1981 Legislative Session: 3rd

Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The

following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 1981

Morning Sitting

[ Page 5085 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism

estimates. (Hon. Mrs. Jordan)

On the amendment to vote 183: minister's

office –– 5085

Division on the amendment

On vote 184: administrative and support

services — 5085

Mr. Hall

Division on the amendment

On vote 185: operational services –– 5085

Mr. Hall

Division on the amendment

On vote 186: marketing services –– 5086

Mr. Hall

On the amendment to vote 186 –– 5086

Mr. Hall

Mr. Howard

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Barber

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Wallace

Division on the amendment

On vote 187: building occupancy charges ––

Mr. Hall

On the amendment to vote 187 –– 5091

Mr. Hall

Division on the amendment

On vote 188: computer and consulting

charges –– 5092

Mr. Hall

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. King

Mr. Barber

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Human Resources annual report,

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

introduce a guest

of mine, a gentleman who's been a major figure in the central interior

lumber industry in the Cariboo and Prince George area for many years.

Would the House please welcome Bill Dunkley.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

Sometime in the next hour students from John Henderson Elementary

School in Vancouver South will be in the precincts and the galleries.

At this time, on behalf of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Rogers) and myself, may I ask you to join in welcoming those students.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM

(continued)

On the amendment to vote 183: minister's office, $186,530.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Segarty

Davis

Strachan

Chabot

Waterland

Hyndman

Smith

McClelland

Rogers

Jordan

Heinrich

Hewitt

Brummet

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Mussallem

Ree

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

division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 183 approved.

On vote 184: administrative and support services, $972,158.

MR. HALL: As you are no doubt aware, now

that we are in this fourth ministry, we are developing for you a

succession of amendments which deal with profligacy in the government

in particular areas. The areas include travel and horrendous increases

in office expenses and office furnishings. Much has already been said

in debate on Municipal Affairs and on Universities, Science and

Communications.

Mr.

Chairman, in keeping with that central thrust, I would like to point

out to you that in this particular instance there is a 30 percent

increase in travel expenses. We took some pains yesterday afternoon to

show you that the revolving-door principle of staffing in this ministry

should not include the kinds of travel planned in a 30 percent

increase. In fact, we believe it would be useful for us all to stay at

home and get to know each other before we embark on any further travel.

Therefore without any further delay I would move that vote 184,

encompassing those three items, be reduced by $36,650.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Mussallem

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

division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 184 approved.

On vote 185: operational services, $5,456,854.

MR. HALL: Vote 185, operational services,

includes Beautiful

British Columbia

magazine, and in the to-and-fro debate yesterday we on this side did

not respond to some bad news. On the other hand, perhaps, in that bad

news there are the beginnings of some good news about the very poor

health of the editor of that magazine. I feel remiss in not responding

to the remarks of the minister. I want to assure her that all the good

wishes of all the people on this side of the House who have known Bert

Atkins as long as we have go to him in this period of ill health, and I

wonder if the minister could, certainly on my behalf and on behalf of

the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), who knows him well, express

our good wishes to him — in fact, from all the House — in this tough

time.

This vote — a large vote — includes the operational services

that are an important part of the ministry, dealing as

[ Page 5086 ]

it does with visitor services, Beautiful British Columbia

magazine, educational services and with the contributing grants.

However, we do notice increases again in a couple of items that we

frankly cannot see justified in view of the fact there has been a

decrease in staff. With a decrease in the established positions in vote

185, we cannot see an increase in subcodes 10 and 30 that we are

attacking in these estimates. We are therefore proposing a modest

curtailment, but enough to indicate that the time to make the cuts in

the budget is before you print the book. I think those words were never

better said than in the debate on the budget by the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke). Therefore I'm going to move that vote 185 be

reduced by $45,232, which will take us right back to last year's

figures.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Mussallem

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

division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 185 approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, the House is

in good humour this morning; something must be wrong.

On vote 186: marketing services, $7,249,814.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Chairman, the largest vote in the ministry contains, of course, the

largest excesses. I'm sure you're not going to be particularly

surprised to know that we've analyzed this vote thoroughly and see

again the same pattern that speaker after speaker has discussed since

the member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis) presented us

with these bloated estimates.

We noticed, for instance, that there is a 36 percent increase

in travel expense, a 49 percent increase in office expense and a 48

percent increase in office furniture. Then we come to the one that has

attracted the attention not only of this House but everybody in the

province, and that is a 56 percent increase in advertising. We went

through that in the budget debate. We pointed out that this government

is now listed in the top 40 — 1 think it is now — in advertising in the

country. Their total advertising budget as shown in these estimates is

well over $20 million, and that's without some of the latest moves

we've seen coming along that have been discussed in other debates in

this chamber.

We've

therefore taken the view, Mr. Chairman, that those should be cut back

to the kind of performance and expenditure that we saw last year. If

restraint is the order of the day — and we've heard minister after

minister tell the public to be restrained — and if tax increases are

the order of the day, then we feel we should examine these kinds of

inflationary increases in planned, budgeted and excessive expenditure

from one year to the other. Working along those principles, this would

then give us a reduction in this vote of $1,666,534, if they were doing

so well last year. We're only talking about reducing travel, office

expense, office furniture, advertising and publications. We're not

touching salaries, either temporary or permanent, or the acquisition of

machinery and equipment. We're not talking about rentals, motor

vehicles, materials and supplies, or the things required to do the job

that the minister talked about yesterday. We're talking about those

areas in which we believe the government is deliberately

over-estimating what it's going to do. We're bringing them back to

task. Therefore I move that vote 186 be reduced by $1,666,534.

On the amendment.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

I have listened very carefully to the member's remarks and the

repetitive position they're taking in terms of reducing everyone's

vote. I couldn't let this effort to try and cripple the tourism

industry in British Columbia go by without comment. The member said

they're not touching salaries or existing equipment. They're touching

travel. I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, does the critic for the

opposition not know the responsibilities of this ministry? We are a

marketing ministry. If that member came into our offices on Wharf

Street or in Vancouver more than about four times a year and found

everyone there, he would have the right to complain. Our people must be

around the world. Our brochures must be around the world in the right

places at the right time to sell people on British Columbia. I can only

assume that that member either was a Minister of Tourism himself

without any understanding of what his responsibilities were — that's

why tourism was nearly crippled under the NDP — or I must assume that

he has other interests at heart. If I abdicated my responsibility as a

minister to meet the tour operators and the sectors that can bring

tourism to British Columbia on a team basis, and on a partnership basis

with the private sector, then the opposition would have something to

complain about indeed. But by then it would be too late.

would just briefly remind the hon. member and other members who have

such interest in moving these frivolous motions at this time what

happened when the NDP government was in power. Mr. Chairman, you'll

recall that in 1972 the NDP came into power with a surplus in excess of

$457.4 million from the Social Credit administration and from the

people of this province. By 1975 — after comments from the then

Minister of Forests, Bob Williams, heard by the public on airplanes,

such as, "We've got nothing to do but spend money and we don't know how

to spend it fast enough" — without one new tourist development, without

one major, new, dollar-earning international incentive or one major,

new, imaginative social program, they went out of....

[ Page 5087 ]

MR. BARRETT: Where did the Royal Hudson come

from?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: My, my, this must hurt.

would conclude my comments by saying that they went out of office in

1975 — three short years after inheriting a major surplus of nearly

$500 million — with a deficit of $261.4 million. In that time they

spent an incredible amount of money, and I would suggest that if that

had continued, as it has at the federal level and obviously would have

under their incompetence, the accumulated debt of the NDP

administration at the end of 1981, without taking into consideration

interest rates and inflation, would have been $3.201 billion. Under the

NDP administration — the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King)

is smiling; he knows this is true and that he was saved by the Social

Credit government — without inflationary costs and interest charges,

that would have been a debt of over $1,333 for every man, woman and

child — just on administration alone, without any capital costs. Of

course, we know they wouldn't have undertaken any capital ventures. We

would be out of power, and by now B.C. Rail would have absolutely

ground to a halt. There would have been a $3.2 billion overdraft under

the NDP.

I can only assume that the hon. second member for

Surrey (Mr. Hall), the delightful critic of tourism in British

Columbia, is in fact now hanging his head with great concern. I'm sure

he will recognize that our ministry is a marketing ministry. We must

travel. We must travel within the province to serve the people of the

province. All our staff must travel, and we must travel outside the

province where it is necessary, in conjunction with the industry, to

see this great province grow properly in the area of tourism.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Chairman, I'm not at all certain that the House in its wisdom

should have allowed what just took place. First of all we were treated

to some creative figuring. We all know that, and I'm not going to waste

the time of the House in refuting absurd charges, all of which have

been dealt with before.

Let me deal with the vote and that

which is contained in the amendment. I think, Mr. Chairman, if I may

suggest, with the greatest of respect to you, that is what we should be

here to do this morning.

Just in passing, if indeed the

record of the administration as just illustrated was so vast, why did

that member never once stand up in her place in the House during my

estimates when I was Minister of Tourism and ask me a question? In

1973, 1974 and 1975 only two members of the opposition stood up and

asked me questions about tourism. One was the member for South Peace

River (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who asked me about the Royal Hudson . He

wanted to know if it was insured if it fell through a trestle. Hansard is there;

any one of you can check Hansard .

The other one was a sensible contribution which caught me by surprise

from the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who made an

excellent suggestion about leisure services being regionalized, and how

we were going to have the districts to deal with the leisure-services

aspect, coterminous with other regional districts. All the

contributions on Tourism came from the then member for Victoria, Mr.

Anderson, who dealt with questions of tourism in a general way.

Mr.

Chairman, I would suggest that when those kinds of millions of dollars

that I was in charge of administering went through in 3 minutes, 15

minutes and 25 minutes, they didn't have very much to say. They didn't

know. They weren't engaged in this kind of new-found interest in

tourism, and that last speech is rather hollow.

Turning to

the facts of the matter in terms of expenses, if we look at the

expenditure for the ten months ended January 31, 1981, we will find

that this saving is entirely in keeping with what the record is. In

actual fact, i the minister looks at that document, she will find that

the expenses of that ministry are running well behind the planned

expenditure. By January 31, 1981, which was the ten-month period, they

had already accumulated a total month's surplus in terms of whole

dollars. They had saved a month on their operation. They'd only spent

nine months' money, and they had gone through ten months of the year.

So these figures that we are moving only show that these figures are

padded and, in fact, in my view the next amendment will show that they

probably didn't know what the figures were when the budget went

through, and I will be making some remarks about it.

Mr.

Chairman, I would suggest to you that this is a realistic amendment

that takes us back to the level of expenditure for last year, a level

of expenditure that they didn't even meet for ten months already. It

was plotted, planned, calculated, computed and printed and not even met

already. This amendment should go through, and it should be supported

on all sides of the House.

MR. HOWARD: I would like

to spend a few brief moments congratulating the minister on the manner

in which she has handled her estimates, and for the fact that during

these three days that the committee has been considering the estimates

of the Ministry of Tourism the minister herself has been able to impart

to the committee exactly the same amount and quality of information she

provided last year when we only examined them for three minutes.

MR. NICOLSON:

The New Democratic Party hasn't said that it's against tourism; we're

just against flimflam in a budget. This flimflam, which we are sick and

fed up with, shows that according to the details of expenditure for the

ten months ended April 1, 1980, this minister's full budget has been

going at a rate that is going to be underspent by about $1.2 million.

In other words, her ministry is going to create that much surplus in

this one vote alone, which is actually a combination of two votes from

last year. In this one vote alone, the only thing that we can look at

that is comparable to that from last year indicates that padding is

taking place in this area.

This House doesn't object to

funds being spent that are accountable. If this ministry is going to

spend an accumulated one month's surplus so suddenly in the last two

months of this year in the tourism industry, then we say that that

money spent in haste is money ill-spent. The minister should bear it

well in mind that in order to serve her whims of reorganization, some

other minister's whim of consolidation and some other minister's whim

of rationalization....

We're fed up with excuses; we want to

see some care taken in terms of spending money from the public purse.

We doubt very much that this much money is going to be spent in the

ministry. We feel that this is deliberate padding and overestimation of

expenditure, and we intend to pick this out as much as we possibly can.

I'm sure we're only scratching the surface.

[ Page 5088 ]

MR. COCKE: I'm sure that the House Leader

wouldn't want to invoke closure on a very important debate like we're

having this morning.

was an amusing situation. The minister got up and treated us to the old

fairy tale — the old fiction — and her fiction wasn't even the same as

the fiction that they erected to begin with. The way this government

and some of its members can erect figures from out of the blue is so

amusing that it almost stuns one on this side of this House. I'm

thinking in terms of looking for a little bit of integrity in

government.

We stated some time ago concerning the entire

budget of this province — and this vote reflects our original statement

— that what we saw was purely and simply an underestimation of revenues

and overestimation of expenditures. Past performance tells us that the

closer we get to an election in this province, the more likely that is

to occur. All we ask is that the minister get up and justify the vote.

She hasn't done so and seems totally unaware of what's before her — a

resolution to reduce the expenditure in this particular vote. Instead

of justifying the vote, she gets up and does that extraordinary tour

through Alice in Wonderland and all the other kinds of fairy tales one

can think of. Of course we support this resolution — this amendment —

and now more than ever. There has been absolutely no justification from

the minister for the figures that we see before us. All we heard from

the minister was that sort of ratty, foolish speech again, only this

time the numbers were changed. I wonder how many times they can change

those figures and have any kind of credibility whatsoever.

MRS. WALLACE: It's a + b.

MR. COCKE:

It's a + b, Madam Member, and a + b changes with the winds. If I want

any lessons in mathematics, the last place I'm going to go is to the

Minister of Tourism.

MR. BARBER: One of the principal

reasons why the committee should support our amendment is because of

the pathetic response of the Minister of Tourism to it. It may be good

enough for her to tell members of the agricultural community what she

thinks of their opinions — we remember that, don't we, Mr. Chairman? —

but I didn't read that into the record.

It may be good

enough for the minister to verbally abuse a poor girl by the name of

Laurie Flevel at a Vernon high school who attempted to ask her

questions about Silver Star. She insulted, humiliated and drove her to

tears and away from school for the rest of the day. Her mother was

provoked by the rudeness of the Minister of Tourism.... This committee

won't be bullied by those tactics, even though we're familiar with them.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I must excuse that member. His

ignorance is overwhelming. I would suggest that that member has just

placed the name of a young lady before this House who was not abused,

but who was used by the NDP. In respect to this young lady, I would ask

that he stick to the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: First of

all, hon. member, I must ask the minister to withdraw any imputation

that another hon. member would say less than the truth in the chamber.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but I

do wish to see this young lady protected.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The Chair has no authority to rule on a matter involving someone

outside the chamber, but if the member who was speaking would help out

in the matter, it would be appreciated.

MR. BARBER:

What I'm arguing is that this committee will not be bullied and

intimidated as the minister attempted to bully and intimidate an

inquiring high-school reporter who asked her questions and was driven

to tears and away from the classroom. I have no idea who this girl is,

other than by reading a letter that her mother sent to us and by

knowing from the report in the Vernon high school of the incredibly

intemperate, abusive and insulting way in which the Minister of Tourism

treated this girl. This committee will not be treated this way.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, somewhere along the line we must remember that we are on

an amendment to vote 186. I know we've strayed widely on the amendment,

both in the remarks of the minister, particularly, and in responses

thereto. I would suggest to the hon. member again that if we could

stick somewhat to the vote before us and a little less of the personal

allusions, we would accomplish the business of the committee.

MR. BARBER:

I agree entirely. It's shameful that the minister tried to drag in a

poor defenceless student whom she's attacked once already and now

attacks again.

One of the reasons why this amendment should

pass is because of the pathetic, irresponsible and simply unenlightened

response of the Minister of Tourism to the arguments put forward by my

colleague for Surrey (Mr. Hall). Another reason why it should pass is

because the committee now has ample proof of the utter insincerity of

Social Credit when it comes to cost-cutting in this province. This

opposition has, for the last three estimates — Forests; Universities,

Science and Communications; and Municipal Affairs — put forward a

series of amendments to reduce waste, trim fat and cut cost in the

Social Credit budget we are now debating specifically in the estimate

now before us. If this government were sincere in the least, you would

think they might have accepted one of these amendments, if only for

show to save face and to end their embarrassment at having had it

pointed out time and time again where the waste, the fat and the

overexpenditures lie. If they had any sincerity whatever, they would

respect the traditional role of this committee, which is to examine

expenditures and cut costs. But no, they have rejected and repudiated

every single amendment that the official opposition has put forward.

They haven't accepted one. They haven't cut a nickel from the budget.

They have dishonoured and undermined the traditional role of this

committee.

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

I must ask the member to withdraw the term "dishonoured the committee."

I must ask that without qualification.

MR. BARBER: Well, okay. They have

dishonoured the process, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the term " dishonour" is hardly one that would be

acceptable in any level of parliamentary intelligence. I would ask the

member to consider that, please.

[ Page 5089 ]

MR. BARBER: Well, I consider the

process.... I'll change the

word. If you will, they have deliberately ignored the traditional role

of this committee, which is to examine expenditures and cut costs. If

they had any commitment whatever to protecting the interests of the

public purse and reducing waste, you'd think they might have accepted

by now one of the 15 or 20 amendments that we put forward in the last

several days of specific estimates debates. The utter insincerity of

Social Credit is another of the reasons why, in order to save face,

this coalition of opportunists, Liberals, Tories, Action Canada members

and car dealers should finally turn around and say: "Yes, you're right.

There is some fat here and we can trim it. There is a role for the

committee to reduce costs, and we will honour it. There is an

obligation on the part of this House to watch public expenditures, and

we will observe it." If they had any sincerity at all, they would

accept this amendment, if only as some small proof of their willingness

to respect the necessity to cut costs in a year they tell us is one of

restraint.

For those three reasons — the pathetic reply of

the minister, the traditional role of this committee and the necessity

to cut costs — I ask that the amendment be supported.

MS. BROWN:

In speaking in support of the amendment, I would just like to point out

that the increase of $1,578,959 in the advertising and publication

budget, the $83,358 in the combined travel and office expenses budget,

and the $4,212 in the office furniture budget are all going to be

raised through increases in taxes. I think that when we are looking at

the people who are going to be paying these taxes, we cannot forget the

report just released by the federal government which shows that British

Columbia has the largest number of people living below the poverty line

in Canada, and that that number is increasing more rapidly in British

Columbia than in any other province. What we have is a government

that's deliberately overtaxing poor people. We have this horrendous

record of poverty. I'm not talking about people on welfare, because

what the report points out is that they are working people — it's the

working poor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair

has allowed the member some latitude in coming to the point. Again, all

of us must remember that we are talking about vote 186, which is

marketing services, and the amendment thereto of a reduction of $1.66

million. The member clearly is straying far from the vote that is

currently before us.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, in

speaking in support of the amendment, I am trying to explain why I am

in support of the cut of one million, six hundred and whatever the

figure is. I would have cut it by more, because, according to my

calculations, it should have been cut by $1,766,000. However, the other

members of my caucus are more generous than I am in this regard. I am

simply saying that the reason I support this amendment and this cut is

that this money is going to be raised through taxation. The people who

are going to be paying these taxes are the working poor. A report just

released out of Ottawa shows that British Columbia has the most rapidly

growing number of working poor in Canada.

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

by no stretch of the imagination can the Chair permit the member to

again canvass a matter which the Chair has just brought to the member's

attention is far from vote 186.

MR. BARBER:

On a point of order, I ask the Chair, with respect, to be a little more

consistent. You allowed the Minister of Tourism to refer to the alleged

deficit of the previous administration, which is not the subject of

this amendment, nor even true. Nonetheless, it was the subject of her

rambling discourse for easily four or five minutes. The Chair permitted

that. If that is to be permitted — and that was part of her reply to

our amendment — surely a far more valid and far more factual argument

made by my colleague from Burnaby is also in order — an argument which

clearly demonstrates the need to save money in this instance so that it

can be applied elsewhere.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order,

please. I have the point of order by the hon. member. The Chair allowed

the first member for Victoria some latitude in his response as well.

Again, though, we must somewhere along the line delineate between what

is at least related to the Ministry of Tourism, and not go into aspects

of the Ministry of Finance or of social service programs that clearly

fall within the purview of another ministry. If we have further

discussion on the aspect of tourism, then at least we’re close to the

ball park. Clearly in this case the comments are in no way related to

vote 186, regardless of whether we say there's an amendment before us

or not, and where that money would be used. It is clearly out of order.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, on that point of order, normally when you're dealing with

a vote you're dealing with the responsibility of the minister with

respect to that vote. However, we have amended that vote, and in that

amendment we are providing the reasons for and the importance of the

reduction of that vote. There are those relationships that develop

outside of the vote under those circumstances. The member for

Burnaby-Edmonds was merely outlining one of the reasons that we are so

intensely in support of this particular amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

If that argument were extended to its conclusion, we could conceivably

review the entire budget speech debate on each and every estimate. That

is not the purpose of committee. Whether or not an amendment is before

us, there are still limitations in that we must still be specifically

relevant to the vote at hand. I'm sure if hon. members were to think at

all into the future as to what could happen, we could have the exact

same debate that took place on the budget speech on virtually every

section of every minister's vote. For that reason, we must all exercise

the necessary judgment. I appreciate the points made by the member for

New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). I hope, in turn, that members appreciate

the point the Chair is trying to make.

MR. HOWARD:

I'm sure the committee appreciates the point that the Chair is trying

to make. However, we need to look at what took place under this vote.

The minister, unimpeded, uninterrupted, was permitted to go across the

whole world, nearly. I don't think she touched upon the amendment.

MR. LEA: Or the earth.

MR. HOWARD:

Oh, she touches the earth, all right. She's firmly planted in it. But

with respect, she was permitted to proceed in an uninterrupted way with

no question on the

[ Page 5090 ]

part

of the Chair about where she was going. Now, because of the intrusion

into the normal rules of the debate by the minister, when members of

the opposition seek to counteract what she said, we're stopped.

While the committee and I agree completely with the point the Chair is

trying to make, I do wish the Chair had made that point right at the

commencement of the minister's speech under this item, and we wouldn't

have got into this fuss.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon.

member for Skeena raises a good and valid point. It is always difficult

for the Chair in ruling on a minister, and of course that is why a

certain amount of latitude is allowed in response, but the latitude

extended in the case presently before us did not in any way canvass the

matters currently being referred to by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

Hopefully I am going to place upon each member some responsibility for

following, at least vaguely, the rules of the House.

Let us

give the member for Burnaby-Edmonds an opportunity to continue with her

debate. Hopefully she has had an opportunity, as well, to assess the

points that have been made.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, on

the point of order, I'd like a little clarification on the Chairman's

remark of just a few moments ago that the Chair finds that there are

two sets of rules and a little more latitude is shown to ministers than

to other members of the House. I don't quite understand the Chairman's

remarks. I thought that we were all equal under the rules that apply to

us as legislators in this assembly. The Chairman has given me great

concern by saying that there are possibly two sets of rules, one for

ministers and one for backbenchers and opposition. I'd like that remark

explained.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just so there will be no

confusion and so that the matter can be fully brought back to

committee, what I would like to do at this point is prepare something

that we may possibly consider as a more fixed guide. I will bring that

back to the committee.

In the meantime, I must take some

exception to the remarks of the member. Certainly it is the

determination and duty of the Chair to make sure that each and every

member of this committee is given the same opportunity and the same

rights as any other member. On that you have not only my assurance but

my obligation. I would now ask the member for Burnaby-Edmonds to

continue on the amendment to vote 186.

MS. BROWN: Mr.

Chairman, under vote 186 the minister is planning on spending an

additional $61,601 on travel expenses, an additional $21,757 on

office expenses, an additional $4,212 on office furniture and

equipment and an additional $1,578,959 on advertising and

publications. Now this money comes from somewhere; it doesn't fall like

manna from above; and, hopefully, the minister is not making it in the

basement of her office. We assume that this money comes from taxing the

people of this province. We are also assuming that everyone who works

in this province pays those taxes.

Now part of my

responsibility as a member of the opposition is to be the critic on

Human Resources, which means that I speak primarily for the people in

this province who have least protection from the law or from anyone

else, and that includes the working poor. I am saying, Mr. Chairman,

that the working poor are being deliberately overtaxed so that this

minister can increase her budget under vote 186 by $1,766,529. That

is unfair; that's an unfair tax burden being placed on the working poor

in this province.

We are continually hearing from members of

the government how wealthy this province is, how much money everyone

has and how prosperous everyone is. Well, there is now a report out

which refutes that; there is a report out which says that there are

more working poor in this province and that that number is increasing

faster than in any other province in Canada. I am saying that to

overtax the working poor so that the minister can spend $1,578,959

more on her advertising budget, or $83,358 more on travel expenses and

office expenses and $4,000-plus more on office furniture is placing an

unfair burden on that particular group of people in our society. That

is why I support this amendment.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr.

Chairman, I would like to draw your attention and the attention of the

House to a report that was done back in early 1976 by a well-known,

well-respected auditing firm in this province. That report indicated

that the figures contained therein were not based on any audited

figures; they were based simply on the figures that had been provided

to that firm by the government of the day. That report has been

referred to many times by the government; it has been flown and flogged

and used over the last six years in an attempt to discredit the New

Democratic Party government and their financial management. Mr.

Chairman, I think it is time that that government reviewed its stand

and recognized that the remarks made at that time were completely

ill-founded, ill-based and a political manoeuvre only. That report has

been referred to over and over; we heard it today.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: We heard it with new figures,

that's right — a revised edition.

would like to talk about the Marguerite .

Apparently the minister has

completely forgotten or doesn't know about the Marguerite . That

particular ship brought hundreds and thousands of tourists to Victoria.

Yet the Minister of Tourism would have us believe that the New

Democratic Party government did utterly nothing for tourism.

would like to talk about the Royal

Hudson . This venture has been very

worthwhile in the province of British Columbia. Yet that minister

stands up and says that the New Democratic Party did nothing for

tourism. She doesn't even know the right figures in that phony report I

referred to. She doesn't know about the Marguerite . She

doesn't know

about the Royal Hudson .

What's even more evident, she doesn't know how

much money she spent during the past year on this particular vote. She

doesn't know that she's well underspent. She turns around and asks for

$1.6 million more for the coming year than the previous year. That's

what this amendment is all about. Every time the member for Okanagan

North stands in her place I am amazed at the lack of information that

comes forward. If there's justification for this particular increase,

why doesn't she tell us? She just doesn't know. I'm convinced she

didn't even know that her vote was so badly underspent this year. She

has no concept of what's going on. That's why we're moving this

amendment. That's why we're trying to save the taxpayers of this

province some dollars.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[ Page 5091 ]

YEAS — 24

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Mussallem

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

division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 186 approved.

On vote 187: building occupancy charges, $880,000.

MR. HALL:

This vote again reflects something which seems to have happened right

across the estimates in terms of the government's housing itself. We

see incredible increases in the amount of money that will be spent to

provide accommodation for government itself this year.

First

of all we have the actual increase itself, from $691,000 to $880,000:

an increase of some 27 percent. That, in itself, is bad enough. I

happen to think that this whole thing is out of control, but that's not

under this minister. An increase of 27 percent is budgeted for,

predicted and acquiesced to. When we examine the statement of accounts

for the ten months we find, if we extend that ten-month rate of

expenditure, that they're only going to spend about $585,000 of the

$691,000 that we voted for last year. So they've already got $100,000

their vest pocket now. It really is the most remarkable way of keeping

a set of books.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The

reason I'm sure the minister doesn't know anything about this is that I

don't think any of the ministers on the other side know anything about

this particular item. I think they all trooped along to the meetings

with Treasury Board and came away with the first fistful of votes, and

after they'd left, each one of the ministers was presented with the

last two votes in each of these estimates, namely the charges for

building occupancy and the charges for computing and consulting. I

don't think any one of the ministers had anything to do with it. I

think they were just stuck with it, whether they liked it or not. So

there's not much point in asking questions of them, because I don't

think they know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Surrey

has the floor and is speaking in committee. I wonder if all hon.

members would be so kind as not to interrupt or make any other sort of

noise.

MR. HALL:

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the Premier, who've

plotted this budget together, should probably be listening more than

anybody else.

The fact of the matter is that to budget an

increase of 27 percent for building occupancy charges, on top of a

figure which is already unspent by $100,000, strikes me as being

ridiculous. It's the only word for it. No sense, no rhyme, no reason.

Therefore I have no alternative — forgetting about pleasure — but to

offer for your attention and support that vote 187 be reduced by

$189,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

MR. HALL:

That completes a series of amendments which, had they been accepted —

and even at this late date there may be some sense on the other side —

would have seen the estimates in this ministry reduced by $1,951,816.

That's only trimming off those planned excessive expenditures over

last year that we zeroed in on: travel, building occupancy charges,

rentals contained in that figure and office expenses and furnishings.

We're

not talking, about salaries on this amendment. We're not talking about

cutting essential services of any kind. What we're doing is taking the

words of the minister over the years that I've known him and putting

them down in cold, hard numerals in the form of amendments — what the

Minister of Finance and the other members of the treasury benches have

said. That would mean in my view that when this exercise is completed —

it will be sometime in September or October, or whenever it is that we

get through — we will have proven to your satisfaction that some of

those tax increases that are the hallmark of this government now would

have been unnecessary. That's the point of the exercise — to save the

people of British Columbia from the tax increases which we don't

consider are necessary. Therefore I urge support of this amendment as

some small way to go towards that estimable objective.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 24

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Davis

Se.-arty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Davidson

Mussallem

[ Page 5092 ]

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

division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 187 approved.

On vote 188: computer and consulting charges, $258,900.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Chairman, as you remember, I said in the last vote that that was

the final amendment. It would have seen a total amount of money in

excess of $1.9 million saved. I wanted to show you how that worked out

on the exhibit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I think we've

had quite a bit of discussion on the use of exhibits.

MR. HALL:

I have no intentions of abusing the Chair at all. I just wanted to show

you that we're keeping this record so that everybody in the House can

see it. As each estimate goes up, the amount of money that we save is

going to be right at the top.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On that

point, the committee is reminded of Beauchesne's ruling in this House

on exhibits. I'm sure all members of the committee are aware of that.

MR. HALL:

I notice in this estimate again that while there appears to be a

reduction — and only working from the information that is given to us —

if we examine the ten-month interim financial statement and we chart

that out.... Here we have no knowledge, and I don't expect the

department has either, until the B.C. Systems Corporation presents its

invoices, or however it charges the ministries.

It would

appear as though last year's figure of some $337,000 will remain

unspent to a large extent, and only about $190,000 of it will be spent,

unless there is a very big program going through that we don't know

about. Obviously that could be the case. We haven't moved an amendment

to reduce this amount of money, because we don't have the full

information. If my supposition is correct and indeed this estimate is

underspent, and instead of spending $337,000 last year you only spent

$192,000, there has been a sliding-in of an increase of at least

$46,000. Those are the kinds of things that we consider to be creative

and misleading bookkeeping — the kind of bookkeeping that this

government is becoming famous for. I think it should be corrected and

pointed out to the public of British Columbia that it won't get past

this side of the House.

While we're going to support the

vote in the absence of the performance in the months of February and

March because a large program may have gone through — goodness knows

something should be going through that Systems Corporation — we are

very suspicious of the fact that it appears that money is well

underspent.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm shocked that when a

revelation such as this is brought to the House we're....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, one moment

please. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) was interrupting

you with an exhibit.

MR. NICOLSON: By my leave, Mr. Chairman.

This

is a pattern. At least this one ministry did have the decency to reduce

its computer and consulting charges vote. It estimated $337,000 last

year. It spent $160,058 according to the ten-month interim statement.

In other words, in ten months it had spent less than half of what it

had estimated the actual amount required would be. This, if prorated,

would bring us to a figure of $192,000. So it would appear that next

year the ministry, in proposing to spend $258,900, is going to be

looking at about a 33 percent increase in budget on this one item

alone. I think that it's absolutely incredible. We've had no

explanation from the minister.

We are going to accept this

year's figure, hoping that it will be a truer figure, because it at

least sets some sort of an example for some of the other ministries

that were enormously overestimated last year in terms of expenditures.

I would expect that the minister could give an explanation of what the

computer program is, what kind of a service it is providing in the

ministry and what expansion of this computer programming service there

is going to be that it requires another 33 percent increase over what

appears to be the rate of expenditure last year.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

To respond briefly to the member's questions, I must advise you that I

appreciate your comments. As you know, our ministry is making every

effort to maximize the value for the dollars we're spending increasing

the industry. I would remind him that our cash flow is not necessarily

divided equally over twelve months, as one point.

His last

question was in terms of the computer costs. This is to program in the

green book and to develop a more effective — and hopefully much more

responsive — research program for the ministry so that, as one example,

you members may have the annual report that the critic wished for

earlier.

MR. NICOLSON: The minister has said that

the

expenditures cannot be prorated exactly. I suppose one would expect

that she is also not proposing that she's going to spend another 50

percent of her budget in two months. Since we're now well into the

middle of April, could the minister tell us what appears to be the

approximate total budget and underspending of last year's estimate?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, one moment, please. Once again I will ask the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke to remove the exhibit that is presently being

displayed to the committee.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman,

I'm not sure what the instruction of the Chair is. I have with me some

visual material that is connected with my work. I'm not displaying it;

it's just on my desk as a matter of reference. I'm not aware of any

House rule that is being violated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It

is the ruling of Beauchesne that exhibits are not used in this House.

It is the opinion of the Chair that that is an exhibit, and I will ask

the member to stop displaying that item to the committee. The purpose

of parliament is to speak, not to display exhibits. Beauchesne is quite

clear, and this committee is quite clear. I will ask the member to

please put the exhibit down and not display it to the committee in the

manner that it is being displayed now.

[ Page 5093 ]

MR. KING: I'll take it down and not display

it in the manner in which it's being displayed now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The exhibit is still being

displayed to the committee. Thank you. Now it is not.

MR. NICOLSON:

I'm rising at the moment on a point of order — although I was the

speaker. I note, and with respect submit, that in our standing order 1

it says: "In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or

other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in force at the

time shall be followed as far as they may be applicable to this House."

take it from our standing orders that where our standing orders are

silent, we refer to the practice in the House of Commons in London. In

quoting Beauchesne, I have difficulty finding how that complies and how

it is connected with our standing orders.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The member brought that argument to the committee two days ago. I think

the records will show that the Chair's ruling was quite explicit that

exhibits are not allowed in this House. I'm sure the member is aware of

that. That is a citation from Beauchesne. Our records from only two

days ago will indicate that that was the ruling of this committee.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Chairman, under standing order 9 it says: "Mr. Speaker shall

preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order,

subject to an appeal to the House without debate. In explaining a point

of order or practice, he shall state the standing order or authority

applicable to the case."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. The

operative word in that case, hon. member, is "authority." I have cited

the fifth edition of Beauchesne. The committee chairman two days ago

cited the same authority. On that note, I will ask the member to

continue on vote 188, the vote that is presently before us.

MR. NICOLSON:

I would just like to ask for some information, Mr. Chairman. Is

Beauchesne a

summary of practices which have arisen in the House of

Commons of Westminster or Northern Ireland?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The Chair is not here to answer questions. I simply cited the

authority, as the member asked me to. Now if we could proceed with vote

188, the committee would be well served.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Chairman, if I were to cite the Lok Sabha or the House in Sri

Lanka, it would not comply with standing order 1. I don't know how we

continue to do this. I'm not going to take it any further. I don't

think there's any point in trying to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Dewdney

rises on a point of order.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Chairman, I merely ask that the rules of the House be obeyed.

You've made a ruling. Let's have the ruling. This argument bores us to

death. I'm getting tired of it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling is that exhibits

are not allowed. It's clearly in our Canadian rules of order.

On the same point of order, the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Chairman, the exhibit you find so offensive is still displayed on

an empty desk. If it offends the House, I think the Chairman should ask

the Sergeant-at-Arms to remove it and turn it over to the Chairman for

his disposal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we have ample

authority. If the members to my left could remove the exhibit, the

committee would be very well served. Could that be done, please, by a

member.

MR. BARBER: On a point of order, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. There's

no point of order. The exhibit will have to be removed.

MR. BARBER: A point of order is always in

order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I haven't finished yet. I was

asking that the exhibit which is now on display in this committee be

removed.

MR. BARBER: By whom?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

If the members do not need to comply, then I will ask the

Sergeant-at-Arms to remove the exhibit from the display of the

committee.

The first member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER:

On a point of order, for the Chair to be perceived as fair it must be

observed as being consistent. Regarding this point of order, I wonder

if the Chair could read into the record or provide for this committee

the decision taken by the Chair when Mr. Gardom, member for

Vancouver–Point Grey at the time, brought a leg-hold trap into this

House. I wonder if the Chair, to be consistent, could provide us with

the record of the day in regard to the complaints that presumably were

made by the member who just spoke about the exhibition of a leg-hold

trap. Briefly, I wonder further if the Chair could read into the record

the decision of the Chair when the Minister of Forests, Mr. Waterland,

brought into the House an exhibit, namely a log, which sat on our desks

all afternoon unprotested by any member of this committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. The committee Chairman has heard all of those arguments.

The ruling is that in this committee there will be no exhibits. I think

the committee understands that quite clearly. On that point the ruling

of the Chair is that there will be no exhibits. The only business

before us at this point is vote 188 of the estimates of the Minister of

Tourism. If there is any further debate, I wish it to be relevant to

this item before us.

MR. BARBER: Continuing on the point of

order....

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order,

unless you wish to introduce a new one. Is the member introducing a new

point of order?

[ Page 5094 ]

MR. BARBER:

I believe it is new. It is both the point of order stated earlier of

consistency or the lack of it in the Chair's ruling and the fact that

the particular poster being displayed now is not precisely the same

poster that was displayed two days ago.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, you cannot comment on inconsistency of the Chair. That is

most unparliamentary. The Chair has ruled, not inconsistently but for

all members of the committee, that no exhibits will be allowed.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. BARBER: What about Waterland's log and

McCarthy's Smile button?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On vote 188.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman, it may not be commented upon but it certainly has been

observed that when ministers bring logs and buttons into the House as

exhibits of their new policies or their acts, that apparently is okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

That's not on vote 188, hon. member. Will the member please speak to

vote 188. The Chair has made a ruling for all members of the committee

on exhibits.

MR. GABELMANN: One-sided.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

It is not one-sided. It is to all members. It is most unparliamentary

for a member to comment that the Chair is being one-sided.

Interjection.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That is most

unparliamentary. Will the member for North Island please withdraw.

(Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Chairman, on March 17 the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) had a

display on every desk in this House and you did not order it withdrawn.

I will not accept your biased rulings.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The member will

withdraw unequivocally the allegation of bias towards the Chair. Will

he member please withdraw.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, I will ask you one more time to withdraw unequivocally the

statement that the Chair is biased, or the Chair will have to take

further action.

Will the member please withdraw the statement that the Chair s

biased.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, for me to

withdraw something that is a fact would make a liar out of me.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Mr. Speaker, the committee has to report that the member for North

Island refused to withdraw an accusation of bias to the Chair and

refused to obey a decision of the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER:

I would ask the hon. member for North Island if, having had just a few

moments to reflect, he is now willing to withdraw any accusation of

bias against the Chair.

I would then order the hon. member for North Island to

withdraw the accusation of bias against the Chair.

The

member then leaves the Chair with no other alternative but to take the

steps provided for in standing order 19, and perhaps the member would

also review standing order 20.

I name the member, Colin Gabelmann.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I move that Mr. Gabelmann, the member for North Island, be

suspended for the service of the House for three sitting days.

MR. SPEAKER: You heard the motion. Those in

favour say aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Opposed if any.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the ayes have it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division is called.

MR. SPEAKER:

The question is: "I move that Mr. Gabelmann, the member for North

Island, be suspended from the service of the House for three sitting

days" — as moved by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Davidson

Mussallem

NAYS — 21

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Sanford

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

[ Page 5095 ]

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals

of the House.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I submit to you that under

standing order 50 the proceedings which we have just concluded were

improper, not sanctioned by the rules and should be voided. In

substantiation of that, standing order 50 says: "All motions, except

the motion to adjourn and the previous question, shall be in writing,

and signed by the mover before being debated or put from the chair." In

this particular instance, I'm advised that the motion was orally made

but was not in writing when it was put from the Chair, and was not

available for that purpose. I submit to you that the whole proceeding

is completely improper, if not illegal. I ask the Chair to examine that

question and so rule.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources on a point of order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, the course of the motion was put verbally; it's the only

way we have to put motions in this House. It was duly signed. Mr.

Gabelmann's name is in the motion, signed by myself before I made the

motion.

MR. HALL: On a point of order, in view of

the

minister's answer, do I take it then that there are a number of

proforma motions already typed out, with blanks for the names?

MR. BARRETT:

On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that

standing orders provide this particular protection, because this is not

an action of the Chair; it is an action of the House. In this instance,

a government minister has initiated the action to expel a member, not

the Chair. For the protection of members when such action is made

because of a member, not the Chair.... It is, therefore, a member

who is determining whether or not the House should vote on whether or

not there's been a breach. That action was initiated by a cabinet

minister. To avoid charges of a spur-of-the-moment political

motivation, that is why the standing order provides that the motion

must be submitted to the Chair and read from the Chair, in writing.

That

was not the case. The minister moved the motion. Then there was the

vote before it was read from the written motion. It was politically

motivated on the spur of the moment. It violates the spirit of the

standing order which protects members from politically motivated

motions.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in defence of the Chair, and

in defence of the fact that there may be disagreements with the Chair,

but to protect the Chair this standing order is there to clearly focus

on where the motion started from — and the political motivation. In

this case there has been exposure that it was a government decision,

made in verbal form, then submitted after the first calling of the

motion. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the government has made a

serious error in our standing orders, and leaves the impression that

the Chair initiated that, which is absolutely incorrect.

submit that the best way to handle this would be for the government to

come to its senses and withdraw the motion, rather than lay itself open

to abusing the standing rules of this House for political purposes.

That, indeed, is what can be interpreted if they don't withdraw this

motion.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll accept an opinion from

the member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. LORIMER:

I'll just suggest that

section 50 seems very clear. There was certainly

no motion presented to the table prior to the time the verbal vote was

taken. In my opinion, it's the duty of the Speaker to void the

transaction that has just taken place, due to the fact that the

standing rules of our House have not been followed.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON:

I would just like to read the second sentence of standing order 50. I

realize this was not a debatable motion, but I think the meaning of the

sentence is still clear. "Upon the motion being moved, it shall be read

by Mr. Speaker before debate." One would expect then that it would be

read by Mr. Speaker in all instances before a motion is put.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you, hon. member. Those are all the opinions? I will then take

into consideration all the matters raised and reflect on them. I will

come back to the House with an opinion that will perhaps satisfy the

House. Not only that, but it may well provide the precedent by which

all future procedures in this regard take place.

But, hon.

members, the Chair must accept responsibility for proceedings in this

House. The Chair is not aware, since the report was not made by the

Chairman, of the reasons by which we have arrived at this point. The

Speaker was called into the chamber, and the report was simply that

there was a disregard for the authority of the Chair. Sometimes a

Chairman elects to give some of the background; but the germane part of

it is that there was disregard for the Chair.

In this

particular instance the phrase uttered was that the Chair was biased.

Following that, it is the Chair's responsibility to give the member who

was offending, who perhaps made a statement during a time of heated

debate an upon reflection may well wish to retract that

statement.... At that point it is the Chair's responsibility to ask

for a retraction, not a retraction of all the statements that led to

the accusation of bias, but simply a request to show his regard for the

institution of the Chair itself. This was done. The member refused. The

Chair then orders a withdrawal. That was refused.

The naming

process has nothing to do with the reasons for us arriving at this

place; the naming process has to do with disregard for the Chair —

according to standing order 19. Hon. members, this procedure was

followed.

The Chair was deeply engrossed in reading standing

order 19 to be sure that things were done in an orderly fashion. I also

read standing order 20 and suggested to the member that he may wish to

reflect on it. I then looked at some of the authorities, which I had to

flip through very quickly, not wishing to delay the House, and then I

followed through the instructions which I have before me here. I think

all of that is very acceptable. When I put the motion, I had a finger

in every page, being sure that it was proper. When I completed the

motion, this piece of paper — the motion paper — was lying here. I

cannot tell you at precisely what moment it arrived, but I do believe

that the spirit or the intention of the entire procedure was followed

to the letter. If there are any errors at all, I will accept

responsibility for those errors.

MR. BARRETT: Mr.

Speaker, since you have indicated that you wish to reserve decision on

points of order raised by opposition members, I would ask leave of the

House that the

[ Page 5096 ]

rules be suspended and that the last

motion not be put in force until we hear your full ruling.

Leave granted.

MR. LORIMER:

I'd like to help the Speaker out. Watching very closely the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources' (Hon. Mr. McClelland'

s) preparation of a written motion, I can advise the Speaker that the

motion was presented to your desk after the division bells were rung.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, just to

clarify whether or not there was a signed motion available at the time

that I put the motion, there was.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

It was in my hand at the time that I made the motion. That's the only

normal way that a motion can be made, and that's the way motions are

made in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Before they're voted on.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Yes, and this one was. Mr. Speaker, the motion was handed to the Clerk

before the vote was taken, and handed to the Speaker, and that was the

scenario that was taken.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, hon.

members. I think I have all of that information. According to the leave

which was granted, I will reflect on it and bring a decision to the

House, at which time.... According to the motion from the Leader of the

Opposition as I understand it, the motion will not take effect until

that time.

The committee did not rise; I then call on Mr. Chairman....

The hon. member for Skeena — on a point of order?

MR. HOWARD: I move that the House do now

adjourn and stand adjourned until 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, the procedure.... In order to be flawless and in order

not to get into another procedural discussion such as we've just

concluded, we must return to committee.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM

(continued)

On vote 188: computer and consulting charges, $258,900.

MR. BARBER: I was speaking before points of

order were raised. I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals

of the House.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy tabled the copy of the 1980 annual report

of the Ministry of Human Resources.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:26 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative

Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1981,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria,

B.C., Canada