1974 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

337 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Administration Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 3). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 337

Incapacitated Voters Act (Bill 35). Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 337

An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act (Bill 36). Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading — 337

Oral questions

Audit accountants for ICBC. Mr. Morrison. — 338

Loss reserves re Fruit Growers Mutual. Mr. Wallace — 338

Compensation to ICBC agents for extra workloads.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 339

Future ICBC rates. Mr. Chabot — 339

Highways department actions following Sooke Road flooding. Hon. Mr. Lea — 339

Negotiations with Aske Holdings re purchase of Broca Building. Mr. Curtis — 340

Procedures following car accidents. Mr. Gardom — 340

Motion

Adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of public importance.

Mr. Phillips — 341

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 341

Mr. Smith — 343

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 343

Privilege

Possible breach of conduct by ICBC official.

Mr. McClelland — 343

Mr. Speaker — 343

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 345

Mr. Speaker — 345

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 346

Mr. Phillips — 351

Mr. Gabelmann — 362

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 367

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to rise on a matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the matter should be deferred, if the

Hon. Member can restrain his impatience, until we have completed

introductions and the other matters. You don't carry that out until

just before we enter upon orders of the day.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I

would like the House to join me in welcoming a large group of members

of the Home and School Federation, formerly known as the

Parent-Teachers Federation.

They have come from many parts of the province and we're very delighted to have them with us today.

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

to welcome Mr. James Deacey, who is the administrator for the Union of

B.C. Indian Chiefs, who is visiting the House this afternoon.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to introduce to you, and to Members of this House, Mr. Rusty

Zander, the MLA for Drayton Valley, Alberta, a Member of the

Progressive Conservative government in our neighbouring province. He

hails from what is known as "oil country," I'm told.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to

recognize the colleague who led us in prayer, Rev. Colkins, who is

really here representing the Council of Churches. It's the Council of

Churches who today are giving this copy of the Gospel of Luke and the

Book of Acts to all the aldermen, mayors and MLAs. We welcome him and

appreciate this little present to us.

MR. SPEAKER: I hope you gave them to both sides of the House.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, we have with

us today a delegation from the Peace-Liard Regional District — from my

part of the Province of British Columbia. I'd like the House to welcome

Mr. Framst, chairman of the regional district; Mayor Clarke from Fort

Nelson; and Mayor Trew from Hudson Hope.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I would like

to have the House recognize the delegation of Home and School from

Sexsmith School. It happens to be their 60th anniversary and they're

celebrating it one month from today.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to ask the Legislature to join me in welcoming Mr. and Mrs.

Sims and Mrs. Hobal from this historic community of Yale.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, it gives me extreme pleasure today

to join with my cohort from North Peace (Mr. Smith) to ask the House to

welcome two Victoria members — which I don't get the opportunity to do

very much, it's a long way up in the Peace River area — but they are

here from the Peace River-Liard Regional District. With the delegation

is His Worship, Mayor Hayward from that great and growing town of

Chetwynd, coal capital of the world, and his city clerk, a young

gentleman by the name of Andy Tesluk.

Also somewhere in the galleries today are: Mayor Ikert from our

great town of Pouce Coupe in South Peace River; Mr. Ron O'Jensky, the

secretary-manager of the Peace River-Liard Regional District and his

lovely wife Doris; and Deiter Holman, the Peace River-Liard planning

man who is doing all that great planning for the future expansion of

that great area there.

Also, last but not least, a young gentleman from Vernon, by the name

of Byron Wilson, who used to be a resident of Dawson Creek, also in

that great Peace River area.

I'm sure the House will join with me in giving these gentlemen and lady a warm welcome to the House today.

Introduction of bills.

ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Administration Amendment Act, 1974 .

Bill 3 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

after today.

INCAPACITATED VOTERS ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 35, Incapacitated Voters Act ,

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

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

AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAND REGISTRY ACT

On a motion by Mr. Curtis, Bill 36,

An Act to

[ Page 338 ]

Amend the Land Registry Act ,

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

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

Oral questions.

AUDIT ACCOUNTANTS FOR ICBC

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

address my question to the Minister of Transport and Communications:

would the Minister advise the House of the form of audit accountants

who have been awarded a contract for ICBC operations?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Just a minute. Just a minute.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Now, it's all right — he wants the answer.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Where's that guy with the walkie-talkie?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We can either be patient or take it as notice.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, it's going to take a little time here, but we'll get it.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the Hon. Minister could examine that

question and in the meantime we would proceed with other questions so

we don't delay the question period.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the same Minister another question.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask you to leave him alone for a minute so he can look up the first.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's a good question. The firm of

Deloitte, Haskins and Sells was selected, on a basis of international

reputation. They are a national organization with British Columbia

facilities. Incidentally, this was public information, Mr. Speaker,

because it was order-in-council 270, made public January 24, 1974. I

wish you would do your homework and quit getting lazy.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do it yourself.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I didn't remember the name; I knew it had been done. Do your homework!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think every

Member knows that if it's already published in any government document it is not a subject for the question period.

I have already recognized the First Member for Victoria on the first

question; he might be permitted to go ahead with a supplementary.

MR. MORRISON: I'd like to ask the same Minister: was this

firm chosen by tender or by invitation? If it was by invitation, what

other firms were requested to submit work proposals?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It is my understanding that you don't

choose chartered accountant firms by tender; you do it by submission.

There were other firms asked to make submissions. I haven't got the

names of the other firms or firm — whatever it was. But I know that

others were asked to make presentations. I understand that's the usual

procedure.

MR. MORRISON: I'd like to know the type of presentations they were asked to make. That is really the question I am leading up to.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not a chartered accountant, so I can't

tell you the presentations that were made. I remember looking at some

of them. These come as recommendations from the management group of the

corporation. I think that's the proper way in which any administration

should be run. You get recommendations from the people who are actually

operating, and that keeps politics out of the decision. (Laughter.)

LOSS RESERVES

RE FRUIT GROWERS MUTUAL

MR. WALLACE: Would the Minister confirm that when ICBC bought

out Fruit Growers Mutual the loss reserves which were stated to be

$100,000 have in fact proved to be $400,000?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Hon. Member suggesting that this question has been asked in this current session?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, he's referring to the present situation. Would you repeat the question? I missed your first figure.

MR. WALLACE: The loss reserves which were assumed in the purchase were stated to be $100,000, and have subsequently proved to be $400,000.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I haven't got the figure here, but I'm quite sure your figure is wrong. I'll take that as notice and get an answer for you.

[ Page 339 ]

COMPENSATION TO ICBC AGENTS

FOR EXTRA WORKLOADS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the

same Minister could advise us whether or not he and his department and

ICBC are considering paying anything extra to ICBC agents to compensate

them for the extra work involved in handling the complaints and the

questions concerning rebates for high premiums and refunds for

overpayments which have resulted....

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Where did you get all that junk?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Proceed with the question.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Cocke) seems a little concerned about this. I wonder if the

Minister of Transport and Communications would inform me whether he's

considering any extra payment to the people who are ICBC agents, so

that they can be compensated for the extra queries that they must

handle due to the changes in regulations of ICBC — the 48 changes that

we heard about yesterday.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, I haven't made any comment

on the number of changes as I haven't had time to check the number of

changes. They're all public knowledge, so we'll reject that part of

your question, if you don't mind.

With regard to the matter of extra compensation, we had a long

discussion with the agents about a month ago about compensation. We

reached amicable agreement on the compensation, and it is not our

intention to pay any more money to the agents than they are now getting.

FUTURE ICBC RATES

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the Minister

of Transportation and Communications. ICBC has indicated there will be

a refund to anybody who applies on an overcharge basis prior to March 1

of this year. I am wondering if the Minister could confirm that those

adjusted rates — that is, the rate charged less the refund — will be

the rate of 1975.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can tell you that that's policy that is

yet to be decided. Therefore the question is out of order, if you don't

mind. That's policy yet to be decided, and you can't ask a Minister to

reveal policy that has not yet even been decided. Now, that's a

parliamentary rule that you understand. Come on, now.

MR. CHABOT: There are a lot of people in the country who

believe that there's a possibility that this might be only a one-time

rate adjustment. In other words, they will be penalized by the

insurance rates in 1975. The full rates which they are presently being

overcharged on will be applicable in 1975. Is that what ICBC and the

Minister are going to apply to penalize the drivers of this province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order. The Minister has indicated that the

decision has not been made, and at this stage it would not be

permitted, as you will note if you read your Beauchesne at page 148.

The Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) has been attempting to

answer a question for which notice was accepted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Before he answers, I would like to ask the

Member with all respect, Mr. Speaker, that he stop trying to mislead

the people of this province about this issue.

MR. CHABOT: That's nonsense! That Minister has waffled around

this House in answering questions. I ask you to have that Minister

withdraw that insinuation against me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. CHABOT: And stop interrupting me when I'm trying to make a point!

AN HON. MEMBER: Wild man.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, would the cabinet Minister withdraw that statement?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member has been in his own terms

passing insults across at the Minister both ways. And now you ask the

Speaker to intervene between the two of you. I would ask both of you to

remember question period is not a time for speeches.

MR. CHABOT: You're siding with the government!

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Highways wishes to make a statement in reply to a question asked of him.

HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT ACTIONS

FOLLOWING SOOKE ROAD FLOODING

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I never

thought I'd bring calm to this House, but I took a question as notice

the other day from the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). That

question was: "Is it a fact that officials of your department

authorized trucks and equipment to clear out a

[ Page 340 ]

culvert on Sooke Road in the region of Ronald Avenue on February 4?" The answer is yes.

MR. WALLACE: When I asked the question a day or two earlier,

the Minister denied any responsibility for that flooding problem on the

Sooke Road. I now understand that (1) there's a health hazard, and

(2) a family is being accommodated in a motel at the expense of the

Department of Human Resources. Could I please know who is responsible

for this flooding and what is being done about it?

HON. MR. LEA: Well, who is responsible for the flooding is a

matter between you and your Maker, I suppose, Mr. Member. As far as my

department goes, our responsibility was to clean out a culvert that

goes underneath the highway at the request of local citizens, which we

did do.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH ASKE HOLDINGS

RE PURCHASE OF BROCA BUILDING

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of

Public Works. Has the province been involved in negotiations with a

firm known as Aske Holdings Ltd. with respect to an interim purchase

agreement for a building at the address 2586-2590 Cadboro Bay Road in

Oak Bay? It is known as the Broca Building.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Personally, I know of no dealings with this firm but I'd be pleased to take the question as notice.

PROCEDURES FOLLOWING CAR

ACCIDENTS

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the Minister of

Transport, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister please advise us as to what

steps an ICBC policy holder would have to take should he become

involved in an accident at 12:01 on March 1?

MR. SPEAKER: This is a hypothetical question which is not permitted.

MR. GARDOM: I tend to think it's not hypothetical, since we have accidents every day of the year, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is a matter of law, is it not?

MR. GARDOM: It's a matter of him telling this assembly

exactly what plans the ICBC has to take care of wrecks. And so far

there are none. It was in the paper last night — Mr. Bortnick says he

didn't know. I am asking the Minister if he knows what plans he's....

MR. SPEAKER: You are assuming that there is a plan in your question.

MR. GARDOM: I'm wondering whether there even is a plan.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there a plan? Would the Hon. Minister answer?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I know the answer, but I'm just going to check and be sure.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Do you want answers to questions or don't

you want answers to questions? If you don't want answers to questions,

don't ask questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There will be, prior to March 1, full

publicity given to the procedures to be used as of 12:01 a.m. March 1,

in the event of anybody being involved in an accident. There will be a

publicity campaign for the last week before that date.

It has been decided — the areas, the locations, the way it will be

handled. It's already all laid out. We know exactly what's going to be

done and the public will be fully informed.

MR. GARDOM: Why not tell them now? Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. How many claims centres will be open by March 1? How many and where?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There'll be none, to the best of my

knowledge, of the planned claims centres open. But there will be a

claims procedure. There will be claims locations.

MR. GARDOM: There won't be one single, solitary claims centre open.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That is completely untrue. There will be

claims centres to which the people will go. There will be places to

phone for information. The whole thing will be made completely public

when the time comes. I know you don't want it to happen, my friend, but

this thing's going to work. This thing's going to work!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Any more supplementals by other Members?

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Hon. Minister how many

claims centres will be open, and he said none. Now is that correct or

incorrect?

[ Page 341 ]

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

You're twisting.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're talking about a completed building....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What do you mean? I'm answering a question. I'm talking to him. I'm answering a question.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I've explained. They don't

want the answers, that's obvious. I said there will be none of the

architecturally-designed completed buildings finished for a number of

reasons; you are familiar with the reasons. But there will be claims

centres available. There will be places to go, places to check.

This operation is going to go despite your prayers that it won't go.

And I'll have more to say about it in a speech later in this debate,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege:

there are two ways of ruining this question period. We've seen one of

them work today, which is total obstruction and stalling by lengthy

statements by Ministers.

The question period is a question period and an answer period. It is

not a period for statements on motions; we know how to have those. If

we are to have an intelligent and useful exchange of information, we

had better stop having the type of performance the Minister of

Transportation gave today.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Members....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: What's your point of order?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I have

listened to questions in this House for two years now preceded by cheap

political speeches from all of those Members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They take up the time making stupid statements.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Hon. Members, I want to advise

you that one of the problems of question period is always that people

want to make speeches in preface to their questions. That delays the

question period. Then an argument will develop from time to time, as

developed between the Hon. Member on this side and the Hon. Minister a

few minutes ago. I can interrupt that and take up the time and consume

it in wrangling, or I can hope that you'll all co-operate in making

quick questions and getting quick answers. I expect co-operation on

both sides of the House, not long debates and wrangles. Let's try to

work together.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent

public importance. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for South

Okanagan (Mr. Bennett), that the House be adjourned to discuss a matter

of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the first thing, before you make any

motion, is to state the matter upon which you rise and upon which you

want the House to adjourn its normal business. Would you kindly, in

brief, give us the matter upon which this is raised?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd be quite happy to. I move that the House be adjourned to discuss a matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Namely?

MR. PHILLIPS: As a result of my coming into possession of a

record of share transactions which establishes a prima facie case that

unreported insider trading took place with respect to the government

takeover of Dunhill Corporation, which I will make available to this

House, and as these transfers are not recorded under the Securities Act

it becomes evident that this House must immediately take action to

cause the fullest investigation of stock market activities by this

government to take place.

It is more than passing strange, Mr. Speaker, that one Stella

Woodbridge, a stenographer for Ladner Downes, a legal firm for Dunhill

Developments, purchased 500 shares, certificate No. 00451, on January

10, 1974, the day before this government announced the acquisition of

Dunhill in the newspapers. As well, one John Hurst, who is a young

barrister with the legal firm of Ladner Downes, transferred into his

name 400 shares, certificate No. 00455, on January 17, 1974.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General):

[ Page 342 ]

The Hon. Member has stated the subject matter. Now I'd like to speak

as to whether it's something that should be handled in this way by an

adjournment motion.

MR. PHILLIPS: May I finish my statement, Mr. Attorney-General? It's very short.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think it would be better if the Member

didn't read into the record a lot of names at this time, and that we

decide whether or not....

MR. PHILLIPS: Is he rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, or is he just interrupting?

MR. SPEAKER: Point of order.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think we should have a ruling on the subject matter now.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the object of stating the matter is to

determine whether it is of public importance and whether it is urgent

and whether there are no available means at the present time to debate

this question that has been raised by the Hon. Member. I think those

are the basic points.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, with the indulgence of the House....

MR. SPEAKER: I think we've already understood and grasped, I

hope, the concept of which you're complaining, a public matter: a

corporation was taken over where some inside trading took place; that's

your allegation. I don't think the details of it are a subject for

which the Speaker has to learn everything. All he has to do is know and

grasp the basic essentials of the urgency and public importance of the

matter.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, if you'd allow the House to

indulge with me while I finish my statement, I will prove to you that

it is a matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: I point out to you that the rule in May, at page

366 of the 17th edition, is very clear. If this is a matter that is

involving the ordinary administration of law, and it appears to be, you

should be properly beating your way to the door of the Attorney-General

to lay charges, or have someone do it.

At page 366, item 4, it says: "Matter must involve more than the

ordinary administration of the law. Motions have been disallowed

because the matter raised by them involves no more than the ordinary

administration of the law."

It seems evident here that you would be prejudicing, by this House

discussing a matter that if it's correct, what you've been saying,

would lead to a prosecution and should properly, I would think, if your

facts are correct, lead to a prosecution....

MR. CHABOT: It would lead to an election.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is not a time for debate,

and it's not a time for supplying the intricate details of the matter.

You've given me the basic problem and it should, in circumstances

outlined here, conform to May's decision on this matter, that it's a

matter of ordinary administration of law. If the courts don't deal with

it, then you can certainly come back here and complain.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in all due respect to your

decisions in May, I would suggest that when that edition of May was

written probably all the business of the government was done within the

Legislature. I would suggest to you now, Mr. Speaker, that a great deal

of the people's business in this province is carried on outside of this

Legislature. I would suggest that May is a little out of order in that

instance.

Never before in the history of any province or any country does the

government go around buying up corporations without bringing bills into

the Legislature, so I say that reference in May is outdated. This

legislation was brought into this House last year, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The 17th edition is the one just immediately prior to the newest edition of May, and it's a very current one.

MR. PHILLIPS: What year was it printed?

MR. SPEAKER: This is 1964. The new one was just printed and

it exactly says the same statement, if you want me to find the page

number and satisfy you that that is the law.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, that copy was made in 1964; the

legislation which allows the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) to

go outside the Legislature and purchase companies with taxpayers' funds

was just passed in 1972.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! If the Hon. Member wishes to

debate the question in the ordinary debate in the budget speech, he's

quite entitled to do so.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, speaking on the point of

order: I would merely like to say that this is not an urgent matter for

adjournment. It is something that can be discussed in the budget debate.

[ Page 343 ]

It is something properly to be discussed in that debate today or in

any continuation of that debate. I would further say that if the Hon.

Member has reason to believe that there's been an infraction of the

company laws or any other laws of this province, I would very much like

having it brought to my attention. I'd be glad to make an appointment

with him.

MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would

suggest that possible impropriety using taxpayers' money of this

province is an urgent matter at any time, just as it is now.

MR. SPEAKER: The question here that is posed by the Hon.

Member deals with an infraction of the Securities Act, which he is

claiming, by two persons involved in what he claims to be an insider

transaction. That is covered by the ordinary law of the province, and

this Legislature, made laws to deal with it. Therefore, the proper

course in a matter of that kind, under the ordinary administration of

law, is that it be dealt with not by a special debate in this House

because it's not deemed in those circumstances, according to May, to be

urgent.

On the other hand the alternative is, as I pointed out, to debate

the question at large, which you are quite free to do under freedom of

speech under the budget speech that you are now engaged in, so you have

ample opportunity without terminating the ordinary business of the

House to deal with it in the normal routine of our budget debate.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Point of order. I wish to

speak upon the matter of urgency in this particular motion that the

Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) wishes to propose.

I submit to you that the matter of urgency is here because of the

fact that the corporation involved is now a corporation of the Crown.

It is now part and parcel of the assets of the people of the Province

of British Columbia in the right of the cabinet to deal with, and we

should deal with it, as legislators, because we protect the taxpayers'

money.

If there is inside dealing taking place at this particular time, or

prior to this time, which has resulted in people making a rip-off

profit or anything close to that at the expense of the taxpayers of

this province, particularly when a Crown corporation is now involved —

a Crown asset — we have every right to ask for an emergency debate

right now, at this particular moment.

MR. SPEAKER: I point out two grounds upon which such a

procedure would not be in order, according to May. I cannot see that

even if one of the two prevailed that argument that the Hon. Member has

made would prevail. I must therefore indicate that, in my opinion, it

is not a case for terminating the debate or putting such a motion. I so

order and so rule.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege

in regard to the decision that you gave the House last evening. I

apologize that I wasn't here when that decision was laid down, but as I

read it in the blues of Hansard , Mr. Speaker, I can come to only one

conclusion: the only two reasons for the provision, or lack of a

provision, of a ruling indicating a prima facie case of privilege were

first of all that the offending

article in the newspaper was not

available to you, and that you were unable to identify the Member

referred to.

MR. SPEAKER: My job in this House is to deal with the rules

as they exist. I gave my ruling, and the ruling is that the Member has

to comply with certain formalities in order to bring a matter of

privilege before the House.

MR. McCLELLAND: That is what I am saying, Mr. Speaker. I must

also say that I am very sorry that you were unable to take the word of

a Member of this assembly in connection with the remarks that I made

when I referred to an

article in the Vancouver Province .

MR. SPEAKER: It is not a question of my taking the word.

There is a formality in every case — it is called natural justice,

according to some of the decisions. Natural justice requires that you

produce a copy of the newspaper in extenso , that you table it with the

House, and that the Clerk read it out. (Laughter.) You may well laugh,

but that is the rule set out by every Speaker, that is the rule set out

in May, and that is the rule that binds this House. That is the way it

is to be done.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm not objecting to your....

I'm just speaking to this decision and I'm attempting to comply with

some parts of it. Because I rose yesterday, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of

personal privilege, I found it a little difficult to understand why you

lost sight of which Member was standing in his place at that time. I

thought it would be no problem to have you understand which Member was

in question.

In order to clarify the whole situation, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you

now take a further opportunity to study this question, in view of the

newspaper which I would now like to present, and I would ask that the

Clerk read the

article in question when I complete my very short

presentation.

The person to whom the

article refers, Mr. Speaker, in case you still don't understand, is myself.

[ Page 344 ]

MR. SPEAKER: You didn't say so yesterday.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I rose on a matter of personal privilege!

MR. SPEAKER: "A Member of this assembly" is what you said.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, if I may continue, in your

remarks to the House last evening you said, and I quote from the blue

Hansard : "He neither identifies the Member impugned, nor provides

evidence against the person he attacks."

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that you have compounded the misconduct

against myself with those statements, with those recorded remarks,

because I attacked no one in this House. I attacked no one. I asked a

specific question of what I considered to be of much importance, and I

expected only a sensible and reasonable answer from a Minister of this

Crown.

Mr. Speaker, you said also that I presented no evidence to support a

question of privilege that you could deal with at this stage. Therefore

I would like to present briefly further reasons in order that you may

support my contention that a breach of personal privilege has, in fact,

occurred.

One must remember, Mr. Speaker, that the person to whom I originally

referred, Mr. Gordon Root, is a public servant in a very highly placed

position in a Crown corporation of the Province of British Columbia.

Not only is he a public servant, a servant of the public-at-large, but

he is also a servant of this House, and in fact a servant of your high

office, Mr. Speaker. His actions in making near-slanderous remarks

about a Member of this Legislative Assembly are comparable to a Deputy

Minister slandering a Member of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that he is

not complying with the rule, and I wish he would. If you wish to bring

in a matter of privilege, it is not a question of what is called

"personal" privilege. I've heard that used several times here. It is a

question of privilege, not personal privilege — a question of privilege

of this House, not your personal privilege.

The second point is that before you assume statements that you read

in the press, the matter has to be gone into, if it is a question of

privilege to be examined by a committee, by the committee as to the

validity of that press statement, because it may not have been said by

the person you are referring to. Therefore you are assuming, as a prima

facie matter, the evidence as if it were true without knowing the facts

yourself.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I disagree; I'm not assuming

anything. You have asked for evidence because you state you don't have

enough evidence to deal with it at this time. It's a matter of

privilege – all right, I won't use the term "personal privilege" any

longer. But all I'm suggesting to you is that one piece of evidence is

a newspaper article, and the other evidence is evidence which I am

attempting to give to you at this time in a very short statement, and I

think that I have the right to give that statement so that I may have

the evidence on the record so that you may consider it with all

propriety. I don't think you have enough evidence to make your decision

at this time.

I respectfully request, Mr. Speaker, to be allowed to give you that

evidence and I will sit down and wait for your ruling. That is all I

want.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. First I require the statement

that you are complaining about to be read to the House, either by you

or by the Clerk. That is the rule, and that's what I am trying to

follow as a rule.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, wouldn't it be...?

MR. SPEAKER: Then if you have further evidence on the

question, bearing on the

article as to whether indeed it was said by

the person concerned, or you think it was said by the person concerned,

then you raise that question and then I have to decide whether it is so

urgent that this House....

MR. McCLELLAND: Have it read, Mr. Speaker. I was just trying to simplify things for you.

MR. SPEAKER: It is not a question of simplifying; it is a question of doing it properly. Would the Hon. Member or the Clerk please read it?

DEPUTY CLERK: Vancouver Province , Tuesday, February 19, 1974, at page

10:

"In comment on McClelland's charge, Root said Monday night that the MLA is a 'cheap, two-bit politician.'

" 'I have nothing to do with the placement of any

advertising by ICBC,' Root said. 'I had no knowledge of this

advertising being placed until it appeared in the paper.' "

MR. SPEAKER: So that is the gravamen of the statement in the

paper to which you complain. I take it further that you think that is

applying to you?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, my name is McClelland, Mr. Speaker. I plead guilty to that. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate you identifying yourself.

[ Page 345 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: I assume that it isn't in relation to any of my relations. I imagine it is referring to me.

MR. GARDOM: Do you plead guilty?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

MR. GARDOM: Are you an MLA?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

Mr. Speaker, if I may continue briefly, just to give the other

evidence that I think will be important in relation to your decision, I

have mentioned that I consider the person to whom this

article refers

to be in a very special situation. I would like you to compare what

actions would result if this person had been the vice-president of a

Crown corporation of the federal government — for instance, the

Canadian National Railways — and if he were to make those same kinds of

remarks about a duly-elected Member of Parliament.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the very least that could be expected in that condition would be an immediate public apology.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is no such provision in our

rules on privileges for you to ask that this member, this person,

whoever he is, apologize. It is a matter outside this House. The only

question before this House is: should this House take any steps on your

question or your complaint of privilege? I have to decide whether a

prima facie case exists when insults are traded by somebody in the

public to a Member of this House, whether it is in any way jeopardizing

his performance in this House or threatens this House.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, what I'm saying is that this person is not an ordinary member of the public.

MR. SPEAKER: That is absolutely irrelevant to the question.

If you are asking the government to discipline a person who is employed

by them....

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm asking this House to give direction to

the Members of this government. You have that power, and so does this

House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You are confusing the question by saying apparently that you want the government to discipline someone who is employed by it.

MR. McCLELLAND: I asked the House, not the government.

MR. SPEAKER: This House can impose penalties for breach of

privilege by the public, but it does not include terminating the

employment of a public servant. That is not the duty of the House but

of the government.

MR. McCLELLAND: Could I ask, Mr. Speaker, if this House has

the right to ask one of its senior officers, a Minister of the Crown,

to take specific action in the case of a breach of privilege? I believe

the House has that right. That's all I'm asking for.

Mr. Speaker, to conclude, it is my understanding that Mr. Root, on

his own initiative, telephoned the Vancouver Province and volunteered

this information regarding the phrase in question. The phrase was not

therefore one which was thrown out in the heat of an interview, so

there can be no excuse, Mr. Speaker, for this kind of impropriety by a

senior public official.

I ask that you reconsider your decision of yesterday, Mr. Speaker,

so that my question of privilege can be supported by your office and so

that some action can be taken. That's as simple as I ask.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that you would

take time to consider the authorities as to whether or not this

involves a matter of personal privilege, as suggested by the Hon.

Member, or a matter involving the privileges of this Legislative

Assembly, as also suggested by the Hon. Member; to what extent this

House should consider statements made by citizens outside of this House

about Members, whether or not they be employees of a Crown agency,

civil service or ordinary citizens; and to what extent, if at all, we

should try to restrict the freedom of speech of any or all of those

groups.

This is an important matter and I would invite the Speaker to give

attention to that and perhaps to bring down some ruling and advice to

the House after having had a chance to consider.

MR. SPEAKER: I want to point out to the Hon. Members that I

complied precisely with the instructions given in dealing with the

complaint of this kind yesterday, so there's no question that I was not

concerned about the Hon. Member's complaint. The question I was

concerned with was how it was brought up and the fact that the Hon.

Member did not identify himself properly as he should in that.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: No, I did. I read the transcript very carefully

to see whether he had said this is touching upon his own conduct or

someone else's. You can't assume that the Speaker will read the papers

with a view to studying out the question. I have to deal with the

matter precisely within the four walls of this chamber. That is why the

rule requires that you produce the newspaper — so that we may

[ Page 346 ]

have the evidence before the House.

That does not presume prejudging the question of guilt or innocence

of any party who may not be in this chamber. That aspect has to be

dealt with normally, if a matter of privilege is found to be in

question and to be urgent, by a committee appointed to investigate the

veracity of the whole question and the newspaper article. There are

many articles that are inaccurate; it would be unjust for you to assume

from reading a newspaper that somebody has said thus or so. That is for

a committee to investigate, providing the matter is so serious that it

affects the privilege not just of one Member but actually threatens

this House.

I would like again, now that the matter is properly presented, to

give it further study. I'm not in any sense saying that you're

disadvantaged by the delay because I asked for that time myself. How

could I blame you for the delay I took yesterday in considering the

matter? Again, I would like to consider most seriously before any

instant decisions on the matter.

Would we now proceed to the normal affairs of the House?

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I know that the

Home and School Federation came here to hear to talk and listen about

education, and I'm not quite sure about the last few moments.... It was

an experience for everyone, I'm sure, who sat here. Whether it was an

educational experience is something only the public will decide.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, education is under much public

and professional scrutiny today, not only here in British Columbia but

right across Canada, the United States and other European countries and

world nations. There appear to be two basic reasons for this public

scrutiny today.

There is a general concern as to whether public education systems

are really equipping our young people today with the skills, both

functional and social, which they need to live in a rapidly-changing

society. This is a concern I found prevalent right across Canada and

into Europe. This is a very valid concern for, after all, the whole

process of education is a new one. It's a new one for each child in

each generation and in each society amid changing environments, goals

and priorities.

There is also a general concern expressed over increasing costs in

the provision of education services as there are, of course, for other

public services. Over the last 10 or 12 years, education in Canada,

Britain and the United States generally has expanded rapidly and

enjoyed an ever-greater share of resources. Many believe the time has

now come to evaluate this process and to decide whether education does

deserve a prior claim among social services for any additional

resources which should become available. It's quite obvious, with the

expenditures in education over the last 10 years, most nations have

considered that it should have priority.

However, today people are questioning this.

Education has expanded in response to the increase in the numbers

who want it. This expansion has been propped up by high hopes of what

education could achieve in furthering economic growth, in promoting

social mobility, in developing the individual and in enriching the

quality of society as a whole. But experience has now shown that to

expect education to fulfil these aims single-handedly is to place too

great a burden on it.

Education needs the support of better housing conditions, better

homes and family life, and an improved environment, particularly in the

cities. I think a very excellent example of this is the Head Start

programme in the United States.

Several years ago it was decided to provide equality of opportunity

for a number of young people living in the ghettos in New York. They

took a group of young black people and started in the early grades. The

whole idea was to give them complete equality of educational

opportunity within the system which prior to this they had not had. Of

course, the idea was that if we give them this same opportunity to

educational services which the other children had — in this case, the

white children — the end result should mean that these children will

have the same success in their lives when they leave school.

The interesting thing is that after these children were exposed to

the same educational services, it was found that the success and

failure rate had not varied to a great degree. The general opinion has

been that, although it is essential to keep up and provide new,

expanding educational services, we have to accept the fact that unless

the environment which the child comes from is conducive also to his

success he still achieves failure in many areas.

What is needed, therefore, is a combined effort to give young people

— above all the disadvantaged, who, by the way, come from all income

sectors — a more favourable background to help them profit from the

educational services at their disposal. The provincial budget brought

in by this government reflects the recognition of this combined effort.

This is why I'm pleased to see large sums for housing and increased

social and health services. These services must not be regarded as

being in competition with the education budget but as a reinforcement

to it.

As Minister of Education, I accept and I endorse

[ Page 347 ]

the necessity for this combined effort in serving our young people.

I also accept the fact as Minister that I have the responsibility to

assess the present educational services being provided in our school

system, to be cognizant of the demands for new services, and perhaps to

reject, I would hope, old ones which are not serving our students

today. Certainly I accept the fact that new and additional money must

be provided for education. But we must also look at redistribution of

our present financial resources. I consider this to be a necessary and

responsible approach which we must all take.

This was basically the message I sent out to the school boards of

the province. I was asking them to look at their budgets and perhaps

there might be a redistribution of some resources. At the same time,

however, I accepted the fact that school boards must place in their

budgets those services which indeed truly serve children.

This is a decision for the local school boards to make. This

assessment must be ongoing in our department, and it must always be

done, however, in co-operation with all those involved in education —

the public and the educators. This, of course, includes our school

boards, our home-school federation and all other interested public

groups.

This is one of the reasons we've had a number of parent-student

meetings in our schools. An assessment from these meetings as well as

from the thousands of letters received in the Department of

Education.... By the way, we worked it out: we receive an average of

2,500 letters a month on education in the department. Along with the

meetings and the results that would be taken from those — which we're

going through now — and along with the many letters which individual

citizens send in and which groups come in with, and briefs — all this

will serve for the basis of an educational policy paper now being

prepared. Hopefully, we will have it ready for release very shortly.

I would like to turn now to some of the very specific activities and

programmes in the Department of Education which have taken place during

the last year, and to discuss some which will be coming.

First, the Department of Education has been restructured to make its

operation more effective and to give the members of the department an

opportunity to work together in developing programmes and policies.

Under the Deputy Minister we have at present two Associate Deputies:

one responsible for educational programmes in public school and

post-secondary; the other responsible for educational operations,

mainly in the development of facility planning and administrative

relationships with school boards.

The idea here was that we believe very strongly that education must

flow right through from the pre-school years right through to

post-secondary. We want all members of our department working together

in this type of structure so that they're all part of the policies, no

matter what area or level we're dealing with.

These Deputies, of course, have a number of people as support staff.

We are hoping to add on a support staff — a superintendent of

communications and a superintendent of post-secondary — to assist them

in the work.

Now the new objective of our Department of Education is for the

officials to work very closely with interested public groups and

citizens. We want to see our departmental officials move around the

province far more than has been done in the past. Of course, this is

not going to be possible until there are enough personnel within the

department to free up some to travel. I'd like to make the point now

that the Department of Education personnel at the moment are less than

were in the actual complement when I took office.

Consultation and discussion with interested groups must take place

before any evaluation and recommendations are made to me by the

department.

Mr. Speaker, I do hope that the public will realize that we do have

an open Department of Education and that the personnel are ready to

move throughout the province to listen to people and to work with them.

I'm pleased to announce that since the introduction of the

legislation last year making kindergartens a mandatory service for all

school boards the enrolment has already increased in kindergartens by

41 per cent. It jumped from a figure of 22,895 to 32,230 five-year-olds

who now have this extremely valuable service.

To accommodate this extended service and the classroom space for

other grades in the system the government has approved approximately

$74 million worth of school construction, site purchase and equipment

in the year 1973. This has included 756 classrooms...

AN HON. MEMBER: Wow!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: ...76 libraries and 90 gymnasiums.

I would like to point out here that we're all aware of the years of

the Social Credit's, the former government's, freeze on capital

construction. We had members of the PTAs lobbying the hall, and they

did a fine job of showing that they were concerned about capital

programming.

I think the tragedy of the former government policy on holding back

on school construction is not only that those students at that time

were denied proper facilities such as libraries and gyms and even

classrooms. What we're faced with today, because of the holdback in the

former years — we're all aware of

[ Page 348 ]

the great escalation of land and building costs — is that we are now

having to pick up enormous sums of money, or the taxpayer is, because

of the neglect of the former government and their policies.

We have the example of the district in Nanaimo that asked the former

government for approval to build a gymnasium over six years ago, and

the price at that time was around $76,000. The former government said,

"No, we're putting a freeze on the building of gyms." Today this board

has come to me and asked for approval; the price is now up into the

$260,000 bracket. That was the government that said they knew how to

handle the finances of this province and the people's money.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

Ha, ha, ha!

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: In capital construction for community

colleges this government has approved $27 million this year — for

capital construction of core facilities. We announced that we are

prepared to move into a complete capital programme for core facilities

for community colleges in this province. The fact that we have already

approved $27 million shows that we're on the way to fulfilling this.

I would like to point out that this also, as you know by legislation

last year, embarks on the policy of 100 per cent financing by the

provincial government. There is no local tax sharing in this.

Now the community college in British Columbia has shown tremendous

growth, and there's been a tremendous interest by the citizens of all

ages in entering our community colleges. We actually had an average of

a 17 per cent enrolment growth this year in community colleges.

This government is committed to the fact that this is an area where

many people who formerly could not carry on with higher education now

have an opportunity to do so. It also provides the stepping ground to

move on to university. It is also providing much-needed technical and

vocational skills for our citizens.

There are areas of this province which are not serviced. I know that

the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) was concerned about the

hold-up on the community college for the Fraser Valley. I'm sure he's

aware that there's been an extensive study on it. The school boards

worked together with the department and we have now approved a

plebiscite.

I know that your question formerly was: "Why not just get on with

the job?" I'm sure that you've read the school Act, through you, Mr.

Speaker, to the Member, and that you realize that as long as the

community colleges are still partly funded and operated by the local

taxpayers, we must go through the plebiscite route.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I would say with our idea of spreading

services, building satellite colleges and using existing facilities, it

will come in, probably, at less maybe than that one, massive, large

vocational school the former government planned to build.

The universities — compared to the growth of community colleges —

enrolments last year went up 0.9 per cent. However, in all fairness to

the universities, the projections do show that the universities'

population or enrolments will be increasing next fall. It is

interesting to note that many young people who are going to the

community colleges are moving into the universities. So they're going

to be picking up a number of these young people in the third and fourth

years.

The university people are delighted to have this opportunity to

co-operate with the community colleges. I think that between an

expanded community college programme covering this whole province, and

integrating these in coordination with the universities, we will

provide post-secondary education in this province second to none in

Canada.

Last September the Department of Education set up the very first

general educational development testing programme or, as we call it,

the grade 12 GED. I mentioned this in the throne speech last year. I'd

now like to tell the House that we've had our first series of these

tests.

Last September 745 people between the ages of 19 and 60 sat down in

examination rooms in the nine colleges throughout the province. By the

way, this included correctional inmates from the B.C. penitentiary —

the Matsqui Correctional Institution. There were 745 people who sat

down and wrote these grade 12 equivalent exams. I'm pleased to tell the

House that 672 passed, including 127 correctional inmates.

This, of course, is a great opportunity for these young men and

women now to be able to show that they've passed this instead of having

to go back and struggle with night school and back to high school. They

can move on now to their post-secondary education. I'm hoping that the

colleges and universities will certainly make sure that this transition

is made as easy for them as possible.

Mr. Speaker, the end of an era also occurred in June, 1973, when the

last set of regular departmental exams was administered in the Province

of British Columbia. I am aware that some parents are concerned now

about standards and evaluation of their youngsters' high school

performance because the government exams have now gone. I wish to

assure them that evaluation will take place.

The change, in essence, simply means that now,

[ Page 349 ]

instead of a formal, infrequent system of examination, the schools

will have more informal, less stressful but more frequently applied

assessment of the students. This should mean that the quality and

standard of education can become daily concerns and not just annual

events.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a Dailly concern as well.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We in the department are aware that we must

assist the school boards, and we have hired one specific person at this

time to help with the evaluation procedures. He will be travelling

around to the schools of the province to assist those who wish help.

Mr. Speaker, there have been additional moneys provided this year to

assist financially students who are in need of help in moving on to

post-secondary education. Not only have additional moneys been

provided, but we also have revised the criteria for getting assistance

for continuing your education in post-secondary.

We have increased the allowance for married students. Eligibility

for single-term semester applicants has been brought about. We have

eliminated the course-load prerequisites. Additional programmes have

now been made eligible for assistance, and adjustments have been made

in parental-contribution tables to assist families. These were the

areas that we found were causing problems when young people and married

and older people wrote in and asked for financial assistance. So we

have broadened our base for giving assistance.

Now I'd like to turn to the public schools and discuss some policies

and finance. Last year around this time I announced the removal of the

textbook-rental fees for grade 7. I'm very pleased to announce today

that this year's budget provides for the elimination of all

textbook-rental fees — no matter what grade. This means that no longer

will the parents have to provide textbook-rental fees.

We are concerned that today in our educational systems there. are so

many added expenses placed upon the parent. We feel that this is one

that should not be imposed upon them. I'm sure that when the Members

look at this budget they will see that listed in the budget. It will

cost several million dollars, but the government feels that this is

giving a direct service and relief to the parents.

I would also like to formally mention — as has already been stated,

I believe — that all premiums for fire insurance will no longer be

borne in any part by local school boards. The Department of Education

will be responsible in total for the payment of these premiums. All

this, of course, will be of assistance to the school boards in their

finances.

In the area of transportation the government during the last year,

the Department of Education, has authorized substantial increases in

the share of the amount of money that school districts may spend on the

purchase of school buses. We've increased the transportation assistance

generally. The daily per-pupil allowance for transportation assistance

is now set at 25 cents plus 12 cents a mile. It was formerly a straight

10 cents per mile to a maximum of $1.20. These charges will certainly

benefit and ease the situation of the school board budgets in the area

of transportation.

In the area of special services: I know that many people today feel

this is the area that needs the greatest attention. The children who

have learning disability problems is an area which comes to my

attention daily from groups; and the Home and School Federation has

also expressed concern about services for these children.

In this area I would like to point out that since I've assumed

office we have increased approvals for special learning services by 25

per cent. Actually, if we take in all these supportive services for

children with special problems, we find it amounts to the sum of S20

million.

Frankly, I think, as I said in the beginning of my speech, we really

have to examine that sum of money to find out, if we are injecting this

amount of money into special services, why we still have children with

reading problems and dyslexia, and why children are becoming perhaps

disenchanted with some of the school system. So I'm simply trying to

say that the money is being put in, but we really must set up a real

inquiry, with the help of the citizens, into whether this money is

being spent in the right area. Is it truly going to service the child?

In Victoria, we are experimenting with an integrated project of the

three departments. I mentioned in the beginning of my speech how

important it is to combine our efforts. So the three Ministers —

Education, Health and Human Resources — have formed what we call a

Children's Committee, and we are trying to combine our services to

bring resources to parents and children and schools for the children

who do have special learning problems.

We have started a pilot project in Victoria and we are hopeful that

this project will pave the way for future integration of resources for

the children of this province.

In the area of Indian education there is, of course, so much to be

done. We have barely started. However, I would like to point out that

some progress has been made. We have increased the amount of money for

special approvals to help Indian students from $131,000 in 1971-72 to

$742,000 in 1974.

The purpose of these approvals: what are we doing? I suppose again

that people would say: "Well, what are you doing with this money?" The

purpose is to help the native Indian who has entered the school

[ Page 350 ]

system from a home or another system which left them ill-equipped to function effectively in the regular programme.

We also want to help infuse the native culture into the curriculum.

We have been appointing home-school coordinators. We find it is

essential to have a good coordinator between the home and the school.

We are trying to provide more native teacher assistance and teachers

who have their specialty in the native language.

As I said, this is only the beginning. But we are cognizant of the

fact that there is much to be done in that area, and we are attempting

to do so. We are hoping, of course, to meet, under the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), with an Indian advisory committee to

find out from them exactly what areas they want assistance in — where

they feel it's needed most.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'm on education.

The other point I'd like to bring up here is that the Department of

Education has involved itself last year, to the amount of $750,000, for

the first time in this province in educational research. Now part of

that money — and I'll have the breakdown when we do the estimates — but

generally speaking, part of that money has been used for some of our

task force studies on the colleges and universities.

We have also opened our door to requests from people who feel that

they can do a research project which will assist the development of

education in this province. I'd like to give you an example: we have

given $40,000 — I mean, the grant has been made from the research fund

of $40,000 — to the Vancouver Environmental Education Project. This

shows that the Department of Education feels very strongly that we must

encourage the development of environmental education in this province.

We have given money — and I don't want to go through the whole list

now — to the Children with Learning Disabilities Association and many

other strong associations who we feel are going to contribute to the

needs of children in this province. If any of the Members are

interested, I have the breakdown for you at any time on where the

research grants have gone this year.

There is one area in public schools that I'd like to discuss now and

that's the whole matter of the pupil-teacher ratio, which has certainly

been under much discussion — in the last few months particularly.

First of all, I'd just like to make a few points before I discuss

what our policy is and how we intend to enact it. There have been 1,400

teachers added to the school system in British Columbia during the last

year — 1,400. This has been done through the grants from the provincial

government and, of course, from the local school boards — 1,400

teachers.

I think if you compare that with the number of teachers added during

the previous years under the former government and before that, it

nowhere reaches that — 1,400.

Interjections,

HON. MRS. DAILLY: The provincial average of the number of students to the number of professional teachers in this province works out to 21.5.

Now I know — particularly the parents in the gallery whose children

may be sitting in a class right now with over 30 — they'll say: "What

does that average mean to me?" These are the questions that we're all

asking. At the moment, if you divide the number of professional

teachers by the number of students they have to teach, I want to

reiterate that it will work out to 21.5.

Now why you have areas of heavy classes is that certainly you have

to have administrators, and some of these people come into the

administrative end. But I do think that we have to realize that perhaps

there may be some people who are not teaching who perhaps could be back

in the classroom. This is something for the school boards and the

teachers and the department to have discussions on. But I do think we

should be aware of that particular percentage.

However, the fact that I've used that does not mean that I'm

intending to throw up that figure and say that's why the government's

not going to do anything about smaller classes. We recognize the fact

that there are situations in this province that must be helped. There

is no question about that.

Before I move on to tell you how we're doing it, I want to reiterate

what we were discussing this morning with the Home and School

Federation. I don't think any parent in this province should ever

think, even if the class sizes right across the province drop down to

below 20-to-1, that it would be a panacea to their child achieving full

success in their learning career. I think the teachers, above all,

recognize that you can drop your class sizes, but along with that must

go an adequate instructional style.

The challenge is out, of course, to the teachers of the province to

attend in-service training so that their instructional style will be

conducive to a good learning environment. Now this does not mean that

the teachers of the province are all in need of this. We have many

wonderful, fine, exciting situations going on in our classrooms. But

the teachers themselves feel that if class sizes are reduced, they also

must pick up the challenge of keeping up their in-service training.

The Premier announced in the budget speech.... By the way, before I

go on with that I want to point out that not only do the teachers have

their work to

[ Page 351 ]

do here, but government has a responsibility to encourage further

conferences and meetings and discussions on what goes on in the

teacher-training institutions of this province, because it's vital to

see that the right programmes are going on in those institutions so

that when the young student teachers come out, they are equipped to

handle as best as possible their classroom situations.

Well, the Premier announced in the budget speech that supplementary

funds would be available to improve the class-size situation in the

classrooms of British Columbia. In order to assess the size of the

problem, and to develop equitable disbursement techniques,

questionnaires are being prepared to be sent out to all school

districts asking for detailed information on existing and anticipated

pupil enrolment and staffing levels by schools for September of this

year, to enable my department to assess where financial assistance will

be needed in order to lower the pupil-teacher ratio in the province.

This survey material will be mailed to school districts hopefully next

week.

Also, the school districts' final budgets are now coming in, and

where it is evident that provision has been made for the reduction of

pupil-teacher ratios, supplementary grants will be made if this

provision raises the level of local taxation beyond a reasonable level

in the district.

Where provision has not been made by the board and unreasonable

class-size situations exist, the board will be offered supplementary

grants.

In other words, in disbursing these supplementary grants we in no

way want to penalize the boards of this province who have very

courageously said: "We are going to lower these classes." And they have

done so, and put the necessary extra load on the taxpayer. We want to

take that into consideration when we issue these supplementary grants.

Because this programme of pupil-teacher ratio reduction is intended

to be an ongoing one, districts will also be asked for details of their

teacher-recruitment plans for September, 1975, so that the government

can make financial provision for further orderly reduction in

pupil-teacher ratio in that year and gather the necessary data that's

needed on the availability of qualified teachers. It is a complex

matter, and this is why we find that the route of the supplementary

grant is the best way to cope with the situation.

The BCSTA and the BCTF have each been asked to send in a nominee to

work with department officials on these surveys. It's the government'

intention to bring the provincial average pupil ratio to the

professional teacher level down by 1.5 per year for the next three

years. In other words, we are aiming for a drop of 1.5 students to the

ratio of the professional teacher, on an average, and we intend to

carry out this commitment over the next three years

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Will that reflect in class

sizes?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: It should. Again, of course, it's up to the

structure that the school board sets up and the use they make of their

professional educators. These are the problems that we're trying to

work out right now — that we will be working out with the trustees and

the teachers.

I was very pleased yesterday to hear the Member for Atlin (Mr.

Calder) — and I'd really like to close on this — mention the fact that

we have met for two days with the Nishga Tribe to discuss the setting

up of a new provincial school district in the Nass River Valley. We're

very excited about this concept and I know they are also. Really, as

their chief councilor said, this will mark a historic date for the

Nishga people. This will be an opportunity for them to have an input,

as school trustees, in the curriculum and the programme for their own

native students.

You know, I just wanted to close with this: I found it, frankly,

quite touching, when we were meeting with the Nishga Tribe, to hear

them express their concerns about education and their willingness to

take on the challenge of running their own district. I just wanted to

close with something which one of the members of the Nishga Tribe said

when he was asked by one of our people: "Well, what do you really want

an educational system to do?"

He answered: "We want our children to know who they are, where they

came from, their own language and to respect their own culture. And we

want them to be able to take

part in the world around them."

I think if we all remember that, no matter whether it's for the

Nishga Tribe or for all the children in this province, perhaps we'll

all be on the right road to education.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): It's certainly a

pleasure for me to again represent the great riding of South Peace

River in this budget debate. There were, Mr. Speaker, a number of very,

very important items I wished to discuss in the budget debate with

regard to my constituency: subjects arising from agriculture, matters

of the civil service, highways, recreation, et cetera.

However, a matter of incompetency and the misuse of public funds has

arisen and I must take my time this afternoon in the budget debate to

discuss this very important matter.

I'm certainly very pleased to see, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier and

Minister of Finance is back from Washington. I certainly hope that he

explained to the people in Washington something about the energy

policies of the Province of British Columbia. However, I think that he

might have been better advised to try and explain to some of the

taxpayers of the Province of British Columbia some of the

[ Page 352 ]

unanswered questions that are in their minds. Certainly, while chaos

reigns in the Province of British Columbia, I think that the Minister

of Finance would be better advised to try and enlighten the taxpayers

and explain some of the policies.

For instance, what is this government's policy with regard to the

development of our forests? We have a backbencher who goes off in

Penticton and explains one policy. Immediately after, the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) gave a major

speech in the budget debate. Who is to know who is right?

The young Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) says that he withdraws

certain amounts of his policies but not all of them, so who is to know

who is right?

I would suggest that the Minister of Finance and Premier would be

well advised to tell the people of British Columbia what his policies

are. While civic governments throughout the province struggle with

budgets, he would be well advised to tell them exactly what his policy

is going to be, and the same with school budgets.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the budget speech itself: again

like the throne speech, the budget speech is really more notable for

what it does not tell us than what it actually tells us. Because last

year in this Legislature, against critical and stern opposition from

the opposition parties, the Minister of Finance took unto himself great

powers to invest the taxpayers' dollars in the stockmarket — indeed, to

quote myself, in any venture that he sees fit to do so.

We opposed this, Mr. Speaker, because we knew of the problems this

power in the hands of one Minister, without coming back to the

Legislature, could bring on the people of British Columbia. We opposed

it and we fought a losing battle because the government has a crushing

majority which they use in times like this.

I would like to quote the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) in

Hansard , April 12, 1973, where he is talking about the legislation and

he says that he will be cautious; he appreciates the warnings that we

have given him, and he will be cautious.

No, the Minister of Finance says he has been cautious; he takes our

warnings but says he has been cautious. But he still has the

legislation passed with his crushing majority. Now we're faced in this

province already, Mr. Speaker, with the questioning of some of these

deals which our Premier and Minister of Finance has made outside the

walls of this Legislature — deals that have been made without bills

being brought into this Legislature — under-the-table deals made by the

Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order.

MR. SPEAKER: I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Member, the expression "under-the-table deals" is certainly not parliamentary.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll withdraw the phrase "under-the-table deals", Mr. Speaker...

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...but I would suggest that they're deals

where all of the dealings have not been on the surface. All of the

deals have not been on the surface and bear very close, very close

scrutiny indeed. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, in some of the deals

that our Minister of Finance has made that they're not necessarily in

the best interest of the Province of British Columbia, and that there

could be some problems and some cases of impropriety arising from them.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to order-in-council 178, dated January 17, 1974:

"Pursuant to the Department of Housing Act , the

Lieutenant-Governor by and with the advice and consent of the Executive

Council orders that for the purposes of supervising, acquiring,

developing, maintaining, improving and disposing of housing, consent is

given to the Minister of Housing to approve Woodbridge Development

Corporation, a company incorporated under the Companies Act , and to

authorize it to exercise, in addition to the powers conferred upon it

by and under the Companies Act , the power to purchase for a total sum

not to exceed $5,800,000 shares in a corporation or corporations

dealing with supervising, acquiring, developing, maintaining, improving

and disposing of housing."

Mr. Speaker, we now learn that prior to this order-in-council being

passed, there could have been leaks of the proposed order-in-council to

allow certain persons with privileged information to make windfall

profits at the expense of the taxpayers of British Columbia.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, on a

point of order. I think the Hon. Member has suggested that there may

have been leaks of information which enabled somebody to make a profit

out of a particular transaction. Now, he says there may have been, but

I think if he has a charge to make, he should make it in the proper

way. If he has, not got a charge to make, he should not leave that kind

of an innuendo and false and scurrilous inference.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, what I propose to ask the House

this afternoon is: was there indeed a leak of information? Was there

incompetence in the hands of the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr.

Nicolson)? Was the Minister of Finance indeed incompetent? Was there

dishonesty in this province? That's what I want to know.

[ Page 353 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member cannot by

innuendo achieve his purpose if it is to in any way slur a Member of

the House. If you have any charges to make, then you must make them, in

a substantive way, by a motion. If you have not, then you should not be

doing it by indirect means. If there is indeed any question in regard

to the comment of officers of the Crown, then the proper place to make

them is in the usual way in the administration of law.

The rule requires that any substantive matter be raised by motion,

and therefore it must be done in such a fashion, and not by innuendo.

I'd ask the Hon. Member to discontinue.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we are dealing with a very, very, very serious matter here this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: I agree, and therefore you must deal with it properly and not in the way you're doing it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. Well, I would like to know, Mr. Speaker,

as a representative of the taxpayers of this great province if indeed

this did happen. I intend, this afternoon, to lay before this House

certain facts that would lead me to believe that indeed it did happen.

If you would jut allow me to continue on with my speech, I want to

outline the facts; I want to give the history behind it. And I think as

a Member of the Legislature that I'm well within my rights. Thank you,

Mr. Speaker, I'll carry on.

MR. SPEAKER: I may point out to the Hon. Member, that he's

not within his rights to slur the character or the reputation of any

other Member of the House. If you intend to do so, do it by motion and

the proper notice.

MR. PHILLIPS: I have no intention.... Why, far be it from me,

Mr. Speaker, to slur any Member of this House or any Member of this

great assembly. I want to keep the honour of this assembly on a very

high plane, and I hope that every Member of this House has that same

intention. I certainly do, and I would not want any Member, Premier or

Attorney-General or anybody else to disrupt or to cast any doubt on the

reputations of any Member in this Legislative Assembly.

However, Mr. Speaker, the incompetent actions of a Member is a

different matter. We can all make mistakes. What I want to find out is

if indeed mistakes were made. That's all I want to find out: if indeed

in this instance mistakes were made by Ministers.

Now, this order-in-council was made on January 17, 1974. What happened prior

to this date, prior to the actual order-in-council giving the Minister of Housing

the right to purchase Dunhill Corporation? I think to fully understand all the

circumstances surrounding this that we should go back into history a bit and

review the history of this company. In doing that, the Members of the Legislature

will have a better idea as to what happened prior to the date of this order-in-council.

The company was formed as a development company in 1969 under the

name of United Provincial Investments. Shares went on the market at $6

a share, and the purpose of United Provincial Investments was to build

condominiums and apartment buildings in downtown Vancouver. Shares

shortly dropped to one-half of the original price. They are down to

approximately $3 a share.

In September of 1973, by a backward acquisition, United Provincial

Investments became known as Dunhill Developments. Instead of having the

right to go out and build just apartment buildings in downtown

Vancouver, they were taking on investments and projects, indeed, in

many areas in the inland areas of our great province.

During the life of this company, and prior to September 1973, when I

understood the government first started dealing, the history of this

company has not been what I would necessarily call a history of good

corporate management in the Province of British Columbia. I refer to

the Kamloops area where the Oakhill subdivision was flooded. This

subdivision was built against advice; after the Thompson River flood

$10 million of flood disaster was poured into this development to

rehabilitate the people living in that area.

Then there is the case of Linmore Village development on the north

end of the Second Narrows Bridge in North Vancouver, where from

information I have gathered people were actually misled as to what they

were buying when they bought property for development in that area.

They were given to understand this was going to be a low-rise townhouse

development, and indeed it turned out to be a high-rise with very

little open area.

All of this was either known, or indeed should have been known, by

the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) and, indeed, by the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and, indeed, by his two

financial advisers before the company entered into negotiations to

purchase this company — hardly, Mr. Speaker, in my estimation, the type

of corporate citizen with lily-white hands that this government should

consider purchasing.

We must remember that those persons in British Columbia who

purchased shares in this corporation paid $6 a share. In June, 1973,

the shares were worth $1.75. This is approximately three months before

the government moved to acquire this company. There

[ Page 354 ]

were approximately 1.35 million shares on the market so the company had a value of approximately $2.36 million in total.

The stocks varied from then until the order-in-council was passed

from a low of $1.65 — and get this, Mr. Speaker — to a maximum high of

$2.40. But the day before the takeover was announced, which was January

9, the shares traded on the open market at $2.25 apiece. And all of a

sudden on January 10 the shares were trading at $4.28 apiece, and this

is what the holders of these shares sold to the provincial government —

an increase in one day of the value of that company by over $3 million.

I have one question I would like to know; I asked it during the

throne speech, and I'm asking it again here, Mr. Speaker. Why did the

government pay $5.8 million for a $3 million company?

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Why don't you read

Mother Goose?

MR. PHILLIPS: Why did the government give away $2.8 million

of the taxpayers' money? Mr. Speaker, 76 per cent of these shares in

Dunhill at this date were controlled by a small management group within

the company. Only 24 per cent of the shares were held at large.

Now, if you paid originally $6 per share for your shares of Dunhill

and the government paid you $4.28 a share, you would have lost money.

However, Mr. Speaker, if you had inside information that the government

indeed was going to purchase Dunhill Corporation, and indeed that the

government was going to pay in the vicinity of $4.28 a share, I would

suggest that you would hold onto your shares. However, if you didn't

have any shares I would suggest that you rush out and buy some, because

it looks like a pretty good deal.

No, Mr. Speaker, there were many shares traded in Dunhill from

September 1, 1973, until January 9 — indeed until January 16, 1973.

Indeed there were many shares bought, some of them for as low as $1.09

a share.

Now the very, very serious question that I am asking in this House

this afternoon is: is the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) guilty

of incompetence or impropriety? Was there indeed a leak? I want to know

and I think the taxpayers of the Province of British Columbia indeed

are entitled to know.

Mr. Speaker, anybody can make a mistake, and anybody can be guilty

of incompetence. If that is the case, that can be forgiven. Was the

Minister of Finance, indeed, given bad advice by his two advisers in

his department — those highly paid advisers that he has? Or indeed was

it the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) who advised the Minister

incorrectly, if this is the case?

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Bring it to me and there will be a full

investigation by the RCMP fraud squad, but unless you are prepared to

do that, don't make these innuendos.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'm waiting for any evidence of any

substance whatsoever and it will be fairly investigated, without fear

or favour. Produce something or don't smear.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I will be prepared, if necessary,

to file documents with this House, but I would suggest to you that

19,800 were sold late last year between September and the time of the

announced takeover by the provincial government, and some of these

shares were purchased for as low as $1.65 a share.

AN HON. MEMBER: Windfall profits.

MR. PHILLIPS: And I say again, my question is: did these

people have access to information? If the people who held these shares

had access to this information I'm sure they would not have sold.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I want to point out again that if

you are confining your statement to the number of persons involved in a

company prior to takeover, that is an entirely different matter than

leaving the innuendo, or the allegation, of improper conduct by a

Member of this House.

I refer you to the Journals of our House, page 4 of the October 20,

1921, Journals , in which Speaker Manson's decision on a question of

this kind was that it is accepted without question that imputations of

wrongdoing on the part of Ministers of the Crown or private Members, or

improper conduct or wrong motives cannot be made in debate. That is

just precisely what you are tending to do by leaving innuendoes in your

questions, and that is not permitted in the House.

If you have a charge to make, make it in the proper quarter, but certainly not what you are doing.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking information and I am

trying to place before this House what has happened — facts. At the

same time I am asking this House to determine — indeed, as I want to

know — what happened to the taxpayers' dollar bills. That's all I'm

trying to find out. I'm not

[ Page 355 ]

trying to leave any innuendo — none whatsoever.

I ask you to bear with me for a moment, Mr. Speaker, and realize

another fact. Who bought the shares — these 19,800 that were purchased

— and who sold them? Now, I'm not going to go into all of the stock

transfers, but I'm prepared to table them.

For instance, a Mr. Chilcott, who is the president of the original

underwriters of this company, C.M. Oliver and Company, sold his shares

at $1.75 apiece. So I would suggest that he certainly didn't have any

information.

Who were the purchasers. Mr. Speaker? How many shares were

purchased? What is the movement? In June there were 500 shares

transferred; in July, 2,100 shares; in August, 1,800 shares; in

September, 4,200 shares; in October, 5,900 shares; and in November,

6,800 shares. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, this is a coincidence?

Mr. Speaker, I don't think so. But I have to ask the question: was there corruption in high places?

MR. SPEAKER: My point is that you shouldn't ask that question unless you are prepared to answer it yourself.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I can't answer it — I don't know all the facts! I want the facts!

MR. SPEAKER: Then you shouldn't be making it as a statement.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, I'm asking a question. I'm merely pointing out to the House some facts.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Are you prepared to stake your seat on that question?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm asking a question here, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you prepared to call an election on the issue?

MR. PHILLIPS: Are you prepared to stake your seat on it? Are you prepared to call an election, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you saying things you don't believe?

MR. SPEAKER: The problem here, Hon. Members, is that the

Member is not saying what he believes or what he doesn't believe, but

he is by imputation and implication doing something he shouldn't be

doing in debate.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): He's stating a fact.

MR. SPEAKER: He's not stating facts; that's the problem.

MR. McCLELLAND: He is stating facts.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Corruption in high places — is that a fact? Do you say that's a fact?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want to stake your seat on the whole question?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you making the charge that there is this corruption in high places? Yes or no.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am asking the House along with me, Mr. Speaker, to determine just that question.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Speaker, let's take a look....

MR. SPEAKER: If we could just get the Hon. Member to put a motion on the order paper, the government can then decide what to do with it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is the rule of this House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I intend to give the information I

have to this House. That is the purpose of a legislator, as far as I am

concerned and...

MR. SPEAKER: Nobody disputes your right to give facts. The question is....

MR. PHILLIPS: ...I wish that you and the Premier and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) would quit interrupting me!

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that you are not dealing with facts; you are dealing with innuendoes.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not giving innuendoes! If somebody's

conscience over there is bothering them and they think I'm giving them

an innuendo that's their business. I'm laying before this House

questions and I'm asking questions. I'm laying some facts before the

House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the principle shareholder of Dunhill is a man by

the name of Carl Gottenfried Paulus. This gentleman received about $3

million of the $5.8 million that the government paid for this company.

He received this personally...

[ Page 356 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Windfall profit.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...from the sale of his shares.

AN HON. MEMBER: Taxpayers' money.

MR. PHILLIPS: Dunhill executive vice-president Allan Bain

received $256,800; finance and corporate development vice-president

David Howard received $217,124; and marketing vice-president Jerry

Dahlberg received $54,206. Howard and Dahlberg had further colleagues

with substantial holdings.

The other thing about this deal, Mr. Speaker, is that the four

principal officers also negotiated for themselves a two-year management

contract to stay with Dunhill under the government ownership — Paulus,

Bain, Howard and Dahlbert will split between them salaries amounting to

$325,500 over two years. That's an average of just over $40,000 a year

each. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that they're not a very

effective management team because they've missed their first bet

already, in trying to purchase a condominium complex in Burnaby.

So we've really got a good management team here. They made a killing

in selling their shares to the government at an excessively high price,

and now they've negotiated themselves another third of a million

dollars to run the corporation for two years.

Who bought the shares? Mr. Speaker, you wanted to know — I'll tell

you. On December 7, 1973, 300 shares at $1.65 were bought by Wolvertons

through a C.M. Oliver, salesman, Burns Bros. Co. Ltd. We don't know who

the actual transferee was — there were 300 shares on certificate No.

C1300435; another 200 sold at $1.95 on share certificate No. CB00434.

On December 11, 1973, 1,100 shares changed hands — C.M. Oliver &

Co. Ltd., Jerry Dahlberg, 614 Hawstead, West Vancouver. He is

vice-president of marketing for Dunhill. He purchased 1,100 shares on

December 11. I think you'll understand with me, Mr. Speaker, why I ask

these questions. On December 17, another 4,000 shares were purchased —

same as above, Jerry Dahlberg. On December 17 another 4,000 shares were

purchased by Jerry Dahlberg, who is the vice-president of marketing for

Dunhill.

Another 4,000 shares were purchased — and get the date — on January 17.

AN HON. MEMBER: December.

MR. PHILLIPS: On December 17, I'm sorry.

On January 10, 1974,500 shares were purchased by Stella Woodbridge,

who is the stenographer for Ladner Downs, which I understand is the

legal firm for Dunhill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did the name come from?

MR. PHILLIPS: Is this where the name Woodbridge Investment Corporation comes from?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: On November 16, 1973, a fellow by the name of James Wolstencroft purchased 2,000 shares.

On November 9 he purchased 500 shares. On November 8 he purchased 300 shares. On November 16 another 200 shares.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that many of the purchasers of these

shares were people who were involved directly, or very closely

indirectly, with Dunhill Corporation. Again, Mr. Speaker, I must remind

you that these shares were purchased anywhere in the vicinity of $ 1.75 to $2.40.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the question is, did somebody have inside

information? I would suggest to you that trading should have been

suspended on Dunhill immediately — immediately that the government

entered into the negotiations to purchase this corporation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: Again, I have to ask, Mr. Speaker, are the Minister of Finance's advisers incompetent?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is the Minister of Housing incompetent?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Or is there dishonesty somewhere? And that's

the question that the taxpayers of British Columbia have got to find

out. This question must be answered.

No one would want to insinuate, Mr. Speaker, that there were

fraudulent dealings with the taxpayers' dollars. But what I want to

know is, where did this leak come from? Why did a select few persons

reap windfall profits when the government purchased this public

corporation? This is not the only case of incompetence or supposed

incompetence in the Department of Finance — if indeed it is. I ask you,

Mr. Speaker, were the contents of Bill 41, the new mining legislation,

indeed leaked out?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Of course it was.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Are you making that as a statement?

MR. PHILLIPS: Before the legislation or....

[ Page 357 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member be seated?

Is the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) making that as a

statement? Well, he's making a statement to this House. He said: "Of

course it was." Are you prepared to proceed on that statement?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, on the point you're raising I strongly suspect it was, because the details...

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, well then you're not saying that. It's an allegation.

MR. CHABOT: ...the details of the royalties were clearly set

out in the newspaper

article approximately three weeks before the

legislation was introduced in this House and on that basis, Mr.

Speaker, I have to conclude that the information on that mining bill

was leaked.

MR. SPEAKER: Then obviously the way the matter should be

handled by the Hon. Member would be by a simple motion to the House

setting up a select committee to deal with the matter in question,

inquire into it, and submit your evidence to the House — not by the

means you have selected.

MR. PHILLIPS: I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that indeed this

information was leaked out because a letter from Bache & Co.

(Canada) Ltd., an institutional report, was mailed out approximately

three weeks ago. There was information in that letter almost word for

word as the terms of the Mineral Royalties Act , Bill 31.

Again the question is, Mr. Speaker, did mining companies and

American corporations rip off the people of British Columbia because of

this leak? And who leaked the contents of this bill if indeed they were

leaked?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member again is pursuing the same

course of conduct that has been disapproved many times. I'll refer to

him again and I'll read to him what the rules of the House are in

determining a Speaker's decision October 20, 1921. It has been

followed and quoted many times. I'll read this to him:

"By a simple motion without

preamble for a select

committee to inquire into certain matters, as was done in the case of

the inquiry into the Kaien Island purchase, (See 1906, House Journals ,

page 29) or by the Hon. Member declaring from his seat that he is

credibly informed and believes that he is able to prove by satisfactory

evidence that certain facts are true, followed by a simple motion for

select committee, as was done in these cases and is commonly known as

the Inquiry in the Canadian House."

Therefore I point out to the Hon. Member that if he wishes to pursue

this line of conduct in this House, he should comply with the rules.

Otherwise he should desist from that type of innuendo.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, maybe I could explain it better by reading you a portion from this letter and let you be the judge.

MR. SPEAKER: I am not the judge. The House is always the

judge and it's done by proper procedure. If you have any evidence to

provide to this House that is real evidence, and you are able to

provide it and willing to comply with the rule I have just given you,

then surely proceed. But if you are not prepared to do it in that

fashion you should desist.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: So far he has been making allegations without in

any way saying that they're true. He says: is this true? I don't think

that is proper.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, we'll ask the question: is it? I'll read from the letter:

"We have recently conducted an in-depth two-week

fact-finding mission in British Columbia and can confidentially report

that the new legislation will be passed within the current legislative

session, probably before April 15, and that significant insights will

be afforded in the forthcoming throne speech." This letter is dated

January 21, 1974.

This is the letter from Bache and Co. I'm just reading excerpts from

this letter regarding a paragraph on mining legislation and mineral

resource policy and development. It says, "The forthcoming budget will

exhibit a major increase in socially-oriented expenditures,"

Not only did this group who came out here to conduct this survey get

facts and figures on proposed mining legislation but they got

information on other items which would be in the budget. Either that or

they're great soothsayers, Men of vision.

MR. SPEAKER: It's one or the other then, eh?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, it's one or the other.

MR. SPEAKER: Then make up your mind and put a motion if you wish to do so. Otherwise, let's get on with the debate.

Interjections.

[ Page 358 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We must comply with the rules and

I intend to see that we do. It's as simple as that. I read the rule

out. It was not my origin; that's the rule of the House. I read it out

to you; I don't take credit for it.

MR. PHILLIPS: What else does it say, Mr. Speaker? It says:

"The 2.5 per cent royalty on smelted and refined output will accelerate

the plans of Cominco, Valley Copper, Bethlehem, Noranda, Placer,

Newmount, paralleling the expected thrust of the Japanese effort." I'll

tell you, these people.... I don't know who these people were.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. PHILLIPS: And how close did they get to people in the Premier's office?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know; maybe they were card-carrying NDP

people, Mr. Speaker. I have no way of knowing. But I would say it is

more than coincidence. What I am trying to point out to the House, Mr.

Speaker, is that there seems to be more than one case where one might

suspect, in confidence, a leak of information.

And I refer also, Mr. Speaker, to the budget itself. I'm given to

understand — and correct me if I'm wrong — that the copy of the budget

went on the ferry over to North Vancouver on Sunday before the Monday

the budget was to be brought down.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Are you making a charge here?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that this, in my

estimation, would seem to be incompetent on the part of the Minister of

Finance to allow the budget to be transferred by carrier pigeon or what

have you and be printed on a public printing press in a newspaper

office before it was tabled in this Legislature. That's a far cry from

giving a copy to a Member of the opposition and members of the press

gallery with strict orders not to print any part or parcel of it.

Governments have fallen for less than this, governments have fallen.

I would like to remind the Speaker of the case of the Hon. Hugh Dalton

who just merely spoke to a press reporter on the way to the mother

House and the government had to resign. Are we loosening up? Are we not

paying the same attention to the finances and the taxpayers' money that

we used to?

First we have the Dunhill deal, then we have a possible leak on Bill

31, and then we have somebody sending the budget off by carrier pigeon

to be printed in North Vancouver a day before it's tabled in the House

with the Legislature. I realize the cabinet has taken unto itself such

fantastically sweeping powers that it barely needs to call the

Legislature to conduct the business of the Province of British

Columbia. However, that portion which is conducted here should at least

be done with propriety.

Is there incompetence, Mr. Speaker? What would happen if the

investments the Premier takes upon himself without the advice and

consent of the Legislature go sour? What happens to the taxpayers'

money in that case? What would happen'?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They're doing well.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, everything's well now. But I would suggest that the Attorney-General has never looked at the history books.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Very carefully. I remember well.

AN HON. MEMBER: The directors of Dunhill are doing pretty well too.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would suggest there are some shares from

Dunhill that went on the market at $6. Now, if the government had

invested in those, Mr. Speaker, what would have happened to the

taxpayers' dollars when they went to a value of $3? Loss of taxpayers'

dollars in the marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, the thing that really concerns me as a legislator about

this is that this is just a very small portion of the intention. The

Minister of Finance has $500 million plus $500 million in pension funds

to invest, and numerous billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to

invest.

If one of these great investments of our Minister of Finance fails I

can visualize a cutback in the very services to the people of this

province such as cutbacks in education, cutbacks in health and welfare,

and cutbacks in the budget of Human Resources.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: And if they go well they'll be expanded.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you consider Dunhill to be a good investment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Downhill, downhill.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier has a right to invest the pension

funds: the security and old age of the teachers, the security and old

age of the civil servants, the security and old age of employees of

city governments throughout the province. The Premier is going to

speculate with this money.

[ Page 359 ]

What happens if the stockmarket goes sour when they come to go on

pension? There's no money there. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker,

that the Premier might be in for a severe lawsuit. And we have in that

great United States of America just that very thing happening.

I'd like to refer you, Mr. Speaker, to where the Continental

Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago has a law suit

against it. Mr. Speaker, this is not a young Premier who has no

experience in the business place whatsoever, but this is a company who

has been investing trust funds for years and years and years.

And what happens? They invested some trust funds, some pension

plans, and the investments went sour. The Airline Pilots Association

has filed suit in the Federal District Court of Chicago against the

Continental Bank seeking reimbursement of $7 million in stock-trading

losses incurred in the late 1960s and early 1970s by the United Airline

pilots and other beneficiaries at the United Airlines company, charges

this bank with violating the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934 and regulations of the controller of currency and

other federal security laws in the management of the pension fund.

But the sad part of it is that here in British Columbia we will not

be able to sue the Minister of Finance because he, with his crushing

majority in this Legislature, passed legislation against severe

opposition to take unto himself these powers without recourse to the

Legislature and without recourse to those whose pensions he may

squander. He reigns supreme as an investor in this province. This is

what bothers me, Mr. Speaker, when I see what is happening: Dunhill; a

leak on Bill 31; a possible leak with the budget.

Now, this Continental Bank invested these funds in what anyone with

the limited experience of our Minister of Finance would think to be a

good investment. For instance, they were invested in the Penn Central

Company, Management Assistance Corporation and Trans World Airlines.

This is what concerns me, Mr. Speaker. A company with experience in the

marketplace investing pension funds and them going sour.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: What? The pilots have the right of recourse?

Here in British Columbia we have one gentleman with no experience in

the business world investing teachers' pension funds, civil servants'

pension funds, and they have no recourse whatsoever. They have no

recourse whatsoever.

What else is happening in British Columbia today? The Premier goes

out and probably unbeknown to him as Minister of Finance makes

statements which influence the marketplace. And I quote the Premier as

saying that Westcoast is paying a high price for that 1960 headline in

the Province , but goes on to say that he would buy the shares himself;

he thinks it's a good investment. Now since when has the Minister of

Finance of this province had the authority to go out and influence the

marketplace?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Bennett used to tell people to go buy parity bonds — B.C. bank bonds. He used to say it all the time.

MR. PHILLIPS: This, Mr. Speaker, is a case of incompetence.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Poor old man. How much did he lose on the B.C. Bank?

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-five million.

MR. PHILLIPS: But the Premier says on April 12: "Mr.

Chairman, I appreciate comments made by Members of the opposition, but

I assure you that the idea that there will be reckless investments or

investments made with gay abandon is a little bit much. There will be

an annual report."

Will there be an annual report as to what happened with the inside trading of Dunhill?

Mr. Speaker, I refer to you also to disposal of assets by this

government and by Crown corporations of this government without bids.

If you tell me that's a good way of doing business, I say, no. I

suggest to you that the awarding of contracts by this government

without tender and without asking for bids is not good business. I

would suggest that very little of the actions of this government have

been good, sound business practices.

Land purchases here there and everywhere. How will we ever know, how

will we ever know how many of our tax dollars are being squandered? How

will we ever know how much land is being purchased by the Land

Commission from friends of this government at exorbitantly high prices?

How will we ever know? How will we ever know that the people who are

getting these assets without bids are not friends of the government? In

a government where today it seems to me you have to be card-carrying

NDP before you get a promotion, the government would be capable of

anything.

I would also suggest that we require an inquiry into the finances

into the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. As a matter of

fact, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest we need a Royal Commission into the

operation of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. How many

more relatives are there? Who will ever know?

That's the problem with that type of socialist

[ Page 360 ]

government — no one ever knows. It's a bureaucracy unto itself. To

break down those walls of secrecy and find out exactly what is

happening to the people's business is a monumental task.

Mr. Speaker, what is the entire story behind the purchase of

Kootenay Forest Products? What is the entire story? Who will ever know?

Who will ever know? I'm sorry that I have to paint this very dismal

picture for the taxpayers of British Columbia about their finances here

this afternoon.

What is the story behind the purchase of Canadian Cellulose? The

average trading of shares in the year 1972 was approximately 30,680

shares per month. What happened in 1973? Again, I must ask was there

inside information? Was there indeed a leak, because all of a sudden

the shares of Canadian Cellulose jumped from an average of 30,680

shares trading in a month to, in the month of January, 1973, 294,976

shares traded on the market. An increase of over nine times the amount

that traded in the average month of 1972.

Shouldn't I question that, Mr. Speaker? You bet your bottom dollar I

should. And in the month of February, how many shares of Canadian

Cellulose traded on the market? — 1,014,483 shares.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's just a coincidence.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is this a coincidence? Was there inside

information? Was there indeed incompetence on the part of the Ministers

involved and on the part of the Minister of Finance?

In the month of March, Mr. Speaker, 674,461 shares traded. That was

before the final announcement was made. Oh, is indeed, is there

corruption in high places?

Two times the number of shares traded in the first quarter.... It's

a lot more than two times; I must have my figures wrong. I would

suggest it's 20 times the number of shares traded in the first quarter

of 1973 than traded in the average quarter in 1972 — 20 times. Who sold

the shares; who bought the shares; and why? What was the price the

shares sold at? How much money was made by whom? Who were these people

who made the money?

Did the cabinet have access to this information? Did the NDP caucus

have access to this information? Were people who bought these shares

friends of the caucus? These are the questions that every British

Columbian is asking. These are the questions that must be answered.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I reject

completely the innuendo implied by the question of the Member. I ask

him to withdraw the innuendo suggesting, by the question, that the

cabinet or NDP caucus members were involved in inside trading. It is a

clear innuendo by the question and I ask the Member to withdraw or make

charges with evidence.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member withdraw?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I made no innuendo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: I am merely asking questions based on the evidence of the number of shares traded which I have outlined here this afternoon.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He asked the specific question after naming

the number of shares traded: "Did the cabinet Ministers, did the NDP

caucus members have that information?"

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is a clear-cut innuendo in the thread of his

speech. Either he makes specific charges or withdraws the question. It

is a clear-cut example of innuendo and smear, and I want either charges

or withdrawal. One or the other.

MR. SPEAKER: I pointed it out several times, and I asked the

Hon. Member to withdraw that statement or absolutely make it clear

there is no innuendo against Members of this House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I think that's a matter of

interpretation, whether it's an innuendo or not.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: However, Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased

that the Minister of Finance is so concerned. And if he feels that I

implied some innuendo — if he feels that way — well, certainly, I'll

withdraw.

But, knowing full well that if he is so concerned, Mr. Speaker....

AN HON. MEMBER: Another piece of chicken little.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you rise on a point of order?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of what I feel; it is a question of rules of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The question really is not a conditional withdrawal. It must be unconditional, as the Hon. Member knows.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, as I have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, it is a case of

interpretation. If the Premier

[ Page 361 ]

feels that way, if the Minister of Finance feels that way, if he is that concerned, as I am indeed, I will withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly, if he feels there was an innuendo.

But I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, that indeed I am pleased to

see the Minister of Finance so concerned here this afternoon because

when I bring in my motion for a Royal Commission into this matter I am

sure he will move swiftly to appoint one so that this whole matter of

questions can be cleared up in the minds of the taxpayers of British

Columbia.

MR. CHABOT: Call an election!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Gutter, gutter, gutter!

MR. PHILLIPS: I ask you to withdraw that, Mr. Premier. Mr.

Speaker, I ask you to ask the Premier and Minister of Finance to

withdraw that statement.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Withdraw what?

MR. PHILLIPS: You called me filth.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I did not. I called your speech filth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's filthy speech. It's disorderly behaviour, and it's shocking.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, indeed if my speech is filth....

HON. MR. BARRETT: You can't prove a word of it. It's just smear, smear, smear.

MR. PHILLIPS: What indeed would you name that action, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Disgusting filth! You can't prove a thing. You smear and that's all. Smear, smear, smear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Take it outside the House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, go ahead!

MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't say it was dishonesty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now you are phony-speaking.

MR. PHILLIPS: I have outlined to the House, Mr. Speaker, the

number of shares that started moving in another acquisition — Columbia

Cellulose. I think I have pointed out several cases here this afternoon

that concern me, or things that I question. Things that I question that

are happening in the Department of Finance.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let us get on with the budget speech.

MR. PHILLIPS: The preferred value of these shares of Columbia

Cellulose went from $2.95 a share, at the start of the negotiations, to

$8.38 a share in three months.

I want to know who made the profit. Who made the profit? How did

they make the profit and why did they make the profit? Is it a filthy

matter? It sure doesn't smell very good to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: Something else I would like to know, Mr.

Speaker. We have a great deal of advisers to the government running

around the province. I'm not sure whether these advisers, like Mr. John

DeWolfe, are sworn to secrecy. I understand he's the man who put the

Columbia sale together.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBERS: Come on.

MR. PHILLIPS: We're dealing with some pretty high stakes here. We're talking about $5.8 million in Dunhill and we're talking about....

MR. CHABOT: I remember you very well, Mr. Attorney-General.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: I remember you and your smears, Mr. Attorney-General. I remember you and your....

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order!

One Member has the floor. Would the other Members please be silent?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. CHABOT: I remember very well, too. I've got

[ Page 362 ]

a good memory, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And you've got a bad record.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, this has all happened since this

government came to office. Are they buying shares in Block Brothers?

This Legislature will never know, not until it appears in the press,

because the Minister of Finance has that great, awesome power to take

the taxpayers' money and invest it in any portion of the stock market.

The thing that bothers me, Mr. Speaker: if there is a continuation

of the things that I have outlined here this afternoon, that I have

asked about, I think before there are any further purchases made by

this government that some of these questions had better be answered.

I would like to know if there were any undisclosed connections with

civil servants in the purchase of the Vancouver Coachline deal. You

see, this is the problem when the government goes and delves into the

marketplace. We warned the Premier of this. He's out there in a very

tough market, he's inexperienced, and he's treading on very thin ice;

he's over his head, and I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker,

incompetent in this particular job.

I'll tell you, there are too many questions left unanswered: When

did negotiations start with Dunhill? Who actually bought a lot of