've levelled

at this government from the day this session started. So for my

part, anyway, speaking just as one person of the opposition,

if, in fact, government is trying to trim its spending, I'm

very pleased to hear that. I hope that when the Minister winds

up discussion on second reading he also will point out if, in

fact, there is some attempt by this government to realize that

money doesn't grow on trees, that inflation is a serious

problem, and that the best example for every citizen in the

country should start with government.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): As stated, we will

certainly support this bill, but I think before we support it

we should have a few things straightened out.

Mr. Chairman, on June 4, five short days ago, the Leader of

the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) asked a very sincere question in

this Legislature. He asked the Premier about an interim supply

bill. I would like to quote out of Hansard . He said, the Leader

of the Opposition:

On March 26 the Premier brought in an interim supply bill, which was

for $537 million, or one-sixth of the proposed budget, which I presume

would cover two months of expenditures so that the much-needed

programmes could continue while democracy took place and we discussed

the estimates. Has this amount been adequate and do we need a supply

bill now that it is June 4?

The facetious answer of the Minister of Finance, five short

days ago, was to take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker. To

take the question as notice!

When the Leader of the Opposition went on to quote from a

letter which he had received where civil servants had said that

they could not continue to carry on with their programmes

because the estimates had not been passed through the

Legislature, again the Minister of Finance gave a facetious

answer. I think it is time, Mr. Speaker, that we had a little

more truth and honesty from the Minister of Finance.

We talked about curtailment of programmes, and the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) said he had no knowledge

of them; he had missed the Treasury Board meeting. The

Minister of Finance said he had no knowledge of curtailment of

programmes or cutbacks. And here is the Minister of Finance,

the chairman of the Treasury Board, who had no knowledge of

cutbacks in government expenditure. To me that seems

incredible.

I just have to wonder, Mr. Speaker: were the Premier and

Minister of Finance and the Provincial Secretary trying to

mislead the people of this province, or did they not know? It

seems incredible to me that the Minister of Finance would not

know, that the Minister of Finance and chairman of the Treasury

Board would not know that there were directives being issued

for curtailment of programmes in various departments.

AN HON. MEMBER: Incredible!

MR. PHILLIPS: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, completely

incredible. But I want to tell you that the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), when asked about the same

programme, and he sits on the Treasury Board — what did he say?

He said, "No." But I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Cocke) was asked during his estimates if there had

been a memorandum or a question with regard to cutbacks, that

Minister was honest and he stood in this Legislature and he

said, "Yes."

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right. Yet the Minister of Agriculture

had no knowledge of the same cutbacks. Who knows what's going

on in that government? The Minister of Agriculture sits on the

Treasury Board. The Provincial Secretary sits on the Treasury

Board. The Minister of Finance sits on the Treasury Board. Who

knows what's going on in that government? Who knows what's

going on? I just have to ask you: who knows what's going on in

that government if the Minister of Finance doesn't know what's

going on?

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: What we want, Mr. Speaker, is a little more

truth and honesty in this government, because here we have

budgets going through this House which are completely

meaningless to me.

We had the same thing last year before the ink was dry on

the budget. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) was

changing her estimates; the Minister of Finance was changing

the whole budget. I don't even know why we discuss estimates in

this Legislature, because before they're passed through there

are changes taking place.

We have the case of where the government is going out

completely disregarding

section 31 of the Audit Act, where it

says:

"The comptroller-general shall report to the Treasury

Board through the Minister of Finance any case in which a sub account

charged with the expenditure of public moneys has expended moneys in

excess of any advance as provided by

[ Page 3251 ]

section 19 or beyond the amount for which there is no authority

or any other appropriation or purpose not connected with such advance."

Complete disregard for the laws of this Legislature, Mr.

Speaker. Then when asked about them, what do they say? "Oh,

there's legislation coming in."

This Legislature and this government has deteriorated to the

point where it is a complete farce. The people of this province

are concerned. They are concerned about truth and honesty in

government and they are concerned about statements being made

by the Minister of Finance. Before we finish debating the

estimates of this Legislature, they are already changed. So all

I can say is that the budget is a complete false document.

What is happening, Mr. Speaker? Programmes that were started

last year — a lot of time and effort put into them,

particularly with the Department of Human Resources that built

up expectations in the minds of many tax-payers in this

province and built up expectations in the minds of many needy

in this province — are now this year being curtailed.

Programmes that were started last year are being curtailed

after building up expectations of many of the poor and needy in

this province.

It's no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) is not in this House tonight. What a

waste of effort! What a complete disappointment to citizens in

this province! It's no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that there is no

love in this province. What we find as we travel throughout

this province is mistrust of this government, hate of this

government, disdain for this government.

The Premier can make all the glowing speeches he wants to

about this province being run on love. I'll tell you, there is

no love in this province, not for that government — no love in

this province for that government.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Roll in your own bath

water, my friend.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll give the Minister of Health credit. At

least he had the intestinal fortitude to stand in this

Legislature when asked about curtailment of programmes and say,

"Yes," while the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich), the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) and the

Minister of Finance said.... Well, the Minister of Agriculture

said, "no." The Minister of Finance said, "I don't know of

any."

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, if we're going to have any

respect — if we're going to have truth and honesty in

government — we want the people of the cabinet benches to tell

the whole story in this Legislature. You wonder why debates run

maybe longer than they should in this Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you why. It's just because of the

misleading statements...

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: ...that we get from the cabinet benches.

That's why we have to question and question and question,

because when we are given answers, Mr. Speaker, we're never

sure whether they're truthful answers or not.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that we are

dealing here with a very narrow debate that has to do with

whether the province needs the sum of money that is required to

carry on until the budget has been completed?

MR. PHILLIPS: That's exactly what I am arguing, Mr. Speaker.

Because it's one-twelfth of the budget and there are already

cutbacks; and the Minister of Finance blaming cutbacks on

programmes on the fact that the opposition hasn't passed the

estimates is completely misleading — completely misleading. I'm

sure, Mr. Speaker, that this gentleman in Penticton who wrote

the letter — Siva Transport Ltd., 499 Main St., Penticton — to

the Leader of the Opposition starting out, "Thank you for

nothing," blaming on the opposition benches the fact

that that government is curtailing expenditures, is completely

misleading. Mr. Speaker, the government is bringing more

politics into the civil service. Do you think that we should

let this pass without debate? Where did this man get this idea?

Did he dream it up? Did he write this letter? Did he have a bad

dream? Or was he told, as he said...?

"We were successful in winning a number of tenders totalling

some 120 trucks. To date of those 120 trucks we have only put

out some 15 and the various departments" — not only one

department, Mr. Speaker — "such as fish and wildlife, Forest

Service, parks branch and so forth have cancelled all other

orders. They cannot take any trucks until the budgets have been

approved in the Legislature."

What a misleading statement, Mr. Speaker! We're passing

interim supply of one-twelfth. I want the Minister of Finance

to tell me after this interim supply bill is passed if he is

going to continue with these programmes or if he is going to

continue with the tight-belt policy that he has adopted so

far.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I intend to read the next line. "In

addition to this, the departments have notified university help

that they cannot hire them at

[ Page 3252 ]

the present time due to the fact, again, that their budgets have

not been approved."

The letter continues: "By your delaying tactics in the

Legislature you have cost our company thousands of dollars and

have directly put hundreds of university students out of jobs

for the summer months."

That is the type of farcical statement we hear from that

government. Then when you tell them the truth, they hammer

their desks and say jolly good. I call that complete ignorance,

Mr. Speaker, complete ignorance of the facts. First of all,

they mislead the people about what is going on in the province,

and when you tell the truth, they hammer their desks in great

glee.

"By your delaying tactics in the Legislature you have cost

our company thousands of dollars and have directly put hundreds

of university students out of jobs for the summer months."

That

is what this ill-informed man says. By whom was he informed? He

was informed by the very department that he wanted to do

business with, Mr. Speaker.

Is that what the Minister of Finance has been telling the

civil servants in this province — that they can't continue with

their programmes because the estimates have not passed through

the Legislature? Who gives out these memorandums? Who informs

these people? Who informs the civil servants?

"All I wish to say at this moment is that we wish to thank

you for nothing. You can rest assured that we as small

businessmen, and other small businessmen who are directly

affected by your delaying the budget will remember you in the

next election."

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there go the ignorant lambs now. The

lambs who normally bow and cow to the front bench of the

cabinet are making mockery of somebody who is misled, a small

businessman in this province who is misled about the true

reason for programmes that are being cut back.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we will support this bill,

but we would like the Minister of Finance to give us some of

the true facts. Exactly what is happening in government? Why is

the government hard-pressed, and in many cases delaying the

payment of accounts to small businessmen in the province by 90

to 120 days, those small businessmen whom he claims so

gloriously out in the ridings to help? Is the government broke?

Where is the money? Is the government going broke?

I think it is time we brought in some truth and honesty in

government, and that the Premier of this province, the Minister

of Finance, started using some common sense instead of being

political in the running of his department.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): The Member who has just

spoken has taken an answer of mine out of context and used that

instance to make a political speech based on a false premise.

My statement was in response to a specific question by the

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams).

Mr. Speaker, the Member's actions were either deliberately

misleading or were inadvertent. If they were inadvertent, they

are in keeping with his intelligence. If they were deliberately

misleading, they were in keeping with his political

principles.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I have listened

to a lot of kind words being exchanged between the Provincial

Secretary and the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips)

but I think that there has been a certain amount of confusion

here. If, as the official opposition seems to believe, this

government should cease to be the government, should leave

office, then obviously they are duty-bound to vote against this

particular piece of legislation. So we are going to vote

against it unless the Premier and Minister of Finance comes up

with some very good answers to the many questions posed to him

by the Member for North Vancouver – Capilano (Mr. Gibson).

After all, it is not just a question of worrying about the

programmes of the government which are ongoing. Surely, we

should spend a little time worrying about whether or not they

should continue. If that is the case, if we don't think they

should continue, the obvious way to change it is a vote.

I would like to ask a few questions of my own at this

stage. I was going to get to my feet to congratulate the

Minister of Finance for coming forward — he got 60 days supply,

and he managed to stretch it out for 69 days. I thought perhaps

we would hear a few words of praise that the man is trying hard

to tighten his belt, to cut down on unnecessary programmes, to

get rid of the fat in government. But apparently he is being

attacked by the official opposition for squeezing those extra

days out of the money allotted.

If it is possible for us to grant one-sixth of supply, and

the Premier and Minister of Finance can squeeze it out over,

essentially, another 10 days, I wonder, when he is closing the

debate, whether the Minister of Finance would indicate whether

or not expenditures are not as expected. Clearly these extra

nine days are a very clear tip off that we are spending less

than the estimate book calls for.

In addition, Mr. Speaker — you certainly are aware of this —

as some of this money has been spent for

[ Page 3253 ]

purposes not considered and not put forward in the estimates

book, it appears that the economies being practised by the

government — and let's face it, there are some economies being

practised by the government — are having some results. Surely

the Minister of Finance should indicate to us what his revised

expectations are.

We passed his supply bill No. 1 on March 20, I believe, and

we are now here on June 9. Clearly the government's been able

to squeeze a few more days' work and a few more days of

programmes out of those moneys that we voted at that time.

Surely the time is now to indicate to us precisely what these

economies are. Can we expect, as a rough guess, that the

Premier is not getting $7 of value for every $8 he budgeted? In

other words, can we expect a continuation of this little

decrease of expenditure on a day-to-day, week-to-week,

month-to-month basis, which will lead us into a different

financial position than he outlined to us in the budget speech

and the one that's put forward in the estimates book?

The second question then that comes from that: what cuts can

we expect by Ministers on the floor of the Legislature in the

committee when they bring forward their estimates? What cuts

are they going to propose to the committee? What indications

are they going to give us where economies have been made in the

last two months and will continue for the remainder of the

year? Very obviously they are under some sort of instructions

to cut back. It may not be a formal memorandum; it may not be

a 10 per cent figure which is laid down as an objective. It may

just be that they're being told to cut back on little things

such as travel plans, to cut back on the redecorating of

offices where that's in the budget, to cut back on temporary

help, to toughen up all along the line.

Perhaps the statement by Mr. Fryer of the B.C. Government

Employees Union, indicating that he's in for a rough ride with

the Provincial Secretary this time around, again indicates that

the government is toughening up and that some of the messages

that have been preached this side of the House are hitting home

and that the government indeed is getting away from its

profligate spending of the past two years. I hope these questions will be touched on, if not answered,

by the Premier when he closes the debate.

Another point, and that is that I think that the events of the last few days

governing this money as well as, of course, the illegal expenditures show very

much the need for an auditor-general in the Province of British Columbia. It

would be, I think, a very worthwhile thing for the Minister of Finance to comment

on when he takes his place in debate — to indicate when we're going to get government

legislation setting up an auditor-general and an auditor-general's department

in the Province of British Columbia. Rough figures would be — if we use the

federal figures — that we would need about 25 to 30 people to handle that particular

task.

Surely the illegal expenditure that has been made, surely

the overruns in certain departments, surely the cutting back

that's taking place now: all these things indicate that what we

need is something better than just the public accounts

committee, even though that has improved, I understand,

substantially over the previous administration. We need

something more, and an auditor-general and an auditor-general's

department would be called for at the present time. I urge the

Premier and Minister of Finance to give us a commitment on

that.

I don't want to prolong debate on this, but if the Premier

and Minister of Finance comes up with some good answers to the

questions that have been posed to him today, we'll support this

particular bill on second reading. But if he doesn't, we don't

feel called upon to vote for it when it's perfectly clear that

this is a good and traditional way for a vote to be taken which

could, if the back bench would only show a little initiative

and look at some of these things, defeat the government. This

is, in effect, a classic no-confidence vote, and we can't

understand why the official opposition doesn't see it in the

same light.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I voted against the

budget because I didn't have confidence in the financial

management of the current government. The events of the last

two or three months have convinced me the government is inept

in its handling of the finances of the province, and I intend

to vote against this bill.

It is, of course, a traditional way of voting non-confidence

in the government. But there's another reassurance that the

public could have by the government being defeated on a

financial matter at this time. It is that during the period

between the defeat of the government and an election, then the

only expenditures of money would be legal expenditures. They'd

be done under special warrant with proper legislative

authority, so we would be guaranteed during the interim period

until there would be a new government that the public's funds

would be properly spent.

I find it strange that a government would give directives to

the civil service, through the Treasury Board, which would have

to be clearly enough understood by the civil servants to

require implementation to cut expenditures — to do that on the

one hand, and then to stand up in the House and tell us that it

hasn't been done.

You can't clearly present one argument to elected Members of

the Legislative Assembly while at the same time try to

communicate exactly the opposite to the civil service and not

be found out. Mr. Speaker, the Member for West Vancouver – Howe

Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), I think, had highly accurate

information when he said a directive had gone out.

[ Page 3254 ]

Here the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) stands up

today and reads the memorandum. So there can be little doubt,

Mr. Speaker, as to what the government was doing in a covert

way. But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, it tells us that no

such directive was sent. Now it expects the Members of the

opposition, at a time when supply is to be voted, to have

confidence in their financial management, confidence in the

integrity of the statements they give to the general

public.

I certainly support what the Member for North

Vancouver – Capilano (Mr. Gibson) had to say about the nature of

the expenditures for the Princess Marguerite. It's very clear

from the legislation that has been introduced since the

commencement of operations of that ferry that the expenditures

were in fact illegal. But, Mr. Speaker, the problem is this:

there is no auditor-general in British Columbia. Myself, my

colleague from Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) and other Members of the

Liberal Party past and present have called for the

establishment of an auditor-general in British Columbia for the

past 10 years. The events of the last few weeks, I think, make

it clear why the provincial government, this government, has so

steadfastly refused the bringing in of independent auditors to

watch the expenditures of the government.

What does a civil servant do, Mr. Speaker, if he's ordered

to make an illegal payment? I ask that question. I would know

what a civil servant could do if there were an auditor-general.

A very simple telephone call to the auditor-general and he

could be down there the next day investigating.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think the Hon. Member is

anticipating a debate on a bill that's before the House and has

to do with an auditor-general. I would ask him to desist and

deal with the sole question before us, which is whether interim

supply shall be granted to the amount of one-twelfth of the

budget.

MR. McGEER: I understand that. I certainly don't want to

encroach on the principle of an auditor-general, but I want to

leave the question in your mind. Without such

an Act but faced

with the Act we must vote on now, lacking any safeguard, what

does a civil servant do if he's given such an order? What does

he do if he knows that there is no legislative vote, if he

knows it's a violation of the Audit Act? What can he do? The

answer is, Mr. Speaker, that he can't do anything except

resign. And I don't think the civil servants should be placed

in that logical dilemma in British Columbia, as apparently they

had been placed. Yet here we're being asked with this

particular vote to grant supply, presumably to carry on with

the same kinds of practice.

The Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) tells me he's

hungry, Mr. Speaker. They lack no appetite. They lack no

appetite in the Treasury benches — no appetite for power, no

appetite to do as they wish with the public money, right or

wrong, no respect for legislation that has been passed in this

House by all the Members of the Assembly, no respect for the

historic rights of parliament, the traditions of safeguarding

the public purse, changes to the Revenue Act that remove all

the traditional safeguards — a winking at the Revenue Act and

the Audit Act. The Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A.

Williams) is now set up for any corporations that he would like

to have. Just his own whim, and away he goes.

These are the things that the money we voted for before have

been used to do. Yes, Mr. Speaker, in all good faith the House

passed the budget, the House passed interim supply for two

months and then we find that these are the kinds of

expenditures that have been entered into. No, Mr. Speaker, I am

afraid I have to vote against this bill.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Just very

briefly, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the

Member for North Vancouver – Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and the

remarks of the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer).

We passed interim supply to deal with the expenses of this

government for the period commencing April 1, 1975. Last Friday

the Minister of Finance, in a very carefully prepared address

to this House, introduced the British Columbia Railway annual

statement to December 31, 1974. It was carefully prepared by a

firm of chartered accountants in whom the Minister and all

people are entitled to have their trust. But, Mr. Speaker, I

find that those distinguished accountants saw fit to talk about

events subsequent to December 31, 1975, to point out that in

January and April, after April 1, this government made grants

to the British Columbia Railway without authority.

I must vote against this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Finance closes the

debate.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier and Minister of Finance): This is

an interim finance bill that is known as supply. I understand

through the Whips that there was an agreement to bring in

one-twelfth of the budget. If I am incorrect....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: One-twelfth — there was an agreement for

one-twelfth. Is that correct?

[ Page 3255 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no, no, I didn't say that. I'm saying there was

an agreement of one-twelfth. That's why the figure is for one-twelfth. Is that

right?

MR. WALLACE: That's right.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay, thank you. That's why we have one-twelfth here

as agreed by the Whips and reported to me by the government Whip.

We are delayed again for whatever reason anyone wants to

interpret it politically. But we had passed an interim supply

for two months. We need more time, and now we are going to pass

another 30 days of interim supply. If that is not enough, I

assume that the House will be asked to pass further interim

supply. This is not unusual in the Commonwealth that such

interim supply bills be presented to the House.

Now the questions rise about the handling of funds through

Treasury Board. First of all, no memo has been sent out

ordering a 10 per cent cut in budget. None. No memo has been

sent out ordering a 10 per cent cut in budget.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay. All right?

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) said

there was.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No memo has been sent out by Treasury Board ordering

a 10 per cent cut in budgets. He did not say that. You go back and read his

words, and read what the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) said as

a member of the Treasury Board before you twist the words.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Some of the cabinet Ministers ordered cuts in their

own departments. They are entitled to do that with reports to the Treasury Board

on what action they wish to take within their....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There are periodic memoranda to the

Ministers from Treasury Board. There are occasional memoranda

sent out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the directive....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, you've got a copy of it. You read it. Does that

say anywhere in it ordering a 10 per cent cut in budgets? Does it?

MR. PHILLIPS: Read the directive!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, don't be stupid.

AN HON. MEMBER: Quit playing games.

HON. MR. BARRETT: "Quit playing games," they say.

They read words into the memorandum that are not there, and

when it is discovered that they are deceiving the House, they

don't like it, Mr. Speaker. They don't like it. The fact is

they do not have a memo saying we ordered 10 per cent cuts, and

they don't like to have that fact come out because they've been

attempting to twist, twist, twist that memorandum.

There is a memorandum, and there are memoranda from Treasury

Board to the various cabinet Ministers instructing them as to

what Treasury Board wants from time to time, Mr. Speaker. If

Treasury Board didn't do that, it would be derelict in its

duty.

Mr. Speaker, we are monitoring expenditures through Treasury

Board. That's the way Treasury Board should function. If you

suggest that Treasury Board should not monitor expenses, not

keep an eye on expenditures, not meet regularly and come to

fiscal policy decisions then you are asking Treasury Board not

to even function at all.

So, Mr. Speaker, when you follow the words precisely of the

official opposition you find that they are not accurate, they

don't reflect the facts and they are attempting to give a false

impression of what is taking place.

AN RON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nonsense?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It certainly is nonsense that has being

peddled by you and your colleagues in the front benches for

weeks.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Does that Treasury Board say a 10 per cent

cut? No, it does not.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, you file it.

Interjections.

[ Page 3256 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I know for a fact that

it does not order a 10 per cent cut.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it into the record.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the other

matters raised.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you not reducing programmes?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We had two emergent situations, one the

Princess Marguerite and the other the rentalsman. I'm pleased

that no one has been alleging criminal actions by this

government. But the word is "illegal." All right.

Two situations arose that demanded government action based

on the time that this session has taken. In the case of the

Marguerite we made a conscious economic decision when faced

with the facts of the impact of having that ship removed from

the economy and from the economic base of the community. That

decision was not made when the budget was drawn up and when the

budget speech was prepared. That situation came about

later.

MR. PHILLIPS: You'd been dealing on it for two months.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We had been dealing on it, Mr. Speaker,

and if the Member would remain silent, he would understand that

we took our time to make up our minds because we wanted reports

submitted to Treasury Board to make the decision based on facts

rather than whimsy. Once having made that decision, we received

an advance from the greenbelt fund.

If you want to claim this as a criminal act, which nobody

has — and I'm pleased that you haven't gone that far — then I

think you would be stretching things quite a bit.

But here we are faced with a situation: the House sitting;

we asked legislation to be drawn and we had to make an

immediate decision. We made that decision and, quite frankly, I

think the decision has already proven to be an excellent one

economically and socially.

I have yet to hear anyone criticise the decision. I have yet

to hear anyone say: "Cut off the funds for the Marguerite." But

what we do find is an attempt to somehow blacken the

government, that somehow we're monstrous, evil, illegal

operators in an emergency situation in the purchase of the

Marguerite. The alternative to that is to believe that they

would not have purchased the Marguerite themselves if they

were government.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Bought the operation. Yes, Mr. Member,

what you don't like is the fact that it is operating.

AN HON. MEMBER: That doesn't make it legal.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Member! There are two bills on the

order paper that will be debated in this House: one deals with

the Marguerite; the other deals with the rentalsman. Does

anybody in British Columbia believe that we would leave this

session before it is adjourned without having those two items

fully debated in this House? Does anybody truly believe that it

was the intention of this government to shut down the House and

walk away from here without any discussion on the Marguerite

purchase or the rentalsman? Do you really believe that?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, if they really believe that,

then surely there would have been legislative remedy far before

today's debate to illustrate on the order paper their

dissatisfaction with anything the government has done in terms

of the Marguerite or the rentalsman.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I find that the opposition is

attempting to become nitpicking over their picayune attitudes —

picayune in vision and picayune in terms of understanding a

decision that was made to save the small businessmen of this

community. What about the MLAs from those two areas? Have we

heard one statement of criticism from the two MLAs from

Victoria about this?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On the legality, yes.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You go and sell that 40-days or 30-days

delay in getting a bill through to the businessman in Victoria

saying: "Really, that ship shouldn't sail, you know. All those

American tourists shouldn't be in here, you know, because Davey

has been illegal, you know." I'm sure you're going to peddle

that stuff when you go up the street in Victoria.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I sat in silence listening to

their arguments; now they're all yapping back when they hear my

arguments. I challenge you to go up the streets of Victoria and

say

[ Page 3257 ]

to those people who are affected by the bill: "You know, the

government should have waited."

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): You know that's

not the issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: A whole session could have gone by....

Oh, the issue is not the issue, eh?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You are the last one to speak about

breaking the rules, Mr. Member. You're the jubilant

delinquent.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): That's what they are — jubilant delinquents.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I find it a little bit

typical of the opposition and its attitudes. You have not done

one single thing to help this government do anything.

Everything we've done, you've been opposed to. You talk against

it, you block it, you try to sandbag it. When you come to the

Marguerite....

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member refrain

from shouting all the time, please? I think the Hon. Member who

is speaking has the same right that you ask for yourself.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that all persons who are using the

sidelines should sit quiet for a while until we finish this

debate.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the Marguerite, it is

a typical attempt to block. You want the finesse of the illegality, as you define

it. The two bills are on the order paper; if you think you've got a major point

to score political points on, you go right ahead. But you know there was no

intention of this government to leave this current session without debating

the Marguerite or the rentalsman.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You know that. Okay, having said that, the

official opposition decides that the only way they can attempt

to score points on the case of the Marguerite is to turn

themselves into a U-boat crew. There they are — they've got the

periscope up, and they're drifting through the political

waters. When they come to the City of Victoria, it's down

periscope. But when they go up country, up it goes, the big

flag waves and the skull and crossbones comes up and says:

"Let's stop that hateful gang in Victoria." There they are —

the skull-and-crossbones gang going around and trying to

sabotage every single thing this government has done — every

single thing.

Now we're faced with interim supply which will ask for funds

to continue the programmes. In two areas we've had an emergency

advance of funds.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's fine, Mr. Member. We're asking the

House to authorize it before we leave this session. Had we

known ahead of time what the Marguerite was going to cost us,

it would have all been there. But if we had waited for your

schedule and your plan, those businessmen in downtown Victoria

would be facing empty shops today.

I've gone through the records of the British House of

Commons for instances where there have been advances made in

emergency situations. Mercifully there were not the same kind

of debates. One of the outstanding examples of an emergency in

terms of granting money at a time before supply was when war

was declared and the government decided to build air raid

shelters. With the kind of opposition we have in this House,

mercy and faith might have taken care of them. With the absence

of air raid shelters, just imagine what would happen to the

opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Especially with all those seagulls.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We try our best to build shelters for the

opposition but they always take their U-boat out there and try

to sabotage anyway. What are we going to have to do? We're

going to have to tell the people that when the vote came and

the debate came on the Marguerite, when there was a bill on the

order paper, when we took action, all they could do was

criticize us because we asked for an advance to get the job

done. You know what? They

[ Page 3258 ]

stayed up nights figuring out how they could attack it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Poor little bulldozer! We feel sorry for

you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And now, Mr. Speaker, even with all the

noise, the volume, the crudeness and the interruptions from the

official opposition, it is our intention to carry on presently

with interim supply and carry on with debate on bills related

to the Marguerite and the rentalsman. There will be nothing

left in terms of responsibility before we ask the House to

adjourn, and on a traditional motion of second reading on

interim supply, I now move interim supply so that people of

this province can go on about their business and get the

service they want from this government while the politicians

continue their petty little game here in the House. I now move

second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 39

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Lauk

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Wallace

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

NAYS — 4

Gibson

Anderson, D.A.

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 80 be

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

forthwith.

Motion approved.

Bill 80, Supply Act, No. 2, 1975, read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT, NO. 2, 1975

The House in Committee; Mr. Liden in the chair.

section 1.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Now that we are in committee, Mr.

Chairman, I wonder whether the Premier could indicate how

successful he has been in curbing the expenditures of some of

his rasher Ministers. It is clear that we managed to squeeze a

few extra days out of the first 60-day supply granted. I wonder

whether he would indicate whether we can expect a similar

performance in the future, perhaps cutting off — who knows? —

something better than 10 per cent from the overall total of the

budget.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are

scrutinizing all votes through Treasury Board and we are

keeping a very close watch on expenditures. I welcome the

statement from the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). We think

that that is the proper role of the Treasury Board. It is

meeting weekly and is supervising very closely all

expenditures. I don't see anything wrong with that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Premier and Minister of

Finance misunderstood. It is not a question of anything wrong.

We are delighted to hear that the Treasury Board is meeting

weekly. I rise to congratulate the Minister of Finance in

getting an extra nine days' work out of that 60 days of

budgeted money.

What I want to find out is whether the lax spending habits of some Minister,

perhaps the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk), perhaps the Minister

of Consumer Affairs (Hon. Ms. Young), perhaps the Minister of Highways (Hon.

Mr. Lea), is being adequately curbed. We are now in a position where we can

visualize a different overall expenditure by the government than was originally

forecast in the budget and than we find in the estimate book. It is not a question

of criticism of what the Treasury Board is doing. A question might come up as

to why Treasury Board hasn't done this before, but no one is criticizing at

the present time a proper examination of expenditure by the government. I wonder

whether the Premier and Minister of Finance could now answer the question, which

was: what sort of expectation does he have now in terms of spending less money

in this coming financial year? Clearly, he has done something which I've got

to applaud — he has squeezed a few extra days of government action out of that

60-day supply that we gave him last time. A lot of people might suggest that

is good. I just wonder whether this is going to continue, whether it was a one-shot

thing, and whether or not we can expect lower government expenditures than

[ Page 3259 ]

otherwise

would be the case.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the extra days were not a

reflection of X number of dollars spent. It was on the advice

given to us by the department that that leeway was the amount

of time we had if we had completed the work. Obviously we

weren't. We got the report on the 5th and we arranged the bill

for today, the 9th. The Treasury Board will continue to

scrutinize all expenditures. The task is one that takes a great

deal of time, but I felt it was necessary, as Minister of

Finance. Perhaps in another 60 days, we will be able to see the

impact. But the instruction is that everybody must live within

their budget. We are seeing that that indeed is the case.

Certainly I am happy with it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Just one step further. I am very pleased

to hear that everybody is under tight instructions to live

within their budget, but is there anything that the Minister

could tell us today which would indicate that they are doing

slightly better than that — that they are actually spending

less than is budgeted for — because the figures given do

indicate there is some....

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll try and get the information for you,

Mr. Member. I can't be specific.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Just one quick point, Mr.

Chairman. The Premier keeps talking about scrutiny from the

Treasury Board regarding expenditures. We have a vote here

which we're dealing with, one-twelfth, which comes to a total

of a budget of $3.228 billion. Really the one-twelfth of what's

actually being spent or what's actually been budgeted, appears

to be wrong in view of the directives that the Minister of

Finance has issued.

Now we're not talking only about a question of scrutiny;

we're questioning about a matter of a Treasury Board directive

being issued on April 29 which really reflects an inaccurate

request for funds. This one-twelfth of the $3.2 billion budget

has to be inaccurate in view of the Treasury Board directive of

April 29. I'm wondering, you know, if we're playing around....

It was really unfortunate that when questioned in this House on

the question of 10 per cent restriction, the Ministers played

games on the issues. They suggested that it was not 10 per

cent, even when questioned outside the chamber where I think

they have a responsibility to stop playing games. If it's not

10 per cent, maybe it's nine per cent, that Treasury Board

directive which everybody seemed not to be aware existed. It's

quite obvious there has been a directive suggesting severe

restrictions.

I wonder if the Minister of Finance wants to tell us which programmes are going

to be curtailed, whether it's the Department of Human Resources. I know that

there's been phony excuses for the curtailment for the lease and purchase of

120 trucks in Penticton. The Premier is very adept at skating around an issue.

He should almost go in for skating and challenge Miss Magnussen. He's that capable

of skating around the issue.

He's asking here for one-twelfth of 3.2, after having issued

a directive from Treasury Board on April 29 to institute

budgetary restrictions.

Now is this the legitimate amount which we are asking for?

It appears not to be. I'm wondering if now that the Premier has

an opportunity, he wants to level with us and give us the

straight goods once and for all. Once in your life tell us the

facts as they are. Stop playing around with words, and come

clean.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The best that I can tell the Member is

that I've asked the department to calculate as close as

possible what the expenses will be for one month. I can't give

you an absolute precise figure, because it's not available. The

best advice I have is that the figure here presented will

suffice for the month, considering the instruction that we want

everyone to stay within their budget allotment.

I wish I could be more precise, but it's just impossible at

this point. We have figures as close as 90 days, no other

province has a figure as close as 90 days. The federal

government doesn't have it. We inherited that system from the

former administration, but we can't bring it down any more than

90 days. The system that we inherited from the former

administration, I think in terms of that amount of updating

figures, is closer to what I gather any other province has.

Even at that, we can't give absolute figures. This is on the

best advice of the department, and I can't give you any more

precise information than that.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Could the

Premier tell us if the budget we are still debating in

estimates is accurate in light of the Treasury Board directive?

Is that 3.2 billion figure still accurate?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I want to point out to you that it is as

accurate as any of the last 20 years. It's the same system. I'm

telling you it's as accurate as any in the last 20 years. In

some of the previous administration there were huge surpluses,

yet we asked the same question of the same system, and we were

told to the best of their ability it was accurate.

Now if you're saying that Treasury Board was withholding

information then, that's a question to be asked. But I'm

telling you now that it's as accurate as we know.

MR. BENNETT: The Premier and Minister of Finance made a big

to-do about a change in

[ Page 3260 ]

budgetary procedure when he presented the budget this year...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Accounting methods.

MR. BENNETT: ...and he was talking about realistic

budgeting, and he was talking about $3.2 billion and it was a

question of whether the figures could be realistically

achieved. Now we see within the fiscal year just starting April

1 a Treasury Board directive already restricting, and perhaps

even curtailing, whole programmes which we may be discussing in

a budget or in estimates — it may not be relevant any more.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister of Finance is talking about the

system with regard to Treasury Board. I'd just like to ask the

Minister of Finance — last year in one department we had an

overrun of $103 million. Now were you paying attention to the

system? Did you know this was going on? Did you know in the

last two years when your budget in two years had been overrun

by $719 million? Were you using the same system then? Did you

know that, as Minister of Finance at that time, and did you

okay it? Now you seem to be doing a 90-day check.

The Minister's talking about the system that he inherited.

If the system isn't working, why don't you change it? Am I to

take by the Minister of Finance's statement that he was aware

that his government departments were overspending in two years

by $719 million, the estimates were laid down — the budget that

was laid down in this Legislature? That Minister of Finance

knew exactly what was going on because he just said that he

used the system.

Now that the government is short of money, and the revenue

is not coming in in the way he anticipated, is he changing the

system, or does he really know? Did he know in previous

years?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There is sufficient revenue to cover our

budget commitments.

MR. PHILLIPS: What was that again?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There is sufficient revenue to cover our

budget commitments. It is a false statement — an incorrect

statement; I'm sure you're not saying it falsely — to say that

the government is "broke," or to say that not enough

money is coming in.

MR. BENNETT: One question, because the Premier covered it in second

reading, in response to questions in the House of a serious nature, such as

the question on which we provided information to the Premier last Thursday

concerning the comptroller-general. That was a serious question over a published

report which would lead people to believe that there was an improper spending

of money. Why could not the Premier, Minister of Finance, have reported back

to the Legislature that evening — it was Thursday evening we sat — or Friday,

or today? Why do we have to wait until we question it now? At that time the

name of the person who confirmed such a thing to us was furnished to the Premier.

Does he not think that he was being a little lax in his regard for providing

immediate answers? We've had a whole weekend. He's got an explanation today,

but I feel there's been a lack of courtesy, after he asked for the names and

the specifics and the newspaper article, that we didn't get an immediate answer.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think that I have provided the answer

today in reply to second reading. I'm sorry, Mr. Member, that I

wasn't perhaps a few hours earlier, but I think you've got the

answer. I think I've responded fairly quickly to your

questions.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I'm sorry that I can't satisfy you

in this section.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister of Finance has stated very

clearly here this evening several times that there is no

curtailment. In other words, he's asked his Ministers to stay

within their budgets. Would the Minister of Finance then

explain why certain programmes are being curtailed, programmes

that were started last year, specifically those by the

Department of Human Resources?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Does that mean, Mr. Chairman, that the

Minister of Human Resources again overestimated his

expenditures, and that if he was not kept in line by the

Minister of Finance he would indeed have another overrun? The

Human Resources Department is definitely and clearly cutting

back programmes throughout this province.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. GIBSON:

Section 2 relates to how the moneys being voted

under interim supply shall be expended. In his reply on second

reading the Premier suggested that emergent situations, as he

called them, apparently justified this kind of thing, this kind

of thing being deviated from the specified objects that the

Legislature sent out.

I'd ask the Premier if he's aware that the rent review, that

so-called emergent situation, was brought

[ Page 3261 ]

to the attention of his officers before that vote expired,

and that it was ignored. Payments were continued to be made,

and they were made after March 31. They were made illegally,

and they were charged to the rentalsman's vote illegally. Is

the Premier aware of that? I'm just asking him that simple

question. Is that an emergency situation when you were told

before the authority ran out on March 31?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I think that I've adequately

explained that the legislation did run out. There's other

legislation on the order paper now. The House hasn't got to the

business yet, and that's the end of the situation. I'm again

thankful that you're not suggesting criminal acts.

MR. GIBSON: We never suggested that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, you never have, but the overtones over

there....

MR. GIBSON: Well, I'll try once again to get to this

question of how an emergency might arise that might lead the

government to consider that it has the authority to make

unauthorized payments.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Act ran out.

MR. GIBSON: I asked the Minister if he's aware of the

timetable on the Marguerite. Nobody's talking against the

merits of the Marguerite, not even though you purchased it out

of the Greenbelt funds. But you purchased it April 1, and

legislation to fix that up didn't come in until June 5.

In the meantime, a month later, your government had found

the time to form a private company on May 5, when it had five

weeks to bring that before the Legislature. How can that be an

emergency situation? It's not a question of being against any

positive thing to do. It's a question of being against the

illegal expenditure of money; it's a question of being for the

control of powers of this Legislature.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The Member for North

Vancouver – Capilano is on

section 2.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I believe that at the time some of

these cheques were issued, it was known they were issued

without authorization. I ask the Minister of Finance if there

is going to be any inquiry into that. I ask him if it is going

to be an independent inquiry, and I ask him, if there were any

orders given or if he will find out if there were any orders

given to issue any illegal unauthorized cheques. I ask him for

the answer to those questions.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Throughout the

debate in second reading and in his responses to comments with

respect to the Princess Marguerite, I have to say that I am

very disappointed in the position that the Premier and Minister

of Finance has taken. The simplistic equation that if we are....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you want us to sell it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CURTIS: "Do you want us to sell it?" — that's not the

point, Mr. Chairman. Why not close down the Legislature?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Member for Saanich and the Islands

has the floor.

MR. CURTIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dare we ask a question

about the Princess Marguerite without suggesting that we are

opposed to the service? Dare we direct a question to the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams) with respect to the cost of the refit without running

into that kind of twist, twist, twist across the floor? We're

not opposed to the Marguerite, and you know it!

Mr. Chairman, the Premier and Minister of Finance knows that

we're not opposed. I would suggest that any responsible

government in power in British Columbia at this time would have

moved to acquire the Princess Marguerite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CURTIS: But we would also, I suggest, have introduced a

bill four or six or eight weeks to cover the operation of the

vessel. That's the point at issue. We sat here day after day

after day...

Interjections.

MR. CURTIS: ...with no bills. We've had half-answers from

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: "Take it as

notice. Take it as notice." Where was the legislation? The

legislation could have been introduced several weeks ago. The

Premier and Minister of Finance knows that had he been sitting

on this side of the House in opposition, he would have been

putting the same questions with the same force and with the

same strength.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The old wrecking crew again.

MR. CURTIS: Nonsense, Mr. Attorney-General — absolute

nonsense. Irresponsible nonsense, and you know it, too. You

know it as well, Mr.

[ Page 3262 ]

Attorney-General.

Interjections.

MR. CURTIS: Are we not permitted to ask questions about the

vessel?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CURTIS: Delay, delay, stall....

AN HON. MEMBER: Juvenile delinquents.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Member for Saanich and the Islands

has the floor. We are dealing with

section 2 of the Supply

Bill.

MR. CURTIS: I note, Mr. Chairman, that on March 26....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The legislation on the order paper that....

MR. CURTIS: On March 26, Mr. Chairman, we had interim Supply

Bill No. 1 — that was Bill 11 — passed through here very

quickly. Just a few days later, apparently, the Princess

Marguerite deal was settled — just a few days later — a few

sitting days, certainly. I must condemn this government for

stalling for all these weeks — not for putting the ship into

operation, not for saving the service — I commend the

government for that. But I condemn the government for its

sloppiness and its around-the-back-door approach to the whole

question.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I remember in a debate

similar to this, the Premier came up with essentially the same

defence as he did today. It's the old Mussolini defence — if

you're in favour of trains on time, you must be in favour of

Mussolini. If you're against Mussolini, you have to be against

trains on time. This is the type of....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I hope that the analogy is

not directed to me, Mr. Member. If it is, I ask you to

withdraw.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I will certainly withdraw any suggestion

that the individual is concerned...but the argument, though,

has got to be understood. We are asking questions on illegality

of payment, and they are important questions to us.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I'm not opposing the argument; I'm opposing the analogy. I ask the Member to withdraw.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right. If the analogy is offensive to the

Premier, I'll certainly withdraw. But I do want it understood

that the suggestion of questioning the legality or otherwise of

cheques that are issued, asking questions such as the most

recent ones, and the last one asked by the Member for North

Vancouver – Capilano (Mr. Gibson), which was not answered, and

which was: was it known that these cheques were being issued

illegally, and was that fact known? The deliberate refusal to

answer these questions and the deliberate attempt to suggest

that this somehow meant that the people who pose these

questions are totally against any service by ferries or

anything of that nature is just not right and not fair. We have

a duty in this Legislature to ask questions on expenditure of

public moneys. That is an important duty of the opposition.

When moneys are expended illegally, without even legislative

heading, we feel we have a double duty to go after those

particular things.

So I trust, Mr. Chairman, the Premier will once more get to

his feet and answer the question about these illegal payments.

Was it known to him as Minister of Finance or to his Deputy or

to others whom he has questioned since, that these payments

were being made illegally?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman,

during second reading debate I asked the Minister about the $35

million grant to B.C. Rail. I would like to know what portion

of that was made after April 1 and what the authority was upon

which those funds were made available to the Crown

corporation.

With respect to the matter of the rent review commission, it

is true that there is an amendment to a bill which the

Attorney-General brought in on May 16. He just amended it last

Thursday to rectify this problem, but the fact of the matter

is, Mr. Premier, no matter what that amendment says, on every

payday that has come since April 1, the staff of the rent

review commission have been paid illegally. I want to know

whether you are going to find out in the Department of Finance

who authorized the issuance of those cheques. There wasn't a

vote against which they could be charged nor any legislative

authority.

On the question of the Marguerite, the bill which is before

the House, if the Attorney-General would take the time to read

the legislation in this House, he would know it does not

correct the problem you have. You formed that company early in

May and this bill does not rectify that problem. The boat was

registered in the name of Her Majesty the Queen in the right of

the province in the name of the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr.

[ Page 3263 ]

Strachan) on April 11. Weeks before that time, the

negotiations were concluded with the CPR for the acquisition of

that vessel. We have legislation before the House today which

does not rectify the expenditure that was made, the

incorporation of that company, or any of the financial details

concerning the Princess Marguerite.

Mr. Premier, either you don't know what is going on or your

advisors don't know what is going on. In that case, how can we

expect that

section 2, regarding the application of supply, can

possibly be dealt with properly by your government?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I can't believe we aren't going to

get answers from the Premier on these questions.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I gave you the answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are two bills before the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. We're on

section 2.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the Premier says he has given us

the answers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're not happy with them, I know.

MR. GIBSON: You haven't given the answer to this question:

are you aware...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh!

MR. GIBSON: ...that illegal cheques, cheques without

legislative authorization, were knowingly issued? That is

question No. 1.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're assuming a lot.

MR. GIBSON: It is not assuming a lot, Mr. Attorney-General.

I have made inquiries.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You can't assume much less.

MR. GIBSON: Question No. 2: were any orders given that

caused that to happen?

Question No. 3: will you undertake an inquiry to find out

how that authorization came about and whether there were any

orders and, if so, what was the chain of command?

That is the essential question. That is the question of the

control of the Legislature over this supply we are being asked

to vote today. It is a very serious question.

Section 2 approved.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I have an amendment, a new

section 3,

which I handed up to the table just as soon as we came into the

committee stage. It's a new

section 3 which would read: "No sum

out of supply shall be issued or applied in order to repay any

funds which, at the time the payments were made, were made

illegally, in contravention of the Audit Act."

This is perfectly in order. It would cut down on the

expenditure to the Crown among other things, so it is perfectly

in order, and it would crystallize the dilemma that we are

facing on this side of the House in questioning the government

on this question of illegality.

If it is not illegal, well, then there is no problem for the

government.

MR. GIBSON: Right on.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If there is illegality, this will show it

up with crystal clarity because these expenditures will not be

covered by anything that we are voting today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me first rule on the amendment itself. We

have had time to consider the amendment as you handed it in

earlier, which I thank you for. The amendment is clearly out of

order on a number of counts. First of all, it attaches a

condition. The 18th edition of May , page 719, clearly shows

that it is out of order. It is not relevant to the bill which

limits expenditures.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I just simply refer you, Mr.

Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't want to argue the question of whether

or not it is in order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, no. But it is one of those things on

which you hear argument, not necessarily "argue."

Section 2

reads:

"No sum out of the supply shall be issued or applied to any

purpose other than those provided in the main estimates, or in

excess of the estimates of expenditures therein, and the due

application of all moneys expended under the authority of this

Act shall be accounted for to Her Majesty."

This amendment of mine, which adds a new

section 3, is in

essentially the same language. My amendment might well have

been put as an amendment to

section 2, in which case I am quite sure you would have had to accept it. The fact that I put it in

a separate

section perhaps is worrying you, Mr. Chairman, but

there is no question that a limitation of this kind in terms of

expenditure, to

[ Page 3264 ]

make sure the expenditures are for legal purposes, must be

in order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have had time to consider and we have

listened to the point you've made and the amendment is clearly

out of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You mean, Mr. Chairman, an amendment

which would require that moneys be spent legally is out of

order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's clearly out of order. I've stated one

point to you. There's another, and that is that it's not

relevant to the bill, which already limits expenditure to votes

approved in the Committee of Supply. The amendment is out of

order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Would it have been appropriate, then, as

an amendment to principle?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Same rule.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I have May , page 719, that you talked of.

Would it have been acceptable...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think I can speculate on something

that didn't happen.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The fact is that we've had governments

amend bills very substantially, and opposition amendments have

been put forward, following acceptance of principle....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We've had opportune time to consider this and

it's clearly out of order!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, it's all very well to say it's

clearly out of order, but the fact of the matter is that this

amendment is limited in scope which would simply make sure that

all expenditures are under legal headings.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The amendment is out of order.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee

rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 80, Supply Act, No. 2, 1975, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is approaching. Would

all Members please rise?

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and

took his place in the chair.

DEPUTY CLERK:

Perpetuities Act.

Public Trustee Amendment Act, 1975.

Investment Contracts Amendment Act, 1975.

Administration Amendment Act, 1975.

Co-operative Associations Amendment Act, 1975.

Farmers' and Women's Institutes

Amendment Act, 1975.

Real Estate Amendment Act, 1975.

Fair Sales Practices Amendment

Act, 1975.

Pacif North Coast Native Co-operative Loan Amendment Act, 1975.

Securities Amendment Act, 1975.

Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1975.

Succession

Duty Amendment Act, 1975.

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

(1964) Amendment Act, 1975.

Assessment Authority of British Columbia Amendment Act,

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1975.

Gasoline Tax

(1958) Amendment

Act, 1975.

Gasoline Tax

(1948) Amendment Act, 1975.

Motive-Fuel Use Tax Amendment

Act, 1975.

Coloured Gasoline Tax Amendment Act, 1975.

Bee Act.

Police Amendment

Act, 1975.

Mortgage Brokers Amendment Act, 1975.

Farm Products Industry Improvement

Amendment Act, 1975.

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Amendment Act,

Automobile Insurance Amendment Act, 1975.

Fisheries Amendment Act, 1975.

Community Care Facilities Licensing Amendment Act, 1975.

Medical Services Amendment

Act, 1975.

Status of Men and Women Amendment Act.

Legal Professions Amendment

Act, 1975.

Personal Information Reporting Amendment Act, 1975.

Credit Unions

Act.

Labour Education Centre of British Columbia Act.

Trade Practices Amendment

Act, 1975.

[ Page 3265 ]

Free Public Toilets Act.

Hospital Amendment Act, 1975.

Hospital Insurance Act, 1975.

Agriculture Statutes Amendment

Act, 1975.

Supply Act, No. 2, 1975.

CLERK: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth

assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the

chamber.

Hon. Mr. Hall moves adjournment of the House.

The House adjourned at 7:46 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada