1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5097 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Power Engineers and Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Act (Bill 17). Hon. Mr.

Heinrich.

Introduction and first reading –– 5097

Electrical Energy Inspection Amendment Act (Bill 18). Hon. Mr. Heinrich.

Introduction and first reading –– 5097

Gas Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 19). Hon. Mr. Heinrich.

Introduction and first reading –– 5097

Building Safety Standards Act (Bill 20). Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm.

Introduction and first reading –– 5097

Oral Questions

Intimidation of leaseholders. Mr. Lauk –– 5097

Job safety in government service. Hon. Mr. Wolfe replies –– 5098

Proposed tripling of BCRIC shares. Mr. Barber –– 5098

Noranda bid to take over MacMillan Bloedel. Mr. Barber –– 5099

Racial discrimination. Mr. Barnes –– 5099

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism estimates. (Hon. Mrs. Jordan)

On vote 188: computer and consulting charges –– 5101

Mr. Barber

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Howard

Ms. Brown

Mr. Lea

Mr. Barrett

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates. (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

On vote 10: minister's office –– 5115

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Mrs. Wallace

Ministerial Statement

Fire damage to finance documents.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5119

Mr. Hall –– 5120

Tabling Documents

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills second report.

Mr. Strachan –– 5120

Erratum –– 5120

THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the House is

fortunate indeed to have several citizens, under the leadership of

Steve Shalhorn, and 30 representatives of the British Columbia Students

Federation who are visiting all members of the House. I understand they

are now visiting the ministers responsible for both areas of education.

I would ask the House to welcome them, and to be thankful that they are

taking an interest in their own situation and on behalf of all citizens

of British Columbia by coming to the capital today.

MR. REE:

Mr. Speaker, today I am privileged to introduce to the House 50

students who are visiting us from St. Thomas Aquinas School in North

Vancouver, under the direction of their teacher, Mr. Campbell. I am

proud of this school; it is a school of high accomplishment, an

independent school in North Vancouver. I would ask the House to welcome

the group of students and their teacher today.

Mr. Speaker,

I would like to echo a bit of the welcome of the first member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) with respect to those students who are here

from Capilano College. It is always a pleasure to have them. I met with

a delegation this morning, and they are always welcome in my office.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is an officer of the Progressive

Conservative Party of British Columbia, Mr. Loyd Burdon. He is the

vice-president of the B.C. Progressive Conservatives. Would you welcome

him, please.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in the

House today, visiting from Los Angeles, is the coach of the girls'

volleyball team of Marlborough High School in Manhattan Beach,

California, Mrs. Ann Corlett, accompanied by her daughter and 18

members, and Mr. Don Couch, the coach of the Vancouver Island midget

girls' volleyball team. They are hosted by the Victoria Y, and the Far

West Volleyball Clubs and the Vancouver Island rep team.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce my high command, my wife, in the gallery.

Introduction of Bills

POWER ENGINEERS AND BOILER

AND PRESSURE VESSEL SAFETY ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr.

Heinrich, Bill 17, Power Engineers and Boiler and Pressure Vessel

Safety 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.

ELECTRICAL ENERGY

INSPECTION AMENDMENT ACT

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill intituled the Electrical Energy Inspection Amendment Act.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I beg to move that the bill be introduced and now read a first time.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I'm rising in debate on this question.

MR. SPEAKER: To the best of my knowledge this is not a debatable motion, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Is that Mr. Speaker's ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: A ruling is not required, hon. member, because this is the standing order and practice of the House.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on debate on first reading of the bill. That's not

precluded from standing orders. There's no standing order which

precludes debate on first reading of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER:

I'm recognizing the first member for Vancouver Centre who has suggested

that the first reading of the bill is a debatable motion. I refer the

hon. member to standing order 45, which is the standing order he has

placed in my hands, and it does list the following motions as

debatable. Listed are a series from A to K, and the motion for first

reading of a bill is not included.

MR. LAUK: On a

point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, it is well-known

parliamentary practice with respect to debates that every motion is

debatable unless specifically excluded from debate.

MR. SPEAKER:

Subsection 2 of standing order 45 states further: "All other motions" —

than those named in subsection 1 — "including adjournment motions,

shall be decided without debate or amendment."

Bill 18,

Electrical Energy Inspection Amendment 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.

GAS AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

a motion by Hon. Mr. Heinrich, Bill 19, Gas Amendment Act, 1981,

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.

BUILDING SAFETY STANDARDS ACT

a motion by Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm, Bill 20, Building Safety Standards

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

INTIMIDATION OF LEASEHOLDERS

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General. This morning I

gave the Attorney-General copies of letters sent to leasehold owners in

the city of Vancouver by the First Canadian Land Corp. Ltd., which

clearly attacks the right of leasehold owners and their traditional

right of freedom of association. The letter illegally imposes

additional costs to leasehold owners simply because they may belong to

the United Leasehold Owners Association. Has the Attorney-General

decided to investigate this matter with a view to the possible laying

of charges under the intimidation

section of the Criminal Code of

Canada?

[ Page 5098 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I wish to thank the first member for Vancouver Centre for giving me

advance notice of his question. I can't express a view as to whether or

not the charges that this company is attempting to make against certain

leaseholders are illegal or not, but it would appear from the letter

which has been sent to these leaseholders that there is an attempt to

discriminate between leaseholders, based upon whether they are or are

not active members of an association. The letter would therefore appear

to give rise to quite proper concern as to whether intimidating

practices are being undertaken.

As a consequence of the

member's action this morning in providing me with the information, I

sent it forward to officials of the ministry for immediate attention,

to see whether or not it contravenes the criminal law or any of the

laws of this province.

JOB SAFETY IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to respond to a question which I took on notice.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago I took on notice a question addressed

to me regarding the safety program for provincial government employees.

It was directed to me by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson),

and I might say that it is a kind of detailed information question,

which might be more appropriately given by way of notice, so that the

member can get the information and an adequate answer right at the time

the question is asked. So I offer that as a suggestion to the member.

Mr.

Speaker, may I first say that as the minister responsible for

government safety programs I'm concerned about the severity-rate

question regarding employee accidents. As you know, the Premier's

Safety Award for safety achievement was not given for the year just

immediately passed. This Premier's award is only awarded when a

ministry beats its own record. Unfortunately, none of the six

ministries involved in that category were able to do so this past year;

that is, they didn't improve on the record which they'd established in

the previous year. Awards were given, however, to other ministries in

other categories. I want to point out that by not giving the Premier's

award, my ministry's safety program

section has shown the sincerity of

the government when it comes to the safety of our employees.

Like

each of my cabinet colleagues, I'm concerned about the increase in

accident severity, but I would like to add that this year's figures

were heavily influenced by three very unfortunate deaths in the

ministries of Forests and Highways. Under the system, which is used in

a lot of other jurisdictions as well as this one, there is a severity

rate attached to the nature of accidents, and this influenced the

trends that took place this year as a result of these unfortunate

accidents.

My cabinet colleagues and I are also concerned about suggestions that government

ministries are asking for variances of or relaxation of Workers Compensation

Board regulations. These variance requests are few in number, but before they

are considered they undergo the scrutiny of the Workers' Compensation Board

and also consultation with union and management representatives. Nevertheless,

I propose to ask that any variance request by any ministry to the Workers Compensation

Board be submitted to me so that I may be kept up to date and informed of such

a request.

Job

safety is certainly not a partisan issue. Every member of this House

recognizes the need for ongoing programs to keep our employees safe and

healthy.

In 1980 the Public Service Commission carried out a

number of highly successful training activities, including industrial

first aid, survival first aid, cardio-pulmonary resuscitation programs

and defensive driver training. In 1981 the safety program

section of

the Public Service Commission has been assigned consultative

responsibilities for groups of ministries providing in-house

development and implementation assistance for further occupational

health and safety programs.

Safety is everyone's

responsibility. Although we have the regulations, they are really only

effective if they are applied on the job every working day. It is no

good to have stacks of safety manuals, if the intent of those manuals

is not carried out by each of us. Safety works best if it is put into

practice, not kept in a book.

PROPOSED TRIPLING OF BCRIC SHARES

MR. BARBER:

I have a question to the Premier about BCRIC, which was described

yesterday by the chairman of Mac-Blo as a "predator" and "corporate

marauder." As the Premier may be aware, BCRIC has proposed to triple

the number of shares issued, thus diluting the value of the shares

currently held. Have the Premier or his representative met with Mr.

Howe of BCRIC, or his representative, to discuss the proposal to issue

200 million new BCRIC shares?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARBER:

Has the Premier decided whether or not to request a meeting with Mr.

Howe in order to share with him the government's opinion as to the

worthwhileness of proceeding to triple the number of shares issued in

BCRIC?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, I've decided, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARBER:

Could you advise us of your decision, and whether or not it is

government policy to endorse the dilution of the value of the shares

currently held by the shareholders of BCRIC?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer is no.

MR. BARBER: The share value of BCRIC started at $11.75.

It was lowered for political purposes to $6. It's never recovered from

that. It's currently trading at $5.45. Is the Premier admitting that it

is his government's policy to do nothing whatsoever to protect the

investments of the thousands of British Columbians who were persuaded

by the Premier to invest in BCRIC, and who have seen nothing but

losses, no dividends and high interest payments?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The member might be informed that this is not a Crown corporation, but

because he's chosen to deal with a private sector corporation, I can

say that the value of the company is reflected in its balance sheet and

not in the willingness of someone to buy on a particular day, or those

who are being frightened into selling their shares by statements by

irresponsible people.

[ Page

5099 ]

MR. BARBER: It's shameful that Mr. Knudsen has just been

described by the Premier as an irresponsible person. I hope he will

apologize to Mr. Knudsen for doing that. Presumably it was, however,

similarly irresponsible to artificially lower the value of BCRIC shares

from $11.75 to $6, from which political situation the value of the

shares has never recovered.

Has the government decided to

use its own shareholding in BCRIC to discuss and to prevent the

proposal to triple the number of shares issued in BCRIC, which will

have the effect of further diluting the value of the individual

shareholdings of those British Columbians who currently own BCRIC

shares?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer is no. Those shares are committed to the Terry Fox Medical Research Foundation.

MR. BARBER:

It's clear that the Premier is admitting that he's doing nothing

whatsoever to prevent the further decline in the value of BCRIC shares.

NORANDA BID TO TAKE

OVER MACMILLAN BLOEDEL

MR. BARBER: I have a question

for the Minister of Forests. Can the minister indicate whether or not

he or his government have reached an understanding or an agreement with

Noranda regarding Noranda's proposed takeover of MacMillan Bloedel?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I ask the member if he would mind repeating the question.

MR. BARBER:

I'd be glad to. Has the minister or his government reached an agreement

or an understanding with Noranda regarding Noranda's proposed takeover

of MacMillan Bloedel?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: With regard

to Noranda's attempt to buy 49 percent of MacMillan Bloedel, the

government's position has been very clearly articulated.

MR. BARBER:

After two tries I don't think he heard the question yet. What I've

asked is whether or not you have reached an agreement or an

understanding with Noranda — with Mr. Zimmerman or with any of its

other representatives. I read your press releases too. Have you an

agreement with them at this date concerning their proposed takeover of

MacBlo?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't know

what the member means by an agreement. We have no agreement with

Noranda. We have advised Noranda of the terms by which they will comply

with government guidelines if they are successful in acquiring 49

percent of MacMillan Bloedel. Those guidelines are broadly known and

understood in British Columbia. The details of things that we have

asked Noranda to do in order to comply with those guidelines are common

knowledge.

MR. BARBER: Also to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis): has the

government advised or directed Noranda that in order to have and obtain approval

for its takeover of Mac-Blo, it will be instructed to sell its current ownership

of British Columbia Forest Products shares to BCRIC?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. As I understand it, the question is directed to the Minister of Forests.

MR. BARBER: Sorry, my mistake.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, we have advised Noranda Mines that in order to comply with

the guidelines they are required to dispose of their 28 percent

interest in B.C. Forest Products.

MR. BARBER: I

wonder if the minister would, at the appropriate time, be willing to

table a copy of the government's instructions to Noranda that they are

required to sell their B.C. Forest Products shares and as well to

advise us to whom Noranda has been told to sell those shares. Was it to

BCRIC or to some other corporation?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I'd be very happy to table that instruction. It's in the

form of a letter to Noranda Mines. The government has not in any way

attempted to tell Noranda Mines to whom they must sell their shares. We

would prefer that they make every effort to have people in British

Columbia buy those shares so that the control of that part of the

company could be transferred to British Columbia. I'll be very happy to

table the letter in the House.

MR. BARBER: Has the minister instructed Noranda that its shares may not be sold to a prospective foreign purchaser?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, no such instruction was given to Noranda Mines.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

MR. BARNES:

My question is to the Minister of Labour. Two days ago I asked the

minister a question that he took as notice. However, in the corridors

he indicated that he would like me to be briefed and sent his deputy

minister to my office. I'm wondering if the minister by now has been

briefed himself with respect to the question that I asked him. Under

the human rights legislation, the director, Nola Landucci, has full

power to investigate all complaints and is given complete access to

records. Why has the minister interfered in the human rights director's

investigation concerning Chandrama Mishra and Vancouver Community

College?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, that

question was asked, I think, two days ago. I took that question as

notice. I can advise the member that I have some information, but I do

not have it all yet. I'm trying to find out as much as I can. I

appreciate the sensitivity of the inquiry and I undertake to provide

him and the House with a full explanation.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's concern about the case, but

this is of a question about the case. This is a question about the

human rights director's authority to investigate without being

interfered with politically by that ministry. That's what I'm asking.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has taken the question as notice, as I understand it.

[ Page 5100 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, the information which was passed to me was simply that

some suggestion was made to the director to attempt one further time to

secure the information from the college which had been requested. I

understand that the assistant deputy minister, Steve Stackhouse, had

recommended to the director to do this. I gather that the member feels

that this is some form of interference. First, I can tell the member

that it came to my attention only after the question had been raised in

the House. I wonder if there is anything particularly wrong with

seeking further and better information to be able to assess the

particular issue. I fail, frankly, to understand why that should be a

problem. If the member chooses to interpret that request by an official

in the ministry as interference with the director of human rights, I

suppose that's fair comment. However, I thought it best after talking

with him, since that information had been requested, that that

opportunity should be provided.

MR. HOWARD: On a

point of order, what I want to raise relates to something that took

place during the question period, which I thought should have been

noticed by the Chair. The Provincial Secretary took five minutes — and

I counted them — to answer a question which he had earlier taken on

notice. I would draw the Chair's attention to a ruling that Your Honour

made some time ago, which says that if the answer to a question is of

such a length that it's going to intrude upon the time of question

period, then it should be filed in written form as if it were a written

question. I draw that to the Chair's attention in the hopes that

perhaps that event will not take place again.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same point of order?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, the same point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: May I address this point of order first while it's still fresh in my mind?

The

procedure in the House regarding questions taken on notice is simply

that questions taken on notice are answered during question period

time. It has been a suggestion of the Chair on many occasions that if

the question is of such length that it obviously subtracts from the

time in question period, then it is better that it be tabled following

question period.

This cannot possibly be a rule. If it were

a rule then all questions taken as notice would become answerable only

outside of question period time. I'm assuming that if the question is

asked in question period, an answer is expected during question period.

However, I suggest again — and this is for hon. members who are

answering questions — that if the Chair inadvertently, in scrutinizing

the question in the first instance, was not aware that the question

would elicit the kind of answer which would require a lot of time, then

I would ask the hon. ministers to please file those answers after

question period because not only would it allow time for more

questions, but it would save embarrassment to the Chair.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

On that same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I trust that your suggestion

that they be filed would not interfere with the minister standing after

question period and delivering them orally.

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly not; I think the practice is established.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I would point out to Mr. Speaker that this side of the House has never

refused to grant leave for a minister to answer, as he should, after

question period — at least this type of lengthy answer. I am therefore

asking — because I had questions today that are of great importance to

my constituents, and I couldn't ask those questions because that

minister abused question period again — that question period be

extended by five minutes. I'm asking leave that question period be

extended five minutes right now.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think I should remind

members that, as I pointed out in responding to the question, it was a

question taken on notice. Now if a member were to respond to a question

of that nature after question period, it would then prevent the member

who originally directed the question from responding and asking

supplementary questions. I think it's in respect to that fact that it

is appropriate on many occasions for a minister to respond within

question period. I don't think that I abused that privilege. I notice

that the member who directed the question originally was in fact simply

making a statement and did not really anticipate further debate on the

question, nor did he anticipate any response from me. So I want to

point out, with respect, that it is appropriate on many occasions to

answer a question within question period.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, I would recommend to the House that we follow the

procedure that we have been following, and the Chair will try to

determine when the question is asked whether or not the scope of the

question is beyond the time of question period. Is that agreed?

MR. HANSON:

On a point of order, the previous remarks of the Provincial Secretary

are absolutely false. Those questions were raised in good faith in this

House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, it

sounds like the member is debating the point of order. If you have a

new point of order, please raise it.

MR. HANSON: I wish to ask the Provincial Secretary for a withdrawal of the remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: I did not hear the remarks. Would the hon. member please cite them so I can determine whether or not they are unparliamentary.

MR. HANSON:

The Provincial Secretary indicated to this House that I did not expect

a response to my question. I certainly did, and I ask him to respond.

MR. SPEAKER: I simply ask the hon. Provincial Secretary: was he imputing any improper motive to the hon. second member for Victoria?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, heavens no.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered. Thank you, hon. members. That concludes the matter.

[ Page

5101 ]

Subsequent

to the proceedings relating to the suspension of the hon. member from

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) from the service of the House, a point of

order was raised — namely whether or not, pursuant to standing order

50, the question was put from the Chair in the manner prescribed.

Standing

order 50 reads in part as follows: "All motions, except the motion to

adjourn and the previous question, shall be in writing, and signed by

the mover before being debated or put from the Chair." It is to be

noted that a motion for suspension of an hon. member from the service

of the House is not a debatable motion. While I also note that many

motions have, over a long period of time, been moved in the House

without writing and without signature, in the present instance the

motion in question by the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) was, in fact, in writing. It was, in

fact, signed by him, as the hon. minister has stated.

Having

made those preliminary observations, I wish to advise the House that I

have reviewed the entire proceeding. I am satisfied, first, that prior

to the calling of the voice vote, the question was put to the House in

the same manner as has been the practice of the Chair over a long

period of time. If objection was to be taken to the long-established

manner of so putting the question, it should have been raised at that

time.

Secondly, and in any event, upon the question again

being put to the House prior to the division on the question, and

having in the meantime heard some objection from some hon. members to

the established practice, the question was put by the Chair, reading

the motion to the House, as is clearly shown by Hansard .

am entirely satisfied that the question was clearly put by the Chair,

both in accordance with the practice of the House and also in strict

accordance with standing order 50. Accordingly, I rule that the

proceeding in question was in order.

MR. HOWARD: I must challenge that ruling, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The ruling is challenged. I put the question, and I hesitate because I have nothing to read....

Shall the ruling of the Chair...?

Order, please. There's no debate.

MR. NICOLSON: Is it not up to the House Leader to move?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I have to put the motion first, hon. member.

Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Davidson

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

NAYS — 24

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. member please leave the chamber.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM

(continued)

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

MR. BARBER:

This committee saw the true face of Social Credit this morning. We saw

what they were prepared to do with the dead weight of a government

majority. If the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) were here, I'm

sure he would comment, as I do now....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. On the vote, please.

MR. KING: Don't take direction from the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I must ask the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke to withdraw

the statement that the Chair is taking direction from the government.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I don't think your hearing is too good. I said: "Don't take direction from the government."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the member withdraw any imputation that the Chair was in any way....

MR. KING:

There was no imputation intended, Mr. Chairman; but I don't think the

Chair should respond to interference and interjections from the

government.

MR. BARBER: As I was saying, if the

member for North Island were still here, he would probably observe that

during the course of these estimates we have moved to remove $1.9

million of waste, overexpenditure and Socred fat from this budget. If

the member for North Island were here, he would probably observe that

the Minister of Tourism has offered a lame and pathetic explanation and

a halting and impossible excuse for the waste and overexpenditure we

find in her general estimates and in this particular vote.

[ Page 5102 ]

I were a government member, I would like to be able to show a leg-hold

trap, as one government member did at one time, or a log, as another

government member did at another time, or Smile buttons, as did yet

another government member, or maps and charts, as did the government

Whip at one time, to illustrate the impact and necessity of the cuts

we've proposed and the further cuts we shall propose. However, I'm not

a government member. I'm an opposition member, and therefore,

apparently, I'm not entitled to show these things visually. But if I

were here with a chart, the chart would reveal that we have this year

proposed, in a new strategy and a new means of drawing attention to

Socred waste, a series of amendments — all cost-cutting — to reduce and

try to eliminate, to the extent we can eliminate it, waste in this

minister's budget. This committee will know that rather than following

the traditional route of moving to reduce the minister's salary by $1

or to $1 — or $1.49, in the case of some ministers — we have instead,

prudently, in a disciplined and well-researched manner, specified those

areas of fat and waste that we and the people find objectionable. We

have not, therefore, followed the traditional and the expected course

of moving to reduce a minister's salary. Rather, we have specified,

particularly in the fields of office furniture, office expenses, travel

for ministers and clearly political advertising — political advertising

undertaken by Social Credit at a level that we've never seen in this

province before, well in excess of $20 million — those items that we

and the people find objectionable, wasteful and imprudent.

I had a chart I would be able to show you that we proposed reductions

in the amount of $12 million in the Forests estimates. All of those

were refused by the dead weight of the Social Credit majority in this

committee. We proposed reductions in the order of $500,000 in the

estimates of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, we're on vote 188, and reflections on previous votes are,

as the member knows, not strictly relevant under the

section we're

dealing with. We presently are on vote 188, which is computer and

consulting charges, and that is the only

section we are dealing with at

the present time.

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

Chairman, it's traditional in debate that when one is speaking on an

amendment to a motion in Committee of Supply, he be permitted...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, we're not on the amendment.

MR. LAUK: ...I'm

sorry, to a vote in Committee of Supply, that his remarks be made to

sound in order and that he be allowed to give arguments of previous

votes and amendments to votes in Committee of Supply that would give

rise to the Chairman's view that his remarks would be in order. That's

all that I assume the hon. member was doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I thank the member for his observation. Again, however, we must

remember that we are bound by certain rules under vote 188. I would ask

the first member for Victoria to continue on the computer and

consulting charges in the Ministry of Tourism.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman, what I'm doing is pointing out a pattern and

demonstrating the true Socred intent in regard to controlling public

expenditures in this particular estimate and in a few others to which

I've briefly referred. Again the committee saw the true face of Social

Credit this morning, and if the member for North Island were still

permitted to be here, he would, no doubt, make the same observation.

However, I would observe further and briefly that we proposed

reductions in the amount of $400,000 in the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs' estimates, and they were all rejected by Social Credit. We

have now proposed that estimates be reduced in the order of $1.9

million in the Ministry of Tourism.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I'm no rule expert, Mr. Chairman not like the member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk) — but my understanding is that in this House you

can't refer to prior votes and so on. This member was just told that,

and he continues on and defies you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. members, may the Chair be at least permitted a very

brief response before we entertain further points of order?

the point of order that was raised, the first member for Victoria, I'm

sure, was just about to approach the

section in vote 188 dealing with

computer and consulting charges. And on that point, hon. member, we

must assume that the member is sooner or later going to get to the

actual vote which is before us.

MR. HOWARD: On a

point of order, I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that you should

not permit the Minister of Transportation and Highways to try to choke

off debate when they're trying to talk about saving money for the

general public. That's an intrusion on his part and reflects the whole

attitude of this government about saving funds.

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

MR. HOWARD: And secondly, Mr. Chairman, if I might....

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the Chair is very hard pressed to hear a second point of

order, when the first point of order is truly not a point of order. You

know, if we are to take the time of the committee on what can best be

described as debate rather than points of order, we again lose the

value and the meaning of what this committee's function really and

truly is.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: On a new point of order. I just inadvertently said: "and secondly." What I meant was a second point of order.

The

Chair earlier permitted the minister to waver all over the countryside

and talk about 1975, which had nothing whatever to do with the vote.

Then when my colleague, the

[ Page

5103 ]

first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), seeks to

respond to that, he's stopped dead in his tracks. Now the difficulty

arose, Mr. Chairman, in permitting the minister to abuse the rules in

the first place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order

by the member for Skeena, which has some great validity, there is no

question that in the initial stages of debate the minister whose

estimates we are presently discussing was allowed some latitude and

took other latitudes. Nevertheless, the response that was allowed in

rebuttal by the Chair to members at that time was equally wide. Now

that we have started anew in our afternoon debate and we are on a new

vote, I would hope that we can contain our remarks to the vote that is

before us and that we can resume debate by the rules that guide us to

serve the people we are sent here to serve.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, although the defensive government, which

is clearly embarrassed by its posture regarding our proposed

cost-cutting amendments, has rejected a total of $1.9 million in

reductions that the official opposition has offered, this estimate is

still an opportunity for the government to save face. This government,

if it wished, could amend its own estimate of vote 188 and could reduce

this vote on its own initiative in order to compensate for the waste

that they have allowed in other votes. The value of this estimate is

approximately $258,000. We proposed reductions of $1.9 million. We wish

we could have cut it by $1.9 million in total. That was rejected.

However,

in this final estimate it is still not too late for the government to

get somewhat more sincere about cost-cutting initiatives and to be

somewhat less inconsistent about their public posture towards saving

the people's money, and use this remaining estimate within the Ministry

of Tourism as a device, when reduced, to thereby cut back some of the

fat in the other estimates which, with the dead weight of their

majority this morning, they pushed through this committee over the

objections of the opposition. It's not too late for the government to

save face.

The record of Social Credit, as we have pointed

out repeatedly.... The new device that we have offered this session of

reducing specific estimates — and not the traditional $1 reduction in

the minister's salary — is something that clearly has disturbed the

government. Clearly they were not prepared for this new approach to

public expenditure; they were not prepared for this new form of debate;

and they are just as unprepared to allow to the opposition what has

traditionally been allowed to the government by way of visual aids and

illustrations — but that's another issue. It's clear that the utter

insincerity of Social Credit has either to be admitted now by way of

apology or repudiated by way of action.

We are giving the

government one more chance and one more opportunity in this vote to

start cutting the fat and to start reducing unnecessary, unjustifiable

and, in certain instances, clearly political expenditures. If the

government chose, they could reduce right now this particular estimate

to $1. They could then transfer from the other estimates that have

already passed such sums as may be necessary....

MR. COCKE:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the whispering member from North

Peace River (Mr. Brummet) called across the floor "phony." When he has

been part of that phony group over there.... I would just like him

to withdraw that remark. I'll withdraw mine after.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Firstly, hon. member, the Chair did not hear the remark. Secondly, it

is very difficult for one member to ask for a withdrawal of a word and

in the same breath use the same word to describe the member of whom he

is asking the withdrawal. If we abide by the rule of debate in the

House that only one member speak at a time and we keep the personal

remarks out of our debate, then possibly we would not have these

problems. I would advise both members who have just spoken to bear that

in mind. Possibly now we can continue with debate on the vote before

us, vote 188.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, what we're

trying to do is suggest that the government take this opportunity to

clear its own name and to demonstrate to the people of British Columbia

that they mean it when they say that they're cost-conscious. We've now

offered, I think, literally 15 or 20 amendments on previous votes. With

utter disregard for the need to save money, Social Credit has rejected

all of them. With utter disregard for their own campaign promises,

Social Credit has dismissed and voted against all of them. With the

heavy hand of Social Credit — and we've seen how that works in this

committee — they have refused any initiative taken by the official

opposition to reduce unnecessary expenditures. Well, this final

estimate in this particular ministry is the remaining opportunity for

this minister to end her own embarrassment and chagrin which will

surely result if we have to go into her riding and hold up our charts —

which are legal almost everywhere in B.C. — and demonstrate the total

insincerity of a government that poses and parades and prances around

as cost-cutters everywhere except where it counts, which is in this

chamber at this moment in these estimates.

If the government

were persuaded that cost-cutting was valuable, this is the committee

where it would happen. If the government had respect for the

traditional role of this committee, they would accept these particular

amendments from the opposition, and would thereby end the charge of

insincerity and lack of consistency on their part when it comes to

cutting costs. But, no, apparently they want it both ways. They want

the Premier to be able to run around the province, posing and parading

as a cost-cutter — and some people might believe it — yet in this

particular estimate neither the Premier nor anyone else, it would seem,

will take the remaining opportunity presented in the votes of the

Ministry of Tourism to reduce costs. So once more I propose to the

government that they, at their initiative — because apparently if the

opposition takes the initiative, it's instantly refused, no matter

what, no matter how reasonable — take the opportunity to reduce this

estimate and transfer from other funds for other purposes such moneys

as may be legitimately needed for this, and thereby proportionately

reduce the unnecessary and indefensible expenditures in other aspects

of this ministry. Clearly the government would have no great problem,

we presume, going to the comptroller-general and saying: "In the name

of cost-cutting we've reduced one particular estimate. We need money

for this particular purpose. Let's take it out of another aspect of our

administration." I'm sure the comptroller-general would grant authority

for that purpose.

We are sure that this committee should not

grant authority at all to the continuing bloated expenditures in the

Ministry of Tourism that have not been justified by this minister and

that cannot be justified by logic or precedent or by any government

that is meant to be taken seriously when it tells us it's interested in

saving tax dollars in a year of restraint.

[ Page 5104 ]

They

turned us down for $12 million in Forests, $500,000 in Universities,

Science and Communications, and $400,000 in Municipal Affairs. So far,

they've rejected $1.9 million worth of cost-cutting amendments that

we've put forward. Let them now take this opportunity to exercise a

change of heart, and reduce at their own initiative — which we will

support — this particular estimate, and thereby, at least potentially,

save a quarter of a million bucks here and reduce fat elsewhere, and

make the transfer within the ministry itself. We think this is a

creative and sensible proposal from the official opposition. We make it

now for the first, but not the last, time.

MR. COCKE:

I too am sad that the member for North Island isn't here to raise some

of the arguments that I'll raise. I want to ask the minister a question

or two. She's been strangely silent. I gather that she's been silent by

virtue of the fact that her colleagues told her: "For heaven's sake,

keep your seat." But, you know, Mr. Chairman, we are here to question

ministers. We ask questions.

Incidentally, I would also like

to suggest that I'm very suspicious of anything that occurs that has

the word "computer" attached to it. My suspicion is that this

government is being bilked by the whole computer system that was set up

in that Systems Corporation. Two or three years ago we hardly ever

heard the word in terms of the estimates. Now we have a massive

estimate for computers in each ministry.

Last year the

minister estimated that she'd be spending $337,000 on computer work

done for her ministry by the Systems Corporation. Of course, we only

have the first three reports, which is nine months of the 12-month

period. However, if they were to continue spending at the same rate

they would spend about $192,000;

whereas this year they're asking for

$258,900. In other words, there's been a drop.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

One

of the reasons we didn't move an amendment to reduce was that there was

actually a gross decrease. However, let's look at the net for a moment.

If they continue to spend at the same rate they will have spent

$192,000 by the end of the year. Therefore $258,000 indicates to me an

increase of $66,000. Even knowing that, we decided to be totally and

completely responsible and give the minister an opportunity to justify

this amount that she has before the committee. Certainly the member for

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) would have been making this argument much

stronger than I because of his willingness to be totally honest and to

demand that from others. I would wonder if the minister at this time

could stand in her place and tell us what she's doing. So far she has

batted a thousand. Not one intelligible answer....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) agrees with me totally.

She's batted a thousand. She hasn't answered intelligibly one question

that we've been asking in the last three days. What about a first? What

about giving us some reasons for the variety of figures we see before

us?

Let me review them. Last year's estimate was $337,000.

This year's estimate is $258,900. This is a drop. However, last year's

spending rate for the first three-quarters indicates to us that there

will be an expenditure of only $192,000.

Therefore it would indicate to me that there was an increase of $66,000. Does she need it?

HON. MR. FRASER: Take your hands out of your pockets.

MR. BARBER: Take your hands out of the people's pockets.

MR. COCKE: That's right. If I pick any pockets it'll be my pockets, Mr. Chairman, not the people's.

Mr.

Chairman, let the minister reply. In her reply, let her tell us about

the marvels of the computer age. Let her also tell us whether or not

she's satisfied with the working being done by B.C. Systems Corporation

for all government services. She might also give us a little personal

information with respect to her family. I wonder whether or not her

husband is satisfied with the computer system of this province. I've

yet to talk to a doctor who hasn't told me that the whole computer

system is a mess since it's been moved to B.C. Systems Corporation from

the old medicare computer system of their own — months late. I wonder

if they're doing as good a job for the Ministry of Tourism as they're

doing for other ministries. It's an utter disaster, Mr. Chairman.

Anyway, can we have some justification of these figures?

know the minister was ordered to sit in her place, but I've asked a

very simple question. Surely that order can be countermanded by

someone. Surely someone can give her permission to rise and answer a

very simple question. I know the rules of the House. Ministers do not

have to answer questions if they do not feel like it, which makes the

whole thing a mockery to some extent when they really adhere to that.

We've already been treated to Fairyland all the way through these

estimates. I'm now asking a very simple question on the last estimate

of the minister. Can she justify this expenditure of $258,000 pure and

simple, in view of the fact that last year she had $337,000, which we

gave that ministry with gay abandon? "Go your best licks, ministry."

They're only spending $192,000. We're being asked for $258,000, and

justification for that is all we ask.

MR. NICOLSON: This is remarkable. We've asked some....

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

I was trying to extend to that member the courtesy of listening to his

question. If he wishes to proceed on the matter, I would answer the

other member's question. He asked, pure and simple, if I could justify

the expenditures that I'm putting before the House at this time. My

answer is yes. I can and I will.

MR. BARBER: Was that a point of order?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. The Chair saw the Minister of Tourism rise, and the

member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) sit down. If it was a point of

order and the Chair didn't recognize it, the Chair apologizes. The

committee allows reciprocal debate. The member for Nelson-Creston has

the floor. Please do not interrupt.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I would have hoped that the minister would have been rising to.... I was

[ Page 5105 ]

ceding

the floor to the minister if she wanted to answer. If she wants to

answer the question in some detail now, I'll do so again if she

indicates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, if the minister wishes to speak to the she will take her place.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Chairman, I don't rise lightly to criticize the use of computers in

government, in medicine, in assisting the handicapped or in the many

ways in which computers are improving our lives. But one has a greater

responsibility and that is to see if the money which is being spent on

computers is being allocated in the most prudent and efficient manner,

particularly when onerous tax increases have been necessitated this

year. It's our duty in each and every one of these votes to look at

ways in which savings might occur.

Look at last year's

experience. The ministry came in and asked for $337,000 for this item

and by the 10-month period had expended an amount of about $160,000. At

any rate, I've prorated that and for 12 months it would be $192,000.

That's a good $140,000 difference. We've got hundreds of these votes.

If we could pick up $100,000 on several of these votes, I'm sure that

our savings will amount to something over $100 million. When we're

finished going through all of these votes, it'll be more. It'll be up

in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The public deserves some

explanation.

We see there is some admission of guilt,

because the vote has been reduced this year from what it was last year

to some extent — some reflection, some admission. There was

considerable underspending and overestimation last year. Let's look at

this in terms of zero-based budgeting, as if we were starting right

from the beginning. Maybe we should say, "Let's start at zero dollars,"

and not "What did we spend last year? Let's increase it 10 percent or

12 percent. That's the rate of inflation." Let's look instead at what

we do need. What are we trying to do?

First of all, I ask

the minister: are you getting service from a time-sharing central

computer service? Is it timesharing from one large main-frame

centralized computer? If the answer to that is yes, has the ministry

investigated the option of looking at a minicomputer for their needs —

something which probably comes in the range of $20,000 to $40,000, with

several discs, printers and umpteen megabytes which can hold pages or a

book of information? That's probably more than what the minister has

outlined. She said: "We're going to put the green book on computer."

Indeed, they might even be able to make do with a microcomputer? Maybe

they could get by with an Apple III computer — a good solid business

computer — a TRS-80 model 2, Texas Instruments or Heath. There are many

that medium-sized businesses are using. For instance, I know that in my

area Kootenay Forest Products have a payroll of about 500 people. They

have a huge inventory. They're into both plywood and lumber. They have

a tremendous woods inventory, forestry analysis — all kinds of things

to do — and they do this on a minicomputer. It's a stand-alone system.

They certainly have more people, I believe, than the minister's entire

establishment in her ministry, but they manage. I think they probably

have a much more complex problem to solve. They have modelling that

they have to do in terms of their forest management, their timber

supply analysis — everything internally, as opposed to the Ministry of

Forests.

Has the minister investigated other options? Does

the minister realize that the improvement in computers has been so

dramatic that if the same improvement had occurred with the automobile,

a Rolls-Royce would cost $2.50 and would get 200,000 miles per gallon?

Does the minister realize that each year, instead of things getting

more expensive, they're getting cheaper? In fact, the committee might

be interested to know that just a few weeks ago I bought a line

printer. A line printer is something that has to be obtained so that

one can get some solid printout, because we still read print. Things

that are on screens have a nasty way of disappearing and getting lost,

so we have what we want as hard copy. Line printers just a couple of

years ago cost $3,000 for just about anything you would care to look

at. Very fine line printers with all kinds of options — spacing, which

I'm sure would probably fit the minister's needs — are selling today

for as little as $500. A few years back, they sold for $40,000 and

$70,000 — machines that didn't do any more than what is being done

today on a $500 machine. Everybody knows that computers that used to

fill a room this size are now on one little chip and occupy a space of

maybe a couple of millimetres, and they are less than half of a

millimetre thick.

I'm asking the minister that if instead of

having the Systems Corporation put them more and more — if that is the

case — on a main-frame computer, they have explored the option of

microcomputers. Because the Systems Corporation is not putting the high

schools and the elementary schools in this province onto main-frame

computers. They are buying Apple computers for the schools. They're

buying them in lots and getting some economics by buying in bulk, so

obviously the Systems Corporation has seen fit to do that in some

cases. I would like to know from the minister then — and perhaps she's

ready to respond — whether she is time-sharing on a large main-frame

system. Have you looked at some of the other options? Is your ministry

aware of the tremendous breakthroughs in terms of reducing computer

costs, the ways and means of reducing computer costs and the fantastic

ability of small 8- and 16-bit machines which are on the market today?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I thank the member for Nelson-Creston for his comments and his questions.

Yes,

we are overviewing the whole process of internal management within the

ministry. We've made a lot of changes, as the member knows, both from

general discussions we've had and the discussions under my estimates at

this time. You'll see by looking at vote 188 that we have already

reduced the costs here by $78,000 for this year — a 23 percent

reduction. It would be my hope that as we move on and our new team fits

into place.... As you know, we are a new team working together. We've

done a lot in reorganizing the ministry and creating many new programs.

We give the member our commitment, as we do the taxpayers. As I

mentioned many times in our estimates yesterday, the ministry is under

constant review. We are looking for better ways to be more efficient,

to give better service and to make better use of the tax dollar but

still meet the commitment of our mandate. This is one example.

far as the type of computer system to use, I am not a computer expert.

One of the reasons that we are so fortunate to have our new deputy and

assistant deputy of operations, and the reason why they came from the

area of expertise that they did, was to be sure that our ministry would

in fact be accountable and that as minister I would have the opportunity

[ Page 5106 ]

of having the best possible advice in areas in which I'm not an authority; and certainly computers is one of them.

share the member's sensitivity to computers. I think I'm on record in

this House as saying that I think they can probably be a great asset in

life and save a lot of time, money and energy. But like anything of a

highly technological nature they are man-created, and like man they can

make mistakes. So while we made these changes this year, Mr. Member,

we're using the B.C. Systems Corporation in major part for Beautiful British Columbia

magazine: for billings, tracing lost billings, lost letters and lost

subscriptions, or confirming subscriptions and checking our

subscription lists on an interim basis. We're using it for policy

development and planning, and at this time it's our intention to work

with them in our research branch helping to coordinate, if we can, the

myriad of pieces of information of a statistical nature that we get in

the ministry.

Again, I mentioned that the hon. members were

concerned that our annual report was not available for my estimates. I

appreciate that, but in the past we've been in a position — not

necessarily our fault — as a ministry, because we coordinate

statistical gathering with the federal government and other bodies so

there's no duplication, of being at a disadvantage in getting that

information in the time-frame we would like. So we feel that with our

new research system and by using the computer we'll be able to give you

and the industry faster answers.

We'll take your comments to

heart, Mr. Member. We've got them noted, we'll be looking at them, and

by next year I hope to be able to give you a more definitive statement

as to what the final policy will be. We will utilize different systems,

but we will be most cautious that we don't spend money unnecessarily in

utilizing or trying a system that might be more effective.

MR. NICOLSON: In terms of the use of the computer for keeping track of subscriptions and, I suppose, for doing labels for Beautiful British Columbia

magazine, how large is the subscription and what does B.C. Systems

Corporation charge for that specific service? Within a few thousand,

what's the breakout on that charge? How many subscriptions, and what's

the breakout for that charge?

HON. MR. JORDAN: We're

just checking the figures. I think we're around 369,000 for direct

mailing subscriptions. But one would have to recognize that that's not

the only work we do. When I became minister I was astounded to find the

number of letters that relate to Beautiful British Columbia

magazine. Pardon me, it's 367,000. People write from all over the

world, and from time to time I go into the ministry to the mail-sorting

desk and put my hand on a stack of letters they're working on that day

and just say: "Would you send me those letters when you've finished

with them?" I'm sure the member would be interested to know that

they're from all over the world. It's amazing.

The members

have been talking about publicity and the attachment of the minister's

name. They've been very complimentary in this area, and I agree. When I

became minister I said to our assistant deputy of marketing: "Do you

think we could take my name off some of these things?" I had long

discussions about this, and we compromised. He said: "You have to

understand this is a very personal type of business. People relate to

you and your name is easy to remember."

I've been shocked myself by the number of letters that come as a result of the picture and message inside Beautiful British Columbia

magazine. As you've noticed, I've tried to turn it into more of a

personal invitation to come to British Columbia, because I feel this

magazine is almost a heritage piece in itself, and it has a very high

standing. But also it must serve, without upsetting that quality, as a

lure piece for British Columbia, and it does that very well. The number

of people that write "Dear Pat Jordan" or "Dear Mrs. Jordan...." To

date we've had over 25,000 responses from our spring advertising, and

you would be amazed at the number in there that refer to "Pat Jordan."

So I've had to accept the advice that I received from our marketing

assistant deputy that this, in fact, is a selling piece. Then with Beautiful British Columbia

magazine we get hundreds and hundreds of letters referring back to

previous articles and previous subscriptions. Often when we're shipping

overseas, there will be a delay in the bundling; it's not our fault —

they leave our warehouse and they leave British Columbia — but they may

get hung up in trans-shipment on the airways. We even traced one group

that was missing and we found that somebody left it out in the rain — I

think it was in Ghana somewhere. So there is a tremendous amount of

correspondence relating to the magazine, and by using the commuter

system they can trace back very quickly, and then we're able to give

that person almost instant service.

I'm sure the members

would agree, because we are a marketing ministry, that our job is to

create a good image for the government, for the people of British

Columbia and for the industry, and to invite people here. So it's very

important to give service as quickly as possible. I'd like to see the

member who brought it up, I'm sure, express his appreciation as well as

my own to the staff of Beautiful British Columbia

magazine. They're the ones who have brought this magazine to its

pinnacle among world publications and who have produced the type of

product that has taken the name of British Columbia around this world,

which has brought us so much acclaim and which, of course, is bringing

us so many visitors.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to concur with the minister; I too think Beautiful British Columbia

is a wonderful magazine. I give it to friends I meet from around the

world. I think there are around 367,000 subscriptions right now, and I

would like to ask the minister for one piece of information: how much

of the computer service charges do the various services for Beautiful British Columbia

magazine represent? You mentioned policy planning and other items, and

I guess that they take other parts. I'd like to know what the breakdown

of this is in terms of what we've been spending this last year. How

much does it cost, and should it continue to cost that much? It's just

a little bit of updating each year; I doubt that too many people are

cancelling their subscription to Beautiful British Columbia, so it's

mostly just a few cancellations and lots of additions.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I think the member must have misunderstood. There is a tremendous amount of work related to Beautiful British Columbia

magazine. It isn't a matter of just plugging in a name that comes in as

a subscription and not having that name come up except once every four

months until the next year; that isn't the case at all. There is a

tremendous amount of recall needed, a tremendous amount of addressing

to those subscriptions and the letters plus the

[ Page 5107 ]

other

services that I advised you we apply. I'm told by the magazine people

themselves that they are running it very efficiently. We're not in a

position at this time — because we've been entering into new

programmings in the middle of the year and, as I mentioned, have the

whole matter under review — to give a detailed breakdown. I'm sure

we'll be able to get into that area next year, but we're in a

transition stage and, as the member knows, we would get involved in a

cash-flow situation.

I'm sure the member would not suggest

for a moment that to go back to a hand-recording system in Beautiful

British Columbia would in any way save us money — I don't believe it

would — or would in any way increase the service or even meet the

service we're offering to those people, who are so vital to the tourist

revenues in British Columbia. I also thought the member might know that

we have approximately 40,000 to 45,000 magazines on the stands each

production.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. HOWARD:

I feel like starting off my remarks by saying "Dear Mrs. Jordan" or

dear something of that sort, but I can't because that would be contrary

to the rules. One of the things that amazed me a moment ago was that a

question was asked to the effect: "Can the minister justify this

estimate of $258,900?" The minister rose and said very quickly and

briefly, "Yes," and sat down. Now that misses the point of the whole

thing. The question carried with it the implication that somebody would

like an explanation, not just: "Can you justify it?" "Yes, I can

justify it." The minister can justify anything, at least to herself.

She may not convince many members of the committee or many members of

her own party, but she can certainly justify pretty nearly anything.

Let's

have a look at what this amount of money is. I submit to you, Mr.

Chairman, that this estimate before the House is a padded figure. It

does not reflect the real expectation of expenditure for computer

services. I submit to you that the minister knows that to be the case

as well. I submit that the purpose is, somehow or other in concert with

all the other ministries, to build up a surplus, to overestimate the

expenditure.

Maybe you want some rationale for that. In the

1978-79 fiscal year, computer services for the Ministry of

Attorney-General underexpended their estimate by over $700,000. In

1979-80 the Attorney-General's ministry overestimated the funds they

would require for computer services by over $100,000. That's just one

department spread over an encompassing two fiscal years, for which we

have information. In 1978-79 the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs overestimated by $1 million.

Let's look at the

Ministry of Tourism. Here in this year's estimate of the Ministry of

Tourism the minister says she wants $258,900 for computer services. She

justifies that by the bold, fattened declaration: "Yes" — no

explanation or anything. If we take the figures for the immediate

preceding fiscal year, 1980-81, we find that the minister then asked

for — and got — $337,000. For the ten months for which figures are

available of the last fiscal year, she spent $160,000 of that. That's

roughly $16,000 a month. If you move that ahead into the remaining two

months of the last fiscal year, it comes to $192,000 spent out of an

allocation of $337,000. That is a deliberate overestimate by this

ministry of 43 percent.

The story is the same all the way

across the board. In the 1978-79 fiscal year the Ministry of Economic

Development overestimated by three-quarters of a million dollars —

soaked the taxpayers an additional three-quarters of a million dollars

in order to hide the money some place for some other purpose, not for

the purpose required. In 1978-79 the Ministry of Travel Industry —

admittedly it was combined with a different ministry; it was the

Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Travel Industry.... We're talking

about the Ministry of Tourism as it was in 1978-79, in order to show

that there's a pattern of activity. If the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann) were here, this is what he'd be doing. Regretfully, that is

not the case.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon.

member. First, we must be very specific on vote 188. It is most

improper, as the member, I'm sure, is in his heart aware, to go back,

for example, three years.

MS. BROWN: She went back to 1972.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please permit the Chair to finish. I ask the member to be a little more specific to vote 188.

MR. HOWARD:

I thought I could not be more specific. I didn't go back to the

election of 1975, like the minister was permitted to do, which had

nothing whatever to do with tourism or anything else. I was not doing

that. I was talking about the Ministry of Tourism and the vote before

us relating to computer service charges. I'm pointing out what the

history of computer service charges has been in that ministry and how

they've consistently padded the accounts. If I could just make that one

reference to the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Travel Industry,

which was the forerunner of the Ministry of Tourism in 1978-79, it was

underexpended or overestimated $383,000. It was 27 percent padded — a

27 percent grab of the taxpayers' money for no real purpose except to

overtax in order to build up a surplus for some other reason.

What

about the following year, 1978-80, when it was the Department of

Tourism and Small Business Development? It's another example of

excessive estimating. Overestimation in that year was $82,000 — 25

percent overestimated.

As I said earlier, for the last

fiscal year, the minister's department was overestimated by 43 percent.

Now she wants another $258,900, She says flatly, without any

equivocation, question or explanation, that, yes, she can justify that.

That's not good enough.

The only thing that appears to be factual in all this....

The

common thread throughout the whole of the government activities in

computer services.... We can run down the list: Consumer and Corporate

Affairs, Economic Development, Energy, Environment, Forests, Health.

One year Health was almost one and a half million dollars. All the way

down the line the government has padded the amount of money they said

they required for computer service charges in order to overtax the

population of this province and build up a little side kitty of money

to drag out for electoral purposes at election time. That's the

purpose. Realizing that as a fact of financial life with this

government, that's why the New Democratic party is intent upon trying

to save the poor taxpayers of this province some money. Every motion

that we've moved to reduce estimates in an area which does not

[ Page 5108 ]

affect

services, in the lavish travel cost and the lavish office expense and

the lavish office furniture cost and the padded accounts like these....

Every single motion we've moved — 15 or 18 — to reduce expenditures and

save the taxpayers' money, that crowd across there has had the

unmitigated gall to stand up and vote against them, to vote against the

general public in this province, to reach their hands out and keep them

in the general taxpayers' pocket — pickpocketing by padding the

accounts.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: The

minister's not a pickpocket, Mr. Chairman. I'm talking about the aura

and the atmosphere surrounding the government. They are intent on

simply building up a manufactured set of accounts, to say: "We want so

much money." I think what the minister is obliged to do is more than

that just crass.... I won't say that; it slipped out, and it should not

have. She should do more than just that off-the-top-of-her-head, or

wherever it was, comment: "Yes, I can justify this amount of money."

Given the history of this ministry and this government for padding the

accounts of money they need for computer services all across the board,

all across every ministry and over every fiscal year for the last three

years, I submit that the minister is obliged to stand up and be candid

with this House and tell us in some detail what she wants the money for

so that the committee will have some understanding as to whether or not

this is a real figure.

As the first member for Victoria did

earlier, I submit that we've attempted to cut some of the lard and fat

out of this ministry, as in previous votes the committee dealt with.

There's lots of excess there. You could easily completely wipe out this

computer service charge, leaving a dollar for purposes of authorization

to spend the money, and from the other fat and waste and extravagance

in the department you could find the money to pay for the computer

service charges. There'd be no problem in doing that at all. But for

the minister to simply say, "Yes, I can justify that," leads the

committee and me to believe that that is not a statement that truly

reflects the minister's true knowledge of what's going on in her

department. She knows full well that this amount is padded. She came to

the House and said they needed that money. She knows full well they

don't need that amount of money. She is not providing the committee

with factual or truthful information. So long as she is just content to

sit back and say, "Yes. I can justify that," I think the committee has

no other choice open to it but to come to the conclusion either that

the minister has not got the foggiest idea what goes on in her

department — that seems to be closer to the truth, given what certain

cabinet ministers have told me — or that she knows what's going on in

the department; she knows she doesn't need this amount of money, and

she's trying to lead the committee to believe that she does. It's

improper to do that.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Last year she didn't even know if she was getting paid or not.

MS. BROWN: She said she was stunned.

MR. HOWARD:

I think she said: "I'm astounded." It was the member for North Peace

River (Mr. Brummet) who said he was stunned. I think they may be

synonyms among Social Credit ranks.

I submit to you, Mr.

Chairman, that the committee has got to have a better explanation of

what's going on in the department than that blown-up account that

simply says: "Yes, I can justify it." The minister's not prepared to go

any further and provide the committee with any further information as

to why there was a 27 percent padding of this account for computer

services in 1978-79, why there was a 25 percent padding of the funds

required in 1979 and 1980 and why there was a 43 percent padding last

year. If she can't give the committee any better explanation than the

simple one "Yes, I can justify it," then she doesn't deserve to be the

minister. We'd be better off with no minister, letting the department

run under a deputy minister without a political head. I'm sure we'd do

a lot better.

If the minister is prepared to provide the

committee with some information as to why she padded the accounts, why

she came in here with figures which are.... I'm not going to say false,

Mr. Chairman; I gather that's a no-no. It's a no-no to say the accounts

that she is presenting to us — the estimates of expenditure — are false

figures. I would be offending the rules of the House if I said they

were false, Mr. Chairman. If I said to the minister that she knows they

are false, I would be offending the rules of the House. So I'm not

going to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, four examples are more than sufficient to say what is not in order.

MR. HOWARD:

Yes, Mr. Chairman, four examples are sufficient to indicate that the

minister knows that the figures she brought before the House are not

accurate figures. As long as the minister sits there in a slump, making

no indication of any effort to get up and reply to this sort of thing,

the only thing I can do is move the committee rise, report progress or

resolutions — whichever is the appropriate and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

[ Page 5109 ]

An hon. member requested that leave be granted to record the division in the Journals of the House,

On vote 188.

MR. HOWARD:

I was hoping after that that the minister, in front of all her

colleagues — the people she sits with in secret, in closet, to discuss

matters — would stand up and tell the House why she wants $258,900; but

she sits silent like a burnp on a log, ignores the whole question and

expects the whole committee to go ahead and say: "Yeah, you betcha!

Here's your $258,900." What arrogant nonsense is that? What way is that

for a minister to treat a committee that's trying to do justice to the

taxpayers of this province? It's a disgraceful display of arrogance. Or

maybe she just doesn't know. Maybe it's ignorance rather than arrogance.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I've given the member a number of answers to his question. I've told him that we're utilizing our services for Beautiful British Columbia

magazine, policy development and planning, the research branch and....

I don't want to be repetitious and tedious. The member commented on the

saving. We have re-evaluated our systems, we have streamlined the

ministry, and we made a saving of $79,000.

Mr. Chairman, it

seems to me you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. It

seems that the opposition doesn't seem to know a damn from a damn,

because they can't seem to understand what's going on. They don't seem

to understand their own debate; it's very much in conflict.

won't repeat it, but I would assure you, Mr. Chairman, that our request

in this vote is for $258,900. We have been able to save $78,100 for the

reasons I've mentioned. I would say again that, to the best of my

knowledge, this is very necessary, and it will be spent in the best

interests of the taxpayers and the mandate this ministry has. If I

could save one cent between now and the time it's spent, then I

certainly would. I don't think we'll be able to; but we're in a

cash-flow situation, and I give my commitment to the voters. We're very

pleased with what we've done with our budget this year, and we believe

the citizens will be very pleased with what we do with our budget next

year.

One last thing. If you'll check Hansard , the

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) asked me to say very simply

whether I could account for it. I said: "Yes, I could." I think I

answered his question very much in the terms that he meant it to be.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Before recognizing the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), I know that

sometimes in debate we use terms that on reflection would be better not

used, and I wonder if the minister could possibly, for the benefit of

the Chair, in maintaining decorum, withdraw the word "damned" as a

matter of courtesy to the....

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I'm

sorry, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps the members don't know that there are two

types of dams. There are the major dams, such as at Williston Lake, and

there are the dams for the dyking system.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the minister just withdraw the term.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: By all means.

MR. HOWARD:

The minister made some reference to being in a cash-flow situation.

That's why she had to pad the accounts over and above the amount of

money needed. Did she mean the cash flow was short, and therefore

they've got to levy extra taxes? Or did she mean the cash flow was

sufficient, so she'll have a surplus at the end of the year? Or does

she have the faintest idea what cash flow is?

We're just not

getting any response out of the minister. It looks like we're probably

going to be here the rest of the afternoon trying. We'll try. I've got

to do some more figuring.

MS. BROWN: Unlike the

minister, I'm not going to be talking about the election of 1972 or

discussing the election of 1975, because I recognize that as a member

of the opposition I'm at a decided disadvantage in this House. If I say

anything which upsets the member from Point Grey or any of the other

government members, they can move a motion to have me thrown out of the

House for three days.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: As a member of the opposition, I recognize that the government now uses this ploy in order to ensure they never lose a vote.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, it is most improper to reflect upon a vote in the House.

On numerous occasions this afternoon passing reference has been made,

but the member presently recognized by the Chair has carried that well

past the bounds of good taste, and I must ask that we now go on to vote

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order, I want to draw to Your Honour's attention that the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds was not casting reflection upon a vote; she

was talking about the arrogance of the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and the political intention

they have of doing anything to stifle the proper examination of things

in this chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. That was not the observation of the Chair at the time. But the member continues on vote 188.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, in continuing, I wonder if you can advise me what

recourse I have when the Chair accuses me of poor taste, because I

certainly resent that comment on the part of the Chair, and I don't

know whether I can ask the Chair to withdraw it or not.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

If the member takes offence at anything the Chair said, then the Chair

certainly...in no way tried to do so. If the member feels that way,

then certainly the Chair is more than willing to....

MS. BROWN: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I accept the Chair's apology, because I'm sure that's what the Chair is trying to do.

[ Page 5110 ]

I was merely pointing out — and quoting from Hansard

in doing so — that in participating in the debate this morning the

minister wandered far and wide dealing with the 1972 and 1975 elections

and a number of other issues. I'm suggesting to the Chair that it was

not my intention to do so. I think one of the reasons I mentioned what

happened to the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was simply to

say that as a member of the opposition I recognize that it's been

established as a precedent that a government member can have a member

of the opposition thrown out of the House. I recognize that I am an

endangered species in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

member, I think it is incumbent upon the Chair, in reviewing the

member's comments, to reflect that the decision taken was one regarding

a parliamentary process, not one as suggested by the member. The points

that you make regarding the debate this morning are well taken.

Latitude was taken at that time. It's very difficult for the Chair to

insist on curtailing debate. I would ask for the member's assistance,

though, in responding to the comments made earlier this morning.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a fascist.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're a communist.

MS. BROWN:

I'd rather be called that than be called a marauder and a predator,

which is what your government has been called. I think Calvert Knudsen

was being generous to your government when he called you that. He

should have called you thugs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Firstly, I must ask the hon. member to withdraw the term "thug."

MS. BROWN: I withdraw the word "thug," Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Secondly, my remarks at this time are not addressed to the member who

is standing, but to the remainder of the members in the chamber who are

not allowing the member to take her place in debate, which is certainly

a member's right. That member, whoever she or he may be, deserves that

right and should have no interruption from other members. I warn

members of this assembly that interruptions will not be tolerated.

MR. BARRETT:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, your admonishments are well directed

to all members of the House. I would hope, too, that it would be added

that members must remain in their own seats if they intend to

participate either informally or formally.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you, hon. member. We really only have one formal type of debate

in this House. There is no informal type. Nevertheless, the comments

made by the Leader of the Opposition are most timely and appropriate.

MR. NICOLSON:

To expand on that same point, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing

(Hon. Mr. Chabot) is presently occupying the chair of the Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). He was interjecting. When one reads

Erskine May on interjections, interjections are not tolerated, but it

is grave disorder when they are made from another member's seat. I

would ask Mr. Chairman to consider that very carefully.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The purpose of the committee could be well served if all members would

afford each member the courtesy that that member deserves in having an

opportunity to speak in the chamber.

MS. BROWN: The

minister, in speaking in response to the member for Skeena (Mr.

Howard), said that in fact the ministry was saving something in the

order of $78,000 on this particular vote. I think what we really need

to do is clarify for the minister's sake exactly what's happening here.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

year ago the minister's estimate of $337,000 to be spent on computer

and consulting charges was approved because at that time the minister

said that that was what her ministry needed. What we learned from

reading the interim financial statement is that until January 31, 1981,

the ministry had in fact spent only $160,000. My colleague the member

for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) did a projection on this and said

that if all proceeds exactly as it has for the last ten months, by the

end of the fiscal year the ministry would have spent $192,000. If that

is the case, Mr. Chairman — an underspending of something in the

neighbourhood of $66,000 — why is the minister now asking for $258,900,

an increase of 33 percent? In every other of the minister's votes which

we discussed earlier — the building occupancy vote and the other votes

— we find overestimating for 1979-80, underspending and again a request

for another increase.

What I pointed out this morning and

what I want to point out again is that money doesn't fall from above.

The government raises its money through the process of taxation. What

we have is a ministry deliberately overtaxing people. In other words,

the people of British Columbia were taxed last year to raise $337,000

for this particular vote. The ministry is only going to be spending

$192,000. What is going to happen to the balance of $145,000? Is it

going to be returned to the taxpayers of this province? Has it been

returned to the taxpayers of this province? The answer is no. Once

again we find that the government is overtaxing the people of British

Columbia in order to build up a surplus, because once again — as they

did last year, the year before and the year before that — we're going

to find an underspending of their estimates. Who pays these taxes?

Everyone who works in this province pays these taxes.

pointed out to the House this morning — and I'm going to point it out

again, and I'm going to point it out every opportunity that I get —

that a report released by the federal government shows that British

Columbia is the only province in Canada where the number of people who

work and still live in poverty is increasing. There's a reason for

that. Part of the reason why the working poor get poorer in this

province is because of the taxation policies of that particular

government. If there was a system that the government used that said

only the very rich pay taxes, then maybe the opposition would not be so

exercised by this talent on the part of this government to overtax

everyone, to under spend their budget by cutting

[ Page 5111 ]

services,

and then to turn around and use that surplus to purchase votes come

election time. The opposition resents the establishment of this

porkbarrelling account which this government is continually involving

itself in simply because most of the people who are being forced to put

their hands in their pockets and contribute to the election fund of

that government are the working poor.

Mr. Chairman, the

report goes on to say that there are 50,500 families living in B.C. in

which the head of the household is working yet earning less than $4,000

a year. The report goes on to say that this comprises 12 percent of the

national total, and it is the only province in which that number is

increasing. In every other province in Canada the number of people who

are working and living below the poverty line is on the decrease except

in British Columbia. The reason for that is because of that

government's policy of deliberately overtaxing the poor people of this

province so that they can have a surplus fund to contribute to their

porkbarrelling account. Maybe the opposition would not be so exercised

if, for example, that government did not indulge itself.... I think the

minister is trying to get your attention, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'm listening to this debate with

great interest, but I wonder if the hon. member would refrain from

suggesting that I am part of collecting tax dollars for a pork-barrel.

I'm not. I would ask her to withdraw; otherwise I'm enjoying what she

has to say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, actions speak louder than words, and if the minister, in

fact, is not a part of the government's plan of overtaxing people, she

can prove this by simply cutting back the budget of her ministry, as

was requested by the opposition, to the tune of $1.9 million. Words

mean absolutely nothing. The only thing that we can judge that minister

on is her action. She has an opportunity now, while we're still

debating the estimates of her ministry, to cut her budget as was

recommended.

The minister has left the House. Should I move

the committee rise? Yes, I think what I have to say is so important to

the minister that I would move that the committee rise, report

progress, resolution or whatever turns the Chairman on.... There are

only three government members over there anyway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The appropriate motion would be "progress."

MS. BROWN: Yes. I move that the committee rise, report progress and

ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived. on the following division:

YEAS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Davidson

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Mussallem

MR. LEA:

What we're doing, Mr. Chairman, is discussing this Legislature voting

money that this Minister of Tourism will have the authority to spend.

Now I don't know whether it's wise when I'm looking at the record of

this minister. For instance, is it wise to give a minister money to

spend when that very same minister went to a conference in Manila and

when she arrived there found out that she was ten days late for the

conference? It seems to me that there should be a little bit of

discretion used when voting money for a minister who actually jumped on

an airplane and travelled thousands of miles at taxpayers' expense to

find out that the conference was over when she arrived. I think I'll

just let my case stand.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, a

serious accusation has been made against the minister that I want

clarified. We have reports that the minister arrived to attend a

conference ten days after it was over. Now I'd like the minister to get

up and say why she got on the plane after the conference was over and

went there. What did she do when she got there and she found out that

the conference was over? I'd like the minister to explain that.

There

are a lot of taxpayers out there who would have liked to attend the

conference on time, let alone ten days after it was over. But it's the

taxpayers who were spending the money to provide her with air fare to

get over there. Now I want to know....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Agriculture and Food rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're dealing with the vote concerning computers.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The point is well taken, hon. members. We are debating vote 188,

computer and consulting charges. If the committee could relate the

remarks to that vote, the committee would be well served.

MR. BARRETT:

I would hope that the minister would not make unnecessary points of

order. Everybody knows that airline tickets are ordered through

computer, and if the minister doesn't know that, then I just don't

understand why he would interrupt that way.

Now

I want to know why the minister ordered airline tickets through the

computer to attend a conference ten days after it was over. There must

be an illogical explanation, and if there is an illogical explanation,

then that minister is capable of making it. Before we pass this

particular vote, I want to know why the minister went to a conference

ten days after it was over. Was she sure that that way she wouldn't

have to speak?

[ Page 5112 ]

MR. BARBER: Was the Premier sure?

MR. BARRETT: Or was the Premier sure that that way she wouldn't have to speak?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

I want to thank you, but you're not the minister. There must be some

explanation. Now I heard that this was the same question that was asked

at Lumby when the minister blurted out an expletive in response to the

taxpayers there — a word that even I would blush to use, but that

minister used it with taxpayers in her riding. The initials of the

word, Mr. Chairman, were....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I think we might be approaching unparliamentary language.

MR. BARRETT:

For the edification of the members of the House, the minister did not

say "brown sugar," but she told the folks in Lumby what she thought

about their criticisms. I ask the minister: were their criticisms

related to the fact that she attended a conference ten days late? Did

she reimburse the Crown for the expenditures of going to a conference

after she found that she got there ten days late through the computer?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You're not the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Agriculture and Food rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I appreciate the humour of the Leader of the Opposition in attempting

to relate plane tickets to computers under the minister's vote.

However, I would ask that he be brought to order and that he deal with

the vote at hand.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well

taken. In fact, if we look at the vote before us we'll see that it

provides for payments to the British Columbia Systems Corporation for

data processing and management consulting services. If members of the

committee could relate their remarks — as has been done in most orderly

fashion by other members of the committee from both sides of the House

— the Chair would appreciate it.

MR. BARRETT: I ask

the minister under this vote: did she hire a consultant to help her

prepare the speech that she didn't give at the conference, where she

was ten days late in arriving?

Mr. Chairman, I think the

minister has been told to shut up. I think she's been ordered to be

quiet in the House and not answer any of these questions, or she might

get thrown out.

Now I ask the minister directly, through

you, Mr. Chairman: did you hire a consultant to help you prepare a

speech for that particular conference that you missed by ten days?

Mr. Chairman, what kind of response is that? I ask the minister, so we can

get on with other things in this House: did the minister hire a speechwriter

to help prepare her speech for the conference in Manila, at which she arrived

ten days late? If so, how much did it cost us to prepare the speech that wasn't

given?

Mr.

Chairman, it's right under this vote. I've been waiting all through the

estimates to ask her this single question. I've been in order all

along. I've only taken about 30 seconds of time. I've asked a simple

question on behalf of the taxpayers. Did she hire a consultant to

prepare a speech for that conference in Manila, which she missed by ten

days? And if she did hire a consultant to prepare the speech, how much

did it cost?

Can the minister answer just this simple question: did you miss the conference?

Mr.

Chairman, there's nothing in the rules that can require the minister to

respond to questions. But isn't there something akin to British army

rules on dumb insolence?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I advise you that the Chair would find it quite unparliamentary if you're imputing it to another hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Insolence is unparliamentary?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The other expression, "dumb," would be.

MR. BARRETT:

Well, I'm asking for guidance from the Chair. Is there anything that is

akin to the British army regulation against dumb insolence?

The

taxpayers of British Columbia are out there working every day. The

money comes here to Victoria, and it's spent in Manila, in China and

all over the world by that minister, allegedly in performance of her

duty.

In this one time of accountability, once a year, when

the poor taxpayers, through their representatives, ask a few simple

questions about their tax money, we want to know: did the minister

hire, with tax money, a speechwriter to prepare a speech for her, under

this vote, to attend a conference for which she was ten days late when

she arrived? The question, as I understand it, is completely in order,

because it's confined to this vote and directed to whether she hired a

speechwriter to prepare a speech for that conference. I'd be happy with

an answer, Mr. Chairman; that's all I want.

MR. HOWARD: The Premier told her not to answer those questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. We are on vote 188. I might remind the committee that,

with respect to travel, it's a vote we have voted on and passed. We

cannot reflect on a vote that has already gone before the committee.

Can we proceed on vote 188, computer and consulting charges?

MR. BARRETT:

You're absolutely right, Mr. Chairman. I would never make reference to

the thousands of dollars it cost for her to get there. No, I won't make

reference to that. I won't make reference to the money it cost to keep

her there in a hotel room, because that's a different vote. I won't

make reference to expenditures of any staff she may have taken with

her. On this specific vote, I won't mention all those other things. I

just ask this simple question: under this vote, did you hire a

consultant to help you prepare a speech for the conference at which you

arrived ten days after it was cancelled? That's all.

[ Page

5113 ]

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

The member obviously doesn't understand what this vote is about. There

is no way, even if one wanted to hire any type of person relating to

any of the 50 things he's mentioned — you wouldn't do it under this

vote. I would like to help the member, but unless he stays in order and

directs himself to vote 1881 can't help him. I'd like to.

MR. HOWARD: What arrogance!

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Once again, vote 188 provides for payments to the

British Columbia Systems Corporation for data processing and management

consulting services.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition on vote 188.

MR. BARRETT: Does the minister use any of the management consulting services?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: No.

MR. BARRETT:

Will the minister please tell us who in her ministry uses the

management consultant services? You don't use them. Who uses them in

your ministry?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: This is an internal

matter. I'm advised by my assistant deputy that we use management

assistance only as it relates to the system's programming.

MR. BARRETT: Are they outside management consultants, or are they internal consultants that you have to replace salaries for internally?

don't want my answer whispered to the Chair. If you don't know what's

going on in your department, I give you enough time to consult the

people who the taxpayers pay to tell you.

I ask you a simple question. Are these inside consultants or consultants from outside government?

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Vote 188, computer and consulting charges — BCSC data processing and

management consulting services — that's what our vote is. If the member

would like to confine his questions to my vote, I would do everything

possible to assist him. The Chairman has reminded the chamber and

committee over and over again that we must confine ourselves to the

vote which we are debating. I'm doing my very best to assist the

Chairman. I'm doing my very best to assist this House get on with the

business of the people of British Columbia. I think that many of us

have strayed from time to time in the heat of debate, but for my part,

I'm trying to comply with your requests and the rules of this House. I

would say that I'm very concerned about the fact that it's probably

been very costly for the taxpayers to see the House involved in this

sort of debate that doesn't relate to the business at hand.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. minister, confine your remarks to vote 188, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I will accept your guidance, but I refuse to be lectured to by the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will take care of that, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Would you please read the vote again, Mr. Chairman, so we both know what we're talking about.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I think all members are aware of the estimate. The Chair has pointed it

out. For the information of the committee, vote 188 says "computer and

consulting charges." The description following states: "This vote

provides for payments to the British Columbia Systems Corporation for

data processing and management consulting services."

MR. BARRETT:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Specifically related to the management

consulting services under this vote, I ask the minister to tell me

where these management consultants come from. Are they internal, in her

own department? Does she have any management consultants in her own

department under this vote? Does she hire outside management

consultants under this vote, or are they all exclusively from the B.C.

Systems Corporation? If they are, what specific assignments do they do

in her department, under this vote, in conjunction with their charges

from the British Columbia Systems Corporation? That's all in order.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

On a point of order, I respect the leniency of the Chair, but as a

member I would like direction. I see no possible way that we can

stretch the debate that's going on into management. The vote provides

for payment to British Columbia Systems Corporation for data processing

and management consulting services. That is a connection with data

processing.

The hon. member who's just spoken could have

brought this up under vote 186, marketing and advertising. This has

nothing at all to do.... He could even have brought it up under

vote 185.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're entering into debate

now, hon. member. I have read what the vote provides for and the amount

of money that we're being asked to vote the minister, and unless the

minister can advise the Chair that the questions do not pertain to the

department, then the questions are valid.

MR. MUSSALLEM: On the point of order, the Chairman must decide what is valid questioning in the vote before this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Records will show that the Leader of the Opposition has asked questions

with respect to management consulting services, which are listed under

vote 188.

MR. BARRETT: Perhaps the minister is now getting the answers I seek.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

I appreciate the hon. member's patience, but there is no way I want to

stray from the vote, nor is there any way I wish to give the member any

false impression.

The payments under vote 188 are made by

the ministry to the Systems Corporation only. The payment is for the

management consulting from the corporation for the purpose of

developing the systems that we will be using for the services that they

will be providing us. That will be in the research branch. This is new

to our ministry. We will have a number of systems to be developed in a

new way because we are trying not to duplicate research in any way. We

are trying to draw on

[ Page 5114 ]

all

the sources we can, whether it's the federal government, the private

sector or other governments, so that when we initiate research it will

be in an area that is already lacking, or there will be a very specific

purpose for moving into an area where it might be considered

overlapping and I don't anticipate this at the moment. It's in putting

that sort of complex system together that we utilize their management

consultant. As far as I know — and we're checking very carefully to see

if anybody in the ministry might have — we have no reason to suggest

that anybody has in any other area.

MR. BARRETT: Mr.

Chairman, we now have an understanding. The minister says that this

vote deals with the consulting process — management consulting plus the

actual service of the computers — in terms of her ministry's needs as

defined by her ministry and, as I interpret the answer, also to avoid

duplication where other ministries may be seeking information in the

same area from the computer.

I ask the minister, through

you, Mr. Chairman, do you have anybody on your staff who is directly

responsible for the decision-making under this vote in the input of the

computer services? Does that person meet regularly with the management

consulting bureau — either individually or in groups, in government

service or out of government service — and with the B.C. Systems

Corporation structure that sets up this research? Do you have anybody

in your ministry assigned to meet with those management people?

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to reflect on other votes but the member

will notice that there was provision in my budget — and it has passed

in this House — for the position of a director of program and planning

development. We haven't hired that person yet but presumably that will

be the person who will dialogue from our ministry with the Systems

Corporation.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we finally

got to where I want to get to. Through a long process we have an

admission now by the minister that they're going to hire somebody who

presumably will be coordinating the needs of the ministry through what

we've budgeted here. What I'm getting at is that we've got a great big

lump of money in here with the minister now admitting that there is no

one coordinating her ministry, but once they hire someone they possibly

will be doing so. It took me all this time to get to that point and the

point made very well by other members: we're voting on a vote here that

is a pig in a poke because there is no one coordinating what this money

is going to be spent on — not one bit of it.

It's taken 20 minutes of taxpayers' time and money to discover that

this vast sum of money has been thrown here in the budget, and we now have an

admission from the minister that they haven't even hired the person who

— and I use the minister's own words — "presumably" may be supervising

this expenditure. And you ask us to endorse that kind of flipflop floating budget

that has no controls and no accountability. You're spending money all over,

going to conferences that are already over, and then you say in here that "presumably"

there will be somebody looking after this. You're blowing money with no

controls. You arrive in Manila and the conference is over. You made no statement

of what's going on. You have no idea. And then you admit in here after all

this debate on this vote that you haven't hired the person yet. And if you

do, "presumably" that will be the person who supervises for your ministry.

How

did you arrive at this amount with a person in your ministry, who is

not yet hired, "presumably" being the person who supervises? Was it by

licking your finger in the air? Did the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) tell you how much it was going to be? Did the Systems

Corporation send you a letter that said: "Your share will be X"?

Mr.

Chairman, we have exposed again a minister who has admitted in this

House that the sum in there is probably nothing more than a figment of

imagination or a guess figure, because they haven't even hired the

input person for her department who she says may presumably be

supervising those tax dollars.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

we've ever had an admission from a minister in this House on a specific

vote that they don't know what's really going on in their department,

we sure have had a prime example of it here today from that minister.

She doesn't even know when a conference is over but arrives and spends

the taxpayers' money anyway. She arrives in Manila and blows all that

money on airfare for a conference that was cancelled, while people in

British Columbia are going hungry, as the member for Burnaby-Edmonds

(Ms. Brown) pointed out. And then she admits on this vote, Mr.

Chairman, after 25 minutes of questioning that she hasn't yet hired a

person to supervise this vote, and if she does "presumably" they may

have some accountability for this money. It's a scandalous admission of

complete lack of accountability by a minister who was thrown into that

job before there was even legislative permission for her to have it. We

had to clean that up and give her back salary because she'd been

wrongfully appointed — there wasn't room in legislation for her to be

appointed.

Sloppy! Lack of accountability, disregard for the

taxpayer, conferences that don't exist, Manila flights out of nowhere,

and now there's an admission under this vote that there is no one in

her department who supervises the account — they may hire somebody, and

"presumably" they may do it. What kind of an admission is that? You

don't even know, through you, Mr. Chairman, what's going on in your

department, and you're asking us to approve tens of thousands of

hard-earned tax dollars from people in this province. You don't even

have one iota of knowledge of what's going on. You don't! And you say

that you presume that somebody's going to come in and supervise this

money. I'll be darned, Mr. Chairman, if I'm going to lend my vote to

one penny of taxpayers' dollars going into the hands of that minister

when she can't even tell the House what the money is going to be spent

for, how it's going to be spent and where it's going to be used.

Mr.

Chairman, do you not find it significant that the minister sat silent

for all that time before she asked specific questions under this vote?

I do. She had a hunch that she didn't know what was going on in there.

Then she found that her hunch was true. She proved that she didn't know

what was going on in there. How long has the department gone without a

person supervising that money? How was it that the opposition finds

these things out? Oh, yes, Mr. Chairman, I confess. It took me a long

time to get her to admit what I already knew. How long did she know

that that job was vacant that she says will "presumably" do the

supervision of this account? It's a shocking failure by that minister

to protect taxpayers money in this province, It took 25 minutes of

[ Page

5115 ]

prodding, questioning, easing and pushing — all in order, despite

the defense mechanism of that poor battered Whip from Dewdney and other

cabinet ministers. The fact is that no matter how much they try to

cover for that minister, and silly things like going to conferences in

Manila that were already cancelled, she cannot say to this House that

she's got a handle on this vote and can account for every penny. Shame!

goes on through this whole budget and this whole system here. We are

speaking purely of this one vote, and I want to keep it to this one

vote. But others may expand it to other parts of the budget. Not me,

Mr. Chairman. This one vote, this disgraceful performance this

afternoon by the minister (

a) admitting she's not quite sure where the

management consultants come from; (

b) silence on whether or not she got

to Manila ten days late; (

c) admitting that there is no one hired yet

in her department to be directly accountable for this sum of money for

the B.C. Systems Corporation; and (

d) admitting that when they perhaps

hire that person, "presumably" they'll be the one in charge of

taxpayers' dollars. There isn't a business in British Columbia that

says: "Here's a big lump sum of money. Presumably we're going to hire

somebody who will presumably look after it, but please give us the

money anyway." Those people out there who pay the taxes, Mr. Chairman,

are the shareholders of the company of British Columbia. There is a

member of the board of directors. That member of the board of directors

should be fired for incompetence, because she doesn't even know what's

going on in her own department.

All that tax money and you

sit there, Mr. Chairman, with what I must say is a satisfied grin; yet

you are able to sit here in this House and admit that there is no one

in her department who is supervising this. When they hire that person

who's researching it, presumably they'll have the input. Now you go out

and tell that to the people of British Columbia. That's how you're

looking after their taxpayer dollars. You go out and tell the people of

British Columbia that that's what you do to look after all the money

that some people out there working hard — single mothers, who have

another 2 percent on sales tax coming into your department.... And you

can't give accountability. You arrive in Manila at a conference ten

days after it's over.

Mr. Chairman, I've kept right on the

vote. It's taken me 25 minutes to get the following fact out of the

minister: that the money under this vote goes to the B.C. Systems

Corporation. She admits that there's no one in her department that

supervises this money. They hope to hire somebody, and "presumably"

that person will have the input. Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't accept her

presumability. I don't accept her record of arriving at conferences ten

days late. I want a guarantee that if this money is voted in this House

none of it will be wasted.1 don't see how any responsible person could

vote for it unless there's someone who can give accountability, and

that minister hasn't shown one shred of evidence.

MR. LEA:

I'd like to ask a question. I'll only know when the minister tells me

whether it's on this vote or not so I ask for a little bit of latitude.

I don't know whether the person I'm going to refer to was being paid

out of this vote.

The minister fired someone from her

department because she was not pleased with who that person saw

socially in the evenings. I'd like to know from the minister whether

that person was being paid under this vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the conduct of any staff member outside.... As the hon.

member can appreciate, I'm having some difficulty in relating this to

either this vote or anything else.

MR. LEA: A staff

member who worked for the minister was fired. I know that person was

fired because the minister didn't approve of who that person was seeing

socially. What I'm asking is: was that person fired out of money under

this vote?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Not having any other

information, you may proceed. We can ask questions, but we cannot

insist on answers. On vote 188, the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: To give the minister an opportunity to reflect, I move that the Chairman now leave the chair.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

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

Journals of the House.

MR. LEA: I have one question to the minister before we conclude. Does the minister have anything to declare?

MR. COCKE: I asked a rather simple question, Mr. Chairman. She answered me, and I want to thank her.

Vote 188 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

On vote 10: minister's office, $160,971.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, I know that we'll be able to proceed with my estimates in

an orderly fashion. They will probably go through fairly expeditiously

this afternoon and we might possibly wind up by tomorrow. In the

[ Page 5116 ]

lateness

of the hour I'd just like to make a few comments and then attempt to do

my best to answer any questions. I would advise the members of the

House that I've had my staff on red alert since 10 o'clock this

morning, but at 4:45 p.m. I suggested to them that they could go home.

If there are some questions I can't answer tonight, Mr. Chairman, my

staff will be here with me tomorrow morning.

First of all I

have a few opening remarks. As the members know, my responsibilities

cover the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Agricultural Land

Commission and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. I would

assume that under my minister's vote we would be discussing these three

areas of responsibility, and I'd be pleased to respond to any questions

on them.

The estimates give the minister the opportunity to

respond on the activities of his ministry for the past year and, of

course, to outline programs and activities for the coming year for

which the estimates are voted. Looking back on the year 1980, I can say

that it was a good year for agriculture. All sectors of the

agricultural community have shown growth. My staff have sent

information to various agencies and to members information regarding

the growth of agriculture in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member for Cowichan-Malahat mentions that she hasn't received one, and I apologize for that.

MRS. WALLACE: I said: "Don't display it."

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, it's not an exhibit.

Mr.

Chairman, I'd just like to touch on a few items in that fact sheet. The

economic indicators show growth in population of British Columbia that

has increased since 1977 — and this document relates to a four-year

period — by 6 percent. We've attempted over the past years to develop a

plan or a strategy to become more self-sufficient in food production.

As the members opposite will know, we set a target in 1976 to achieve

65 percent self-sufficiency by 1985. It's a tough target to meet, and

we haven't seen the growth I would like to see, except we have been

able to meet the population increase in this province. Although our

percentage of market penetration hasn't increased substantially, we

have been able to meet that population growth of 6 percent over the

past four years.

The number of farms in the province has

increased by 5 percent over the past four years. In 1977 we had 19,800

farms in British Columbia. We now have 20,800. That's an increase of 5

percent over four years,

whereas across Canada the number of farms has

decreased by 2 percent. We've had a growth of 5 percent in lands

brought under cultivation in British Columbia. Across Canada the

increase has been nil. Again, our agriculture industry is expanding.

We're putting m