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)

TUESDAY, JULY 7, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6583 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 34). Hon. Mr. Fraser.

Introduction and first reading –– 6583

Offence Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 33). Hon. Mr. Williams

Introduction and first reading –– 6583

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Municipal Affairs annual report, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 6583

Legislative Assembly Allowances And Pension Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 35). Hon.

Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 6583

An Act Respecting The Commercial Use Of Lie Detectors (Bill M219). Mr. Leggatt.

Introduction and first reading –– 6583

Oral Questions

Dismissal of Nola Landucci. Ms. Sanford –– 6584

Mr. King

Detoxification centre. Mr. Lauk –– 6584

Possible closing of PNE buildings. Mr. Macdonald –– 6585

Mr. Barrett

Victoria-Seattle Jetfoil Service. Mr. Barber –– 6585

College Funding.

Hon. Mr. Smith replies –– 6585

Committee of Supply: Premier's Office estimates. (Hon. Mr. Bennett)

On vote 9 –– 6586

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Passarell

Mr. King

Mr. Barrett

Division on an amendment

Legislative Assembly Allowances And Pension Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 35). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 6599

Legislative Assembly Allowances And Pension Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 35). Com-

mittee stage.

Third reading –– 6599

Committee of Supply: Office of the Ombudsman estimates. (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

On vote 6: office of the ombudsman –– 6599

Mr. King

Mrs. Dailly

Ms. Brown

Mr. Barber

Supply Act, No –– 3, 1981 (Bill 29). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 6601

Supply Act, No –– 3, 1981 (Bill 29). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 6602

Mr. Stupich –– 6602

Division –– 6603

Supply Act, No. 3, 1981 (Bill 29). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Third reading –– 6603

An Act To Prevent Uranium Exploration And Mining (Bill M201). Second reading.

Mr. Passarell –– 6604

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 6605

Royal assent to bills –– 6605

Tabling Documents

B.C. Racing Commission annual report, 1980

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6606

Legal Services Society annual report, 1981

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6606

Justice Development Commission annual report, 1980 and 1981

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6606

B.C. Police Commission annual report, 1980

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6606

Corrections branch annual report, 1980

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6606

Privacy Act annual report, 1980, and supplementary reports, 1975 to 1979 inclusive

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6606

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Today in the House, and visiting us not for the first time, are Mr. and

Mrs. David Russell of Port Alberni. Mr. Russell has the distinction of

having developed the very first international time chart. This is a

very special calendar which covers dates from January 1, year one, ad

infinitum. This time-measuring instrument carries on where others, such

as watches and clocks, leave off. It concerns itself with days, weeks,

months, years and centuries, and was designed to be useful for

determining any date or weekday of the past, present or future. The

international time chart is a Canadian product intended for global use.

It has the ability to be useful to all future generations, and the

answers to every calendarical problem can be found in this document.

Mr.

Russell very kindly presented the international time chart, which was

his dream for many years, and on which he has worked for many years, to

the provincial government this morning. This is the first presentation

after his presentation to the federal administration, and he hopes to

present one to each and every parliament across the nation. I am very

pleased then that I was able to receive this on behalf of the

government of British Columbia, and I would ask the House to welcome

Mr. and Mrs. David Russell.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Today I

have the pleasure of introducing to the Legislature Mrs. Pat Blight,

who over the years has been of invaluable assistance to me in my

riding; her guest, Miss Harriet Conroy, who is constituency assistant;

and Mr. Floyd Laughren, MPP for Nickel Belt. I ask the House to join me

in welcoming them.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I have two

guests from Richmond today. I would like the House to welcome Jean and

Michael Sweeney. As well as being Richmond residents, they're the

parents of Deborah Sweeney, who is with Selkirk News.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, today we have two visitors from the city of Prince Rupert:

Alderman Dan Miller and my constituency secretary, Gayle Ballard.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, I was very sorry indeed to hear from the lady member for

Cowichan–Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) that the former member who represented

that constituency for many, many years and was the leader of the

official opposition, Robert Strachan, is under the weather and is

receiving treatment in Victoria. I know that all members of the

assembly would like to express their very best wishes to Bob and to

Mrs. Annie Strachan for his speedy recovery, and also to say that our

thoughts are with both of them. It would be most appreciated, I'd say,

Mr. Speaker, if you'd convey these sentiments to Mr. and Mrs. Strachan.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, we are most appreciative of those statements by the House

Leader, and we welcome his suggestion to pass on regards. He in turn

has passed regards back to this House. No matter how things are going,

he's still got his eye on us, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr.

Ree), I introduce two students from North Vancouver, Michelle Leiren,

whose father is well known in these precincts, and her friend Jill

Allan.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, from the great Royal City, New Westminster, I would like to have the House warmly welcome Mr. and Mrs. Parkin.

MR. RICHMOND:

Mr. Speaker, visiting today in the members' gallery are two very good

friends, Mr. and Mrs. Huubert Heeskins, from Nijmegen, Holland. They

are seated with my wife Patricia. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have some friends from Central

Fraser Valley, Vicki and Dave Schmidt, to whom I'd like you to extend a

welcome, and also Dr. Craig Seaton and his son. I'd like to

particularly mention his son Jeff because he is a leading scorer on our

local soccer team, and also a leading pitcher in this past year.

Introduction of Bills

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

Hon. Mr. Fraser presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1981.

Bill

34 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.

OFFENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a

bill intituled Offence Amendment Act, 1981.

Bill

33 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.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm tabled the 1980 annual report of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ALLOWANCES

AND PENSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Amendment Act, 1981.

Bill 35 introduced and read a first time.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, by leave, I move that the bill be read a second time later today.

Leave granted.

AN ACT RESPECTING THE COMMERCIAL

USE OF LIE DETECTORS

On a motion by Mr. Leggatt, Bill M219,

An Act Respecting the Commercial Use of Lie Detectors, 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.

[ Page 6584 ]

Hon. Mr. Williams tabled the annual report of the Ministry of the Attorney-General for the year ending March 31, 1981.

Oral Questions

DISMISSAL OF NOLA LANDUCCI

MS. SANFORD:

I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In early June this year

the then human rights director Nola Landucci was quoted as saying that

direction from the minister's office was sorely lacking, and that her

case workers were victims of what she called "the mushroom syndrome:

kept in the dark and fed manure." Can the minister confirm that these

statements were directly related to Miss Landucci's dismissal?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I'm not sure whether or not the former director of the human rights

branch did say that. It seems to me I may have read it somewhere, but

it would never come back to me. Those were not the reasons. With

respect to that matter I might say that the severance is now being

negotiated between counsel for the province and Ms. Landucci's counsel.

MS. SANFORD:

That's very interesting. I'm wondering if the minister can advise if

she is still under any sort of contract with the government.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I cannot advise the House one way or the other with respect to whether

or not there is an existing contract. Suffice it to say that Ms.

Landucci is no longer the acting director.

MS. SANFORD: The minister mentioned that she was the acting director, but I believe she was the director until a few days ago.

next question: since the minister was very remiss in appointing a

director of the human rights branch, I'm wondering if he can assure the

House at this time that he will take the necessary steps to replace Ms.

Landucci immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: The second part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the matter of replacing the former director is going to be actively considered by the government.

MR. KING:

A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Labour is the minister

bound to uphold the laws of the province which provide for just cause

before the dismissal of workers in the province of British Columbia. Is

the minister prepared to share with the House what he deemed to be just

cause for the termination of Ms. Landucci?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, I'm not prepared to divulge that to the House.

DETOXIFICATION CENTRE

MR. LAUK:

To the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. I've been informed by

high-ranking officials of the city of Vancouver police department that

the new detoxification centre on Great Northern Way has been so badly

constructed that they would be loath to place persons arrested for

intoxication in that facility. I asked the question before, as some

hon. member has suggested. Before the House adjourns, I was hoping the

minister would take action to bring the detoxification centre up to

proper standards to relieve the tremendous pressure on the Vancouver

drunk tank.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I don't have all of the

information, but I have received some with respect to that. The

standards of the new detoxification centre are not meant to duplicate

the standards which are required for a lockup or a jail or a drunk

tank, or whatever other name may be given to such a thing. If the

member is familiar with some of the

definitions that the city uses, the

jail lockup or drunk tank has a B1 standard, whatever that might mean.

The detoxification centre is B2, and I gather the difference is that no

one is to be locked in a room.... Therefore the standards are

different. I am advised that they meet all the necessary standards

under that category of B2. Perhaps you have different information.

MR. LAUK:

First of all, both the minister's predecessors, in speaking of the new

detoxification centre, said it would be a facility to relieve the

drunk-tank facility. B2 means, evidently, that it's okay to put your

fists through a gyproc wall. I am informed that the walls are so thin

that patients there would be able to put their fists through many of

the walls. Now in that situation you can't have any kind of an

overnight detoxification facility that would relieve the drunk tank, as

announced by your government. Can the minister inform the House of the

cost of the detoxification centre to date?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I don't have that information before me, Mr. Speaker. In response, I am

also advised that it was not intended to replace the drunk tank with

this detoxification centre, and that there will be classification of

those people who may be arrested or apprehended by the police. If the

arresting officer or other police officials feel any of them would be

violent, or cause such damage, they would probably remain in the drunk

tank rather than be transferred to the detoxification centre. But I

don't know what the cost is to date.

MR. LAUK: Both

Rafe Mair and the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) in the

capacity of Minister of Health indicated that that facility was to

relieve the drunk-tank facilities, which are in a scandalous situation.

People are dying there because of overcrowding. How much money will now

be required to bring the facility up to standard?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I don't know precisely what moneys would be necessary if it were to be

brought up to the standard of a drunk tank, which I don't believe was

the intent. I believe it's correct to say that the detoxification

centre intent was to relieve, not replace, the drunk tank. Relief will

be offered when some of the people who would otherwise be occupying

space in the drunk tank may be transferred to the detoxification

centre. I don't think it will completely depopulate the drunk tank.

MR. LAUK: The city police refuse to put anyone in there, so it won't relieve the drunk tank.

Has

the minister commenced an action on behalf of the government against

the contractors for the construction of this detoxification centre?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

No, we have not. If the information and evidence is that the contractor

has not met the standards or requirements of that building, I am

confident that the ministry would then seek compensation, or whatever,

to bring it up to such standards. In a preliminary report I am

[ Page 6585 ]

advised

that it meets B2 standards. Perhaps that is upon examination of the

plans or terms. It may not be the result of a physical examination. But

that will be carried out.

POSSIBLE CLOSING OF PNE BUILDINGS

MR. MACDONALD:

I have a question for the Provincial Secretary and Minister of

Government Services. As the Provincial Secretary knows, because Mr.

Erwin Swangard has approached him several times in the past two or

three years, the Showmart Building at the PNE is not up to code

standards. The result is that the Forum is going to be closed to 800

minor hockey players early in September. Has the minister decided to

intervene? Because these players have nowhere to go.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I have been very much aware of this problem and have been in touch with

Mr. Swangard. I don't think it's a fact that these teams will be

removed. The matter is under review. A special study is being made of

the Showmart Building as to what needs to be done in the immediate

future. There's a matter of safety involved. I think the associations

or teams involved have not been formally advised that they will have to

move to other quarters. If that becomes necessary for an interim

period, the PNE would find other facilities for them.

MR. MACDONALD:

I have a supplementary. I'm glad the minister is looking into this

matter as an emergency. Are there any other possibilities that the

minister is examining as to where the trade exhibits could be exhibited

other than the Showmart Building and the Forum? Because there should be

alternatives that could be explored.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

The whole matter of that and other buildings is under extensive study,

Mr. Speaker. Until we get further information on that, it would be

difficult to comment further. As you may well be aware, the board of

the Pacific National Exhibition wanted to get a guarantee for some

funding for upgrading their facilities. A study has been undertaken to

see what needs to be done from a public safety point of view to that

and other buildings.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, since

all these youngsters are in the East End of the city and have

difficulty in terms of travel costs and uniform costs, can the minister

assure us and the team coaches who have been in touch with the minister

and the MLAs that some alternative program will be worked out to ensure

that these youngsters in the East End will have ice time for their

important programs?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I'm

very much aware of the extensive use to which the Forum has been put by

these amateur teams. I have already advised those who have communicated

with me through their association that I'll be closely monitoring the

situation in terms of this study that's being made to see what can be

done.

VICTORIA-SEATTLE JETFOIL SERVICE

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the minister responsible for the B.C.

Development Corporation. How much money did the jetfoil lose last year?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, I believe the final

report of the British Columbia Development Corporation was distributed

to all members this morning.

MR. BARBER: Our research

office looked in it and couldn't find any specific answer to that

question, so I ask you today: how much money did the jetfoil lose last

year?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I don't think

it's the minister's responsibility to read the report for him. I would

suggest that you update your research people, because the answer is

certainly in the report.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, can

the minister confirm that an operating advance made to Flying Princess

Transportation Corp. In the amount of $550,000 has not been repaid by

that company? This is the company that operated the jetfoil.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, I'll be happy to take that question as notice.

MR. BARBER:

Can the minister inform the House whether or not it is the case that

the $1.9 million loan guarantee made to Flying Princess by the B.C.

Development Corporation and executed by Flying Princess — which is to

say that the money was used — has also not been repaid by the company?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I know that the member who asked the question doesn't really have any

legal background, but I think that the question certainly has some

connotations as to whether the advance was repaid or whether it was

written off. I would suggest that if the Development Corporation

handled the jetfoil service as a loss, we wouldn't say that the loan

was either repaid or not repaid, because it was written off.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to answer two questions that I took as notice on June 29?

MR. SPEAKER: These were taken as notice in question period?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes they were.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

COLLEGE FUNDING

HON. MR. SMITH:

I was asked by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) on June 29 about a

program for the mentally disabled in Powell River. For the information

of that member and the House I have ascertained that there were indeed

courses for the mentally disabled operated by Malaspina College at

Powell River, Duncan and Nanaimo. These courses did not apply to the

Ministry of Education for funding, but were funded from a number of

sources. My information is that the course in Powell River will

continue this year, hon. member, but it will continue as a part-time

and not as a full-time course. It will have a student enrolment of 12

or more. It will operate on a part-time basis in each of those

locations.

[ Page 6586 ]

The

second question I took as notice was a question from the member for

Burnaby–Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who asked me about the disbursement of

moneys for the program for the International Year of Disabled Persons.

She asked me if I could confirm that requests for $12 million in grants

had been received for the $3 million program. Indeed, she is correct.

In fact, she is conservative, because the requests for grants totalled

$12.9 million. The grants that will be allocated will be somewhere

between $2.3 million and $2.4 million, depending on the funds

available. The balance of the International Year funds were set aside

for the contract for administration the Canadian Paraplegic Association

had, and for public information and public involvement. If there are

sufficient funds to expend $2.4 million in grants, that will be

expended. It will be over $2.3 million in any event. I thank the member

for her question.

MR. HANSON: On a question of

privilege, Mr. Speaker, some time ago I introduced a private member's

bill entitled

An Act to Establish an Institute of Native Indian

Languages for British Columbia. Through some inadvertence this bill has

not been printed. My understanding is that bills on the order paper may

be called today. I am at a disadvantage in speaking on this bill.

Legislative Counsel and the Queen's Printer are attempting to print it

in time for such a debate. I would just like the Speaker to take under

advisement the disadvantage I find myself in at this point and to

facilitate the printing of it so it could be addressed here in the

House.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll ask for the opinion of the

House. Perhaps, if the bill arrives sometime during the course of the

afternoon, it could be distributed.

MR. HOWARD: With

respect to the subject matter raised by the second member for Victoria,

assuming that the bill does not arrive, I wonder if Your Honour might

not consider a photocopy of the original bill as it was tabled as being

equivalent to printing. I'm looking at standing order 79, which says

that no bill should be read a second time until it has been printed and

distributed.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the House could even express its wish at that time.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, some days ago both the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall)

and I raised an important question under standing order 15...

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: ...and I want to thank Hansard for putting it in the Blues.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, before calling the committee I would just mention to the

hon. members that they will recall that the hon. member for North Peace

River (Mr. Brummet) obtained a signature from every member of the

assembly to the message of congratulations and best wishes to His Royal

Highness Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer upon their forthcoming

marriage, and members requested photocopies of this historic document.

I am pleased to say that they are today on your desks. I am also given

to understand that this document was also delivered to the Royal

Secretary in London today.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

On vote 9: Premier's office, $664,544.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, I'll only be three hours. I want to deal with a couple of

issues under the Premier's estimates and bring to his attention

something that is of great concern to the people of the city of

Vancouver, not only to the constituency of Vancouver Centre. I realize

that the Premier is carrying on a discussion with the Minister of

Finance, but I wanted to discuss two most important issues with him

involving the city of Vancouver. One is B.C. Place, and the other is

the ward system of government in Vancouver.

Firstly, I'll be

very brief on B.C. Place. It's been the effort of many good people in

the city of Vancouver in discussing housing on that site with Mr. Narod

and other individuals involved with B.C. Place, Transpo and other

projects that there be an allowance and a plan for social and public

housing. Another word for describing this kind of housing is

"affordable" housing. In my discussions with some of the officials it

is clear that on instructions from the Premier himself they will be

developing this site for a maximum payback for the provincial

government's investment. That would normally be laudable, except that

the negligence of this government over the past six years with respect

to housing has placed people in the city of Vancouver in such dire

straits, both to rent and to buy accommodation, that it is incumbent

upon the government to provide some plan, particularly in the core of

the city, to make affordable housing available to ordinary people.

Every

proper regional plan for the city of Vancouver has included housing for

the people that are employed in the core of the city. This will relieve

the tremendous transit problems that are faced by the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. This will allow individuals to work and live within

the same general locality without a tremendous expense on the public

purse for either transit, highways or other needless costs when we can

avoid some of that unnecessary travel by allowing affordable housing in

the region.

I have reviewed the plans with B.C. Place officials, and I have gone over some of the details....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

I don't think I am going to give you the specific names, but you can be

content to correct them if they're wrong. But of all of the plans that

have been established, Mr. Chairman, I see no opportunity — because of

Narod's specific instructions from the Premier — that there must be a

maximum payback to the province. Therefore there's a high density ratio

being planned per acre. The accommodation will be expensive and will be

available only to those people who are desirous of luxury or

near-luxury accommodation within the core of the city. I fear the

Premier and his government are establishing a plan of housing in the

city of Vancouver which will make it an exclusive region available to

very few people — so few, I fear, that the plan may even of itself

fail, because I don't know how many people can be found to purchase

such accommodation.

[ Page 6587 ]

Secondly,

affordable housing has to be available at all levels of income within

the city. I wonder if the Premier knows what the average stenographer

or secretary in B.C. Hydro or in the Bentall building makes. I wonder

if he knows what the average bellhop or waiter makes in the downtown

city core. I wonder if he knows how most of the office people pay their

way and try to live in a city. It's important that they live within the

core of the city, because most of them can't even qualify for a car

loan. Not all of us are rich millionaires, and not all of us can afford

to live in luxurious accommodation, or in expensive accommodation

outside the city and travel easily into the city.

These

aspects have not been adequately dealt with, and I'm going to bring

them to the attention of the people of the city of Vancouver in the

hope that they will write letters to the Premier and to the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) to try to achieve a better plan for B.C.

Place. B.C. Place is not just a profit-making adventure; it's a

government enterprise. The government has by its own negligence created

the housing problem, so it should have special plans for affordable

housing. They don't have at present.

Now on to wards. I've

read with a great deal of pain letters from the second member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and the second member for

Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) — that's the Provincial Secretary

and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs — and one letter

from the chairman of the parks board in the city of Vancouver. I want

to deal forcefully with the points raised by those three gentlemen and

ask the Premier whether or not he was the person who killed the ward

bill. I say that because it seems to me that the statements made by the

three gentlemen I've just mentioned are so inconsistent, flying in the

face of the previous commitments that they had given to the ward

system, that it must have been the Premier himself who overruled their

wishes and killed the ward bill before it could even get on the floor

of this chamber for second reading.

A letter signed by Evan

Wolfe, MLA for Vancouver Little Mountain, claimed that a ward system

would be too costly. Throughout his letter he did not provide a

scintilla of evidence as to what extra cost there would be in

establishing a ward system in the city of Vancouver. As a result, I

investigated through the city hall and the officials and civil servants

there. I've also contacted other city governments that have a ward

system and that at one time had an at-large system. The bulk of the

replies that I received indicated very clearly that there was no

difference in cost; because there were advantages in cost to one system

and advantages to the other, they balanced themselves out. Obviously

the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain did not do his homework

with respect to whether the ward system would cost more. His letter,

therefore, in that respect is wrong.

He said that the

public did not vote for the details of the bill that eventually came

before the private bills committee. Well, Mr. Chairman, there was a

plebiscite in which the people voted in favour of a ward system of

government. I wonder if the Premier could answer me, on behalf of the

second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, who is not here. Was there

a referendum on the Eckardt commission and its boundaries? Perhaps the

first member for Vancouver Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) could

provide you with that answer. Did anyone in the city of Vancouver vote

to do away with an entire riding involving two seats? Did the people of

the city of Vancouver vote approval of the so-called Gracie's Finger

into the Quilchena area and in Vancouver–Little Mountain? Was there any

approval by the Vancouver voters for that? Were the Vancouver voters

consulted on any aspect of the boundary changes provided by the Eckardt

royal commission? Yet the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain

is arguing that each and every minute detail — not just boundary

changes — be put before the people of the city of Vancouver by way of

plebiscite.

This is the arrogance of power, Mr. Chairman.

The people of the city of Vancouver, in respect to municipal

government, want home rule. They do not want interference by the

provincial government in this arrogant, paternalistic way. I remind the

Premier that in his constitutional debate he argued with the federal

government that they are taking away rights from provincial

jurisdictions. He argued that the provinces have an equal say. Yet he

turns around and kills the ward bill which was legitimately

required.... The Premier shakes his head, but I know for a fact that

the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain and the second member

for Vancouver South were in favour of this system — particularly the

member for Vancouver South, and as soon as he reached cabinet he

changed his mind. What made him change his mind? The Premier is the

president of the executive council. He should not have overruled the

member in that way.

What I'm saying is that there was a

plebiscite in favour of a ward system. There was an election battle

last November. The ward issue was the clearest issue of the election

battle; the people spoke with great clarity when they voted a

predominance in council in favour of a ward system. Yet in this

government's arrogance, the Provincial Secretary's letter to the editor

said: "You've got to vote on each and every detail." What nonsense! Did

we have a referendum or a plebiscite on whether we should hire Doug

Heal or whether we should use taxpayers' money to do a showmanship-type

job on the cabinet, to make films of them at taxpayers' expense? Did we

have a plebiscite to measure whether or not the cutbacks in college

budgets should be made? Did we hold plebiscites or referendums? This is

what the Provincial Secretary is calling for. Did we have a plebiscite

or referendum to vote on a tax increase to increase the sales tax on

ordinary people? No, the government in its lack of wisdom voted that

increase without consultation at all. As a matter of fact, the Premier

went against his own promise on tax increases.

In his letter

to the editor, the Provincial Secretary goes on to say that a simple

majority vote in city council was not enough and that there should be a

two-thirds vote to change the boundaries and to elect for a ward system

of government. This is after a plebiscite and a municipal election that

approved the ward issue. How about a two-thirds vote in this House, Mr.

Chairman? I'll even be satisfied with a two-thirds vote in this House

on electoral reform only. Would the Premier agree with that? The

Provincial Secretary calls upon the city for a two-thirds vote. By

doing that, he's showing disrespect for the elected members on the

council. If it's good enough for the city of Vancouver, why isn't it

good enough for the Legislature of the province of British Columbia?

Let's have a two-thirds vote in this House on electoral reform and

constituency boundaries.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please,

hon. member. I'm sure the member appreciates that the Chair has given

some latitude on matters that clearly involve legislation. We are

discussing the estimates of the Premier's office and the administrative

actions thereof. I'm sure the member fully realizes that this is

neither the time nor the place to discuss legislative needs.

[ Page 6588 ]

MR. LAUK:

I'm not calling for legislative action. I'm asking the Premier about

policy, Mr. Chairman. The rule is that I have to call for legislative

changes. I'm not calling for legislative changes, nor am I dealing with

legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are allowed to discuss neither legislation nor the need for legislation.

MR. LAUK:

I'm not saying either. I'm asking what is the policy of this government

with respect to two-thirds votes at municipal levels. I'm dealing with

a statement by one of the members of cabinet.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I'm sure the hon. member will realize as well that he is now engaging

in discussion on a matter that has been before us on the order paper.

Clearly, hon. member, that falls within the purview.... I would ask the

member to confine his remarks to the administrative responsibilities of

the Premier.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm

dealing with an issue that is important to the people of the city of

Vancouver. Their wishes have been flouted by an arrogant government.

They've had back-of-the-hand treatment by this Premier and this cabinet

with respect to legitimate issues.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

member, notwithstanding the views and feelings of the member, the

discussion in which the member is engaged is not in order under the

estimates of the Premier and the rules that bind us in Committee of

Supply.

MR. LAUK: I'm suggesting that this Premier

overruled the wishes of some cabinet members with respect to the ward

bill. I want to know his opinion on the ward system. I'm entitled to

know that from the first minister of this province. Are we to cut off

debate on every aspect of the ward bill? Are we going to cut off debate

on the legitimate requirements and requests of the city of Vancouver?

Mr. Chairman, that's a terrible thing indeed.

The Provincial

Secretary suggested that the municipal council should pass all

electoral reform by a two-thirds vote. Well, Mr. Chairman, you were in

this House. Did we pass the Eckardt commission by a two-thirds vote?

Did we approve the boundary changes in Vancouver–Little Mountain by a

two-thirds vote? Not on your life. Why don't we have a two thirds vote

on enumeration of voters in this province? The selective enumeration

process under this government is a national scandal. Why don't we vote

to improve the enumeration of voters in this province by a two-thirds

vote in this House?

In his letter to the editor, the

Provincial Secretary went on to say that it's too bad that we can't

have a ward system in the city of Vancouver because of only one

alderman per ward; and if you didn't get successful treatment from that

one alderman, you'd have to go to the next ward and see that alderman.

This House is elected through a form of constituency representation.

That seems to be okay for the government of the day, as far as

provincial representation is concerned, but not for the city of

Vancouver. Again, it is arrogance and a centralized government approach.

I won't deal any more with the Provincial Secretary's letter to the

editor, but I do want to deal with the letter to the editor from the Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and to ask the Premier whether that's

consistent with government policy. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

claims that the mayor of the city of Vancouver refused to amend the Vancouver

Charter in accordance with the committee's wishes — which we all know was

not true. That minister was there; he should know better. They did agree to

amend the charter amendments from two-thirds to a 50 percent majority vote on

council. It's interesting to note that shortly after, with a relative degree

of silence — the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) knows this

— from the Provincial Secretary, the Provincial Secretary followed up with a

letter to the editor saying we wanted two-thirds. What nonsense.

The

suggestion of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was that

the city wouldn't accept any amendments. Well, none were offered. The

committee members didn't make any amendments. They just voted the bill

down and killed it in committee. That's a scandal. The second member

for Vancouver South again says that the park commissioners were against

the wards. They weren't. The park commissioners were consulted. The

parks board said: "The majority of us are against wards. But if the

council's going to be elected by wards, we want to be elected by wards

too." That was the report before the committee. It was a

misrepresentation in the letter by the second member for Vancouver

South where he said that the Parks Board was not consulted. If the

parks board itself — a minor board in the city of Vancouver — is

against wards, and it flies in the face of the plebiscite and the last

civic election, are we to be controlled by the Parks Board? Is it to

dictate to city council and to the Legislature? I say it is not, Mr.

Chairman. There's been a clear reneging on a promise on the part of the

second member for Vancouver South, who indicated his support of the

ward system and the ward bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

member, again I must draw to your attention that the course of argument

the member is now engaged in does not fall within the purview of the

guidelines which affect us in Committee of Supply. I'm sure the hon.

member upon reflection will agree that unless he can relate this in

some direct manner to the estimates of vote 9 presently before us, it's

very difficult for the Chair to permit him to continue on this

particular line of discussion.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr.

Chairman, the government has consistently abused the rules of this

House to prevent the legitimate debate of this issue in this chamber.

The member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan), the chairman of that

committee, refused to move adoption of his own report to prevent debate

in this Legislative Assembly. That's a scandal, when the chairman of a

Select standing committee refuses to do the honourable thing and move

adoption of his own report for debate in this chamber. He refused to do

it. We've been stifled. It's muzzling debate of the opposition on a

legitimate issue for the people of the city of Vancouver.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the discussion that the member is now engaged in, unless

it can be directly related to vote 9.... The Chair does not have the

parameters allowing him....

MR. LAUK: Nobody objected.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair's objecting, hon. member. We must bear in mind the fact that we can discuss the

[ Page 6589 ]

administrative

actions of a department, but the necessity for legislation and matters

involving legislation cannot be discussed in the Committee of Supply.

MR. LAUK: I'm not discussing legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clearly, hon. member, it is the understanding of the Chair....

MR. LAUK:

I'm asking the leader of the government to intervene in an important

issue facing the people of the city of Vancouver. Where else am I to

go? The Premier's estimates — that's the only time in the Legislative

Assembly when I can ask the leader of the government to intervene for

the people of Vancouver, who want home rule. That's what it is. Why

should they be dictated to by this iron-fisted government? They have

voted in a plebiscite in favour of the ward system. They voted in a

civic election in favour of the ward system. The council voted for a

ward system, and they came over here and got short shrift — with the

second member for Vancouver South reneging on his promise and turning

his back on the people who elected him to this chamber in the first

place.

Mr. Chairman, I ask the Premier through you to

intervene and allow the bill to be called this afternoon without any

further ado, and have it pass second and third reading. Let the people

of the city of Vancouver have a ward election system which is their

due. To do anything else is a mark of disrespect for the very

democratic system which elected that government in the first place. To

do anything else is to ignore the legitimate wishes of the people of

the city of Vancouver in a high-handed and very right-wing manner that

we have not seen in this province for a long time. No charter amendment

of that significance has ever been turned back by a government in the

history of the province of British Columbia. There were plenty of

charter amendments brought before this chamber when the current

Premier's father was Premier. He never turned them back, because they

were the legitimate requests of the city council and the people of the

city of Vancouver. Now for the first time in the history of this

province, we have a government which arrogantly and in a right-wing

fashion says local government is out of the question.

I also

want to raise one other question. The Premier made a statement in his

own constituency. He said: "Local government for school education is

costly, and the more local control over education the costlier it

gets." It was a back-handed threat, Mr. Chairman, that if you're going

to have local government and local control over education the province

is going to contribute less and less toward your education costs.

That's what he meant by it, and that's a scandal too, because it is an

indication by the Premier of this province that he cares not for local

government.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's ridiculous.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Municipal Affairs says it's ridiculous.

Here's the man who stands up for local government. That's the man who

defended school boards, municipalities and regional districts. He's a man

who tries to centralize control, and he's just playing the same game as

the Premier of this province: to destroy local autonomy. W.A. C. Bennett used

to say that the best government was the government closest to the people. This

government has done everything possible to destroy that basic philosophy which

all British Columbians of every political stripe have argued for throughout

our history. It takes this Premier and this government to destroy that sacred

belief that we've had all these years.

That

statement about local school costs was a cynical statement indeed, and

it was a statement designed to send the message to the ordinary people:

there'll be no more local government under us; we're taking all

control. I'm certainly glad that the planning act of the Minister of

Municipal Affairs isn't before us today. That was a tremendous example

of Soviet rule in the province of British Columbia — how to bring about

totalitarian rule and destroy local government. That's the kind of

thing that happens in this chamber and has been happening since 1976,

since this government took office. I argue again, Mr. Chairman, that

the Premier should take a second look and pull back from this

destruction of an opportunity for people to govern themselves at the

local level according to their own needs.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I have been listening very intently to what the first member for

Vancouver Centre had to say. I will deal with it not in order but,

first, with an incorrect assumption which he has made. Members of this

Legislature from all sides of the House serve on legislative committees

as individual members. The membership dealing with the submission from

the city of Vancouver was made up of individual members of this House,

and I don't give direction to any of those members. They make their own

decisions, they vote their own consciences, and the member was totally

incorrect in making his assumption. I hope that nobody reading Hansard

or listening to the debate would believe otherwise, because if they did

so they would be incorrect. The Premier of the province forced no

member to change his mind nor overruled any member in regard to the way

he considered the application by the city of Vancouver. This would not

normally come under my vote, but I do say that each member who chooses

to vote in that committee and wishes to expand on the reasons for his

vote is free to do so and needs no defence from me.

However,

I will say that this government is close to the people of British

Columbia. In fact, the many letters that I get from Vancouver say this

government is closer to the people than any government they have in the

city of Vancouver. They talk about this government finally, with no

assistance from the other side — in fact, with opposition — undertaking

the greatest downtown redevelopment that has been undertaken in North

America: British Columbia Place. I answered that this morning. The

first member for Vancouver Centre, who's against the project, used to

speak against it, ridicule it, laugh at it. Mr. Chairman, B.C. Place

will be a tremendous benefit to the city of Vancouver, the people of

Vancouver and the people of British Columbia. I want to say that B.C.

Place will have public places and housing, and it will have all facets

of enterprise for people, both public and private, plus accommodation.

Ten thousand people could be accommodated within that general area, and

that housing will be developed at today's costs. What the member is

asking, though, is whether B.C. Place as an overall development is

going to subsidize, through its profits, any tenant, commercial or

housing. The answer is no. If accommodation subsidies are required by

people in this province, whether it be for the purchase of housing, or

for rentals, such as we have for the elderly renter in this province,

where we deal not with bricks and mortar, but with people, and maintain

them with rental

[ Page 6590 ]

assistance in the accommodation of their choice or with which they're familiar....

believe that people move to accommodation, and government programs can

assist them. There are provincial programs now that assist people with

their rent in various parts. We don't designate areas and say: "All you

that have to be subsidized shall live there, and you shall live there."

I don't agree with that concept of making certain types of

neighbourhoods, as is being advocated by the member for Vancouver

Centre. That's what he's saying. He says he wants only people in there

who are going to get subsidized rent or subsidized housing. I don't

agree with that. I agree that you have an opportunity for every person

who wishes to live in downtown Vancouver if they can have accommodation

made available and if they qualify as individuals for any of the

existing provincial or federal programs, or if the city of Vancouver is

going to try to do something about their own housing program sometime

through the way they zone and the way they allow density, or are going

to take some responsibility and, instead of asking everyone else to do

it, cooperate on some plan themselves. Then they also will be a partner

in assisting and locating people in that area.

We do know

that 10,000 accommodation units will be made available in the B.C.

Place general area. That is something that would not have happened if

this government had not been the best friend that the people of

Vancouver ever had and gave them representation in areas where they

have lacked representation. In Vancouver Centre nothing was happening,

and now we've got a great downtown amphitheatre and 10,000 housing

units. It's not going to cost — as that member for Vancouver has said —

the taxpayers a nickel over the 15-year development. It's not going to

be just for the benefit of the people of Vancouver as a provincial

project. That amphitheatre is for every British Columbian. It will be

paid for out of the profits of a mix in public and private development.

It will be a gift to the people of Vancouver and the people of B.C. It

will not be paid for by taxpayers' dollars.

I assure you

that there will be other dividends coming in the cash flow from B.C.

Place. Because it's a provincial project, those dividends will go to

assist downtown development in every city of this province. It is not

just a Vancouver project. They will go to assist the people of

Revelstoke, Kamloops and Abbotsford, because it is a provincial

project. There will be some cash-flow profit over the 15-year period.

It will be a social profit, Mr. Member, that will be spread among all

the citizens of British Columbia.

One of the criticisms of B.C. Place has been the misconception

fostered by some that it's a drain on the tax dollars. Another

criticism being played in the interior is that somehow this government

is favouring Vancouver because we're trying to make up for the lack of

representation it has in some of its areas, and so we're concentrating

on helping that city. Yet I want to tell the people of this province

that B.C. Place will work for them as well as for the people of

Vancouver. It is accomplishing a major thing: a development of an area

that can extend to over 200 acres if the city of Vancouver will

cooperate and make available those city lands that need expensive

infilling and upgrading to provide the additional land base for

additional housing. The city of Vancouver will have a great opportunity

to make its contribution to B.C. Place. The adjacency of that

city-owned land will give them an opportunity to put their money where

their mouth is in assisting the provincial government to help the

people of Vancouver.

But what are we doing?

We're taking an area that was a second-class, run-down, warehouse,

industrial development area that did not provide high employment and

was an unsightly blemish in the heart of the city of Vancouver. We have

assembled the largest portion of that land, and are dealing on other

portions, in order to effect a redevelopment that I would hazard a

guess would never have taken place. Private development could not meet

the conditions of the city, and would not. That has gone on for a

number of years. We have had the steady expansion of facilities in that

area that would be too costly to purchase had the continued warehouse

construction and industrial development taken place. There's no doubt

about it, the timing was perfect. It was time to make that decision and

that purchase. It was a decision of magnitude.

The concept

then is how it could be financed without a drain on the taxpayers. The

cost recovery will come because we are creating an increase in values

with the amphitheatre and with the transit. We are creating higher

values, and therefore the people of British Columbia will take

advantage of those higher values in the profits that will pay for the

amphitheatre and the public places and be spread around this province

to assist other communities. It will take 15 years. I know you, Mr.

Chairman, agree with the concept of that area, and that you are happy,

and that you know that your area will get great benefits from B.C.

Place as well.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I believe the Premier is trying to convince himself that his vision was a good idea.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Are you still against it?

MR. BARNES: You're working pretty hard to try to convince yourself.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the thousands of people who are unhoused....

Interjections.

MR. BARNES:

Look at that. I wish we had TV in this place so we could show you how

that minister behaves. What a trip that would be! No matter how old or

how rich they get, they still play the child's game, don't they? All

that money and he still has to be a little cute. That's all right. We

know how the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) can

be from time to time.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier had a vision

without a referendum or referral to the community, without any effort

to find out what the impact would be on the city of Vancouver. It was a

dream that he had himself, and he has thrust it on the city of

Vancouver and has the gall to brag about it now, with no reference

whatsoever to the consequences — what the cost of land in that area

will be as a result of speculation. Land will cost $300 to $500 per

square foot, when it was $3 before. He's happy, but the impact on

Chinatown and all the other areas in that community, the residential

integrity of Yaletown and the whole area is being completely inundated

with speculators and people who are trying to capitalize on it, at the

expense of those communities that have existed for generations.

Sure,

B.C. Place could have been a good idea, but I would like to ask the

Premier why he saw fit to take $125 million of the taxpayers' money to

build a stadium when the housing situation was the way it was when he

took office in

[ Page 6591 ]

What about all those promises? What about this business of "a home for

everybody" — the right of everyone to have their own home in this

province? "Get rid of the socialists and you will have your home." You

remember what you said. You were also the one who stood up and said:

"Elect Social Credit. We will not take away rent controls. We won't

touch them until the housing situation is straightened out and everyone

has a home."

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's right.

MR. BARNES: I can tell you that the Premier is trying to convince himself that he has a good idea.

When

I started speaking, I said I was standing up on behalf of the thousands

of unhoused British Columbians who are wondering what this government's

priorities are. I am here to say that I don't think their priorities

include them — the people who relied on this government, who believed

that they had a solution for them.

I have a letter that I

would like to read. I am going to be quite brief, mainly because I

think the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) quite succinctly

described the state of affairs in this province with respect to the

government's priorities. Unlike the Premier, I see no point in

repeating statements that have been made. I think what we want is

action, not speeches. The Premier is quite good at that, however. He's

the Premier who, just a few years ago, was asked by the TV crews when

he was getting out of his limousine.... At the time, I think, we were

debating the new seatbelt legislation in the province. Do you recall

that, Mr. Premier? You were asked if your car was equipped with

seatbelts. The Premier looked up at the camera and said no. He got out

of his car and walked away, and the camera focused on where he was

sitting, and he had been sitting on his seatbelt.

The point

is that the Premier has no problem with being.... I won't say he's a

liar because that's unparliamentary, but he certainly has difficulty

dealing directly with questions that are put to him in a

straightforward way. I see no reason to expect that he will be any

different today, so all I'm going to do is share with the Premier a

letter that I received. Perhaps we'll at least put on record the

reality of what's happening to some people in the community while you

build your monuments to yourself, your big-ticket projects that you

conceive without any reference whatsoever to the taxpayers and force

upon them regardless of what the consequences may be. We all have to

bear the burden. However, you're the man in the driver's seat right

now, Mr. Premier, and I realize that you have the last word. You proved

that with the ward system and you will prove it with everything else,

as long as the people believe that you are sincere, that you really

care.

I received this letter on June 17. It was actually

addressed to me and the first member for Vancouver Centre. It says:

"Dear Mr. Barnes....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Signed "Mom."

MR. BARNES:

Would you like to say that on the record, Mr. Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations? You say this is signed by my mother. Is

that what you said?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I thought it might be.

MR. BARNES:

I see. Are you backing down, Mr. Minister? If you think this is signed

by my mother, you stand up and say so, and let the record stand for

itself. This is a very serious matter, Mr. Chairman. I do not

appreciate the interjections of that complacent crowd over there. I

think when you hear what I've got to say, you should stand up and

apologize not only to this House but to this whole province for your

incredible arrogance.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I can't speak as long as there are these interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, come to order. We'll allow the second member for

Vancouver Centre to continue, hopefully without interruption. If

members address the Chair in their remarks, it greatly helps as well.

MR. BARNES: This is the letter.

"Dear Mr. Barnes:

"I am writing to protest discrimination against

families with children. My husband lived in a bachelor suite at

Grosvenor Square from about 1972 to 1976. We were married and moved

into a one-bedroom suite in April 1976 and have lived in the same suite

for over five years. My husband has lived in the building for a total

of eight years. We recently had a baby, and as we live in an

'adult-oriented building,' we have been given a three-month eviction

notice.

"I haven't written to you previously

as I thought we would be able to find alternative accommodation.

However, with the vacancy rate at less than 1 percent, we have found

this impossible. We have spent the last three months looking for

suitable rental accommodation and have found nothing. The last three

weeks we have investigated the possibility of buying a house. However,

this too is impossible, as we cannot afford a house with the inflated

cost plus high mortgage rates.

"Our building

is concrete and soundproof. We live on the top floor and therefore have

no one living above us. We have asked the neighbours on either side of

us, and they have not heard the baby. The baby is far too young to be

running up and down the hallways disturbing people. In fact, my husband

and baby leave the apartment at 7 a.m. and return at 5 p.m., Monday

through Friday, as we have found it necessary for me to work and leave

the baby with a sitter, in order that one day we may be able to afford

a house. So as you can see, the baby is not in the apartment very much.

Our one-bedroom apartment is quite large and, while not ideal, it's

certainly manageable for another six months or so.

"The

letter dated March 16 from RDC Property Services in Vancouver states

that we have been 'very good tenants of long standing.' The letter

dated May 22 states that even though we have been unable to find other

accommodation, the eviction notice still stands. One would think some

compassion would be shown to 'very good tenants,' in view of the fact

of the nil occupancy rate.

"If you have any suggestions or solutions to my predicament, I would appreciate hearing from you at

[ Page 6592 ]

your very earliest convenience. I will soon be evicted, and as

I don't know where I will be staying, please write me at my office address."

There's

no point in saying who signed this letter, but I'm quite prepared to

show the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom)

privately. There's no point in bringing in the family name. It's a very

personal and tragic situation in this time of affluence that the

Premier brags about the good times that we're having in this economy.

I'm

going to give you an example of what these people have to deal with,

Mr. Premier. Here's a letter of March 16 to the tenants.

"May

I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your recent arrival. I

sincerely hope that both mother and child are in excellent health.

"Regretfully,

the tenancy agreement does not provide for child residency, and as such

we must request that you relocate and find other accommodation as soon

as possible. We are pleased to advise that you have been very good

tenants of long standing, and we will provide a reference to that

effect if requested.

"As advised by the

residence manager, please make arrangements to vacate in advance of

June 30, 1981. Accordingly we have prepared the attached termination

notice. If you have any questions in regard to this matter, please

contact the undersigned."

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to tell you briefly what happened to that

family, and that will conclude my remarks. That particular family did

the impossible. They found a place in Vancouver — an 850-square-foot

house for $125,000. They had to assume a first mortgage of $50,000 at

10.5 percent. The woman and her husband borrowed $35,000 from their

parents. They took out a second mortgage of $35,000, at God knows what

rates. They were able to convince the bank manager to loan them that

money at probably 70 percent of their total incomes of $42,000. That's

the two people both working full-time trying to raise a family, at

those rates. At $1,300 a month that they anticipate having to pay in

premiums you can imagine they're going to have a pretty rough time.

That's the high cost of children and families in this province. That's

what it costs legitimate community people who are not freeloaders and

not welfare burns, but who just a few years ago were probably safe and

secure middle-class people thinking that they had no problems. Here

they are being hit with a housing situation that is virtually

impossible to overcome.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I can assure the

House, Mr. Chairman, that any time a bank manager, knowing full well

through actuarial experience that it should take no more than 25 to 30

percent of your gross income in order to manage your housing costs....

These people are being approved for loans at an amount of probably 75

percent of what they earn in total just to qualify. The bank manager is

doing it as a service in a desperate situation; we know that he's

sentencing those people to eternal hell. There's no possible way they

can keep that up over the years. They're probably going to have to walk

away from their home at one point in time.

You've now raised

the first homeowner grant to $140,000. That allows these people to buy

a cheap home at $125,000 with the gratuitous gift of 5,000 lousy bucks.

That's what you call your housing program. You've done nothing in the

way of construction ever since you destroyed the Housing Corporation of

British Columbia. You have made it quite clear that you see no place

for the government in the housing field. You do not believe that the

government has a responsibility to ensure that people have affordable

housing. So, Mr. Chairman, let the record speak for itself. I don't

expect you to try to give us a solution, because you've proven where

your priorities are with your housing scheme for B.C. Place, which will

be mostly luxury housing, and nothing is going to come onstream for at

least two years. It'll be 1986 before the project is completed, or the

first phase of the housing project is completed, which is probably

about 5,000 houses. We need about 50,000 in the city of Vancouver.

Let

me just conclude by saying that it is so bad in the city of Vancouver

that clerical staff cannot even afford to live in the area within five

or ten miles of the city. They're having to fly typists in from back

east because they can't afford to pay the rent. In downtown Vancouver

you cannot find a typist to type the rentalsman's notices that are

going out. You have apartment buildings that are empty in the West End

because of speculation. They're getting rid of the present tenants

through attrition so they can tear the thing down and build luxury

apartments. That's all as a result of your grandiose scheme of no

reference to the people, and no contact with physical planning in the

city of Vancouver. It's just a pipedream you had — and that you're now

bragging about — that is destroying the core and the basic structure of

the city of Vancouver. As taxpayers, we will be paying for it for many

years. I'm not against B.C. Place as a concept. I never have been.... I

think that it could have and may have been.... But the way that you

have gone and the way that you have started it off is going to cost us

far more than it ever should have cost. That shows that you have one

set of standards for yourself and another set for the people of British

Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your attention.

MR. PASSARELL:

I have a number of issues to raise with the Premier. The first one is

regarding the Stikine-Iskut controversy in Alaska. On the first issue

I'd like to ask the Premier why his government has boycotted two

previous meetings with the Alaska government. Those meetings happened

in April and on June 8, 1981. It's unbelievable that on a river in

British Columbia that has an international treaty on it, this Premier

has boycotted two previous meetings with the government of Alaska. I'd

like to quote from an

article from the Washington Post

dated June 3: "John Roberts Gets Into Dam Dispute." It was also carried

by the Canadian Press. It stated that the Minister of the Environment,

John Roberts, offered full cooperation of the Canadian government in

order to resolve a dispute over several proposed dam sites on the

Stikine-Iskut River. It goes on: "At this meeting Senator Ted Stevens

from the state of Alaska was quite concerned to find some type of

solution acceptable to the four major parties involved in this dispute:

federal government of the United States and the state of Alaska." It

goes further in this

article — we all know the joint resolution that

was passed in Alaska — to say:

"Those talks, however, still have not been finalized because

B.C. has not agreed to the scheduled June 8 date. After the Stevens-Roberts

meetings a spokesman for Senator Stevens said he is pleased that Ottawa has

pledged its cooperation, but he is concerned that B.C. may be dragging its feet."

[ Page 6593 ]

The

Premier of this province also has done a disservice to the province of

British Columbia and our country of Canada by not cooperating and

showing goodwill to the state of Alaska and the federal government of

the United States by sitting down well before June 30 and holding some

type of frank and honest discussions, instead of just starting at this

late date to exchange information with the Alaska government. I just

wonder what the Premier of this province is afraid of.

The

second issue I'd like to bring to the Premier's attention is Amax. I

wonder why the Premier has been afraid to hold public meetings with the

Nishga after his government granted the initial application to the

multinational corporation of Amax in January 1979 that allows them to

go ahead and dump 12,000 tonnes of toxic waste into the Nishga food

fisheries. I wonder why the Premier has been so silent on this

important issue that's affecting the first citizens of this province. I

wonder what the priorities of this Premier are. Are they profits for a

multinational corporation over the livelihood, health and heritage of

the first citizens of this province? It appears the Premier is more

interested in profits for Amax than the concerns and livelihood of the

Nishga people.

Another question I'd like to direct to the

Premier is a promise your government made to the Nishga people during

the campaign of 1975. It was reiterated in 1976 by the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Williams), who was Minister of Labour at the time. It

concerns land claims. When are you going to move on that campaign

promise of six years ago? Are you going to wait until next year when we

have another provincial election and make the same promise again? You

have been extremely quiet concerning land claims promises and issues.

Maybe

it's time for you, Mr. Premier, to apologize to the Nishga people for a

promise you made to them six years ago. It doesn't take much to stand

up and apologize. You don't lose face. But you just sit back and

continue on a promise you made and feel that it will go away, and then

the next time an election happens you'll make the same promise. It's no

crime to apologize. It shows that you can be a statesman or someone

worthy of respect if you get up and apologize. It's no crime and it's

about time you started doing it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why don't you try it once in a while?

MR. PASSARELL: I have, Mr. Minister of Industry and Small Business Development.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I ask the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development and the Leader of the Opposition not to interrupt the

member who is speaking.

MR. PASSARELL: There are a

number of issues I'd like to also discuss concerning the Premier's

imperial style of governing this province — silly expenditures. I took

ten issues, Mr. Chairman. The first one is the BCRIC fiasco. How many

people really believed what the Premier was saying about going out and

investing in BCRIC, and now find they can't even make the bank

payments, because it's down to about $4.50 today?

The second

one is an issue we discussed yesterday concerning the northern ferry

and this government's position that if you take a ferry out of service

it saves the government money. Unbelievable! Maybe they're going to put

a hold on all ferry transportation in this province to keep saving some

money.

The third issue I'd like to discuss is the hiring of

a Hollywood film team. The Premier of this province allows his

government to hire a Hollywood film team when we've got cases up in

Dease Lake where there are 300 people who have no first-aid station and

no chance of getting any type of first-aid medical assistance in their

community because this government constantly says there's not enough

money to buy a $15,000 trailer so that people can go and get a

Band-aid. This Premier has one of his ministers go down to Hollywood to

hire a Hollywood film team to bolster his image. Unbelievable! What's

more important to this Premier — to bolster his image with the public,

or to allow some of the public in northern British Columbia and

isolated areas to receive some type of first-aid medical assistance? We

see where the priority of this Premier is — to bolster his image.

Interjections.

MR, PASSARELL:

There's no other reason. It's $15,000 to bring a trailer into Dease

Lake so the people up there can have some type of medical assistance,

and this Premier allows a Hollywood film team, at approximately the

same price, to come in here and bolster the image of certain sagging

ministers.

The fourth issue is Mr. Edgar Kaiser receiving

millions through a sweetheart deal on the coal deal. Unbelievable! And

we have problems up north where residents have to drive on Highway 37,

which at times is almost a goat trail, because the government doesn't

have enough money to develop that highway.

Gracie's Finger — another image-seeking issue to bolster his strength.

The

trips to Asia, spending hard-earned taxpayers' dollars, is another

issue. Once again we see the poor condition of roads up north; we see

lack of medical facilities.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Did he go there and play football, like your leader?

MR, PASSARELL: I don't know what you play, Mr. Minister of Industry....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the minister once again to be reminded that he cannot interrupt another member who is speaking.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the Leader of the Opposition to take his place as well. Please continue.

MR. PASSARELL:

He spent hard-earned taxpayers' dollars on a junket to Asia. At the

same time, residents of the north find that they have to be content

with poor road facilities up north.

Another interesting

aspect of the Premier is his negative attitude at times. He's always

looking back in history — the negative Premier who always looks back in

history. Why aren't you positive, Mr. Premier, and look to the future?

We have a great province. Don't be negative; be positive. Look at the

good things of this province.

[ Page 6594 ]

MR. BARNES: Like BCRIC.

MR. PASSARELL: That's right. You must have been reading my speech there.

The

eighth issue I'd like to discuss is the grandiose schemes of this

Premier and his government — places like B.C. Place, Pier B-C and the

monuments to the Premier's name. This government can't find $15,000 to

put a first-aid station into Dease Lake, but it can spend billions of

dollars on monuments in Vancouver and ignore the north.

MR. BARNES: Free enterprise at the taxpayers' expense.

MR. PASSARELL: That's right.

The

ninth issue. The public will always remember, Mr. Chairman, the

Premier's famous voting record in the last federal election, with his

famous quote about why he didn't vote. What was it? Something to the

effect that one vote didn't matter? I think it was something like that.

That certainly sets a good example to the young people of this province

when it comes to voting in the democratic process. One vote doesn't

matter, the Premier states.

The tenth issue I'd like to

discuss is Crown land disposition. It is interesting, Mr. Chairman,

that not everyone in this province is a millionaire and can afford some

lakeshore frontage. Some of us have to afford, when the opportunity

arises for our first land, Crown land. I would certainly hope that the

Premier, through his Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr.

Chabot) can continue to allow the dispensing of Crown land throughout

this province so that young families and young people can receive some

type of Crown land to build one of their first homes.

These

have been a number of issues I've raised to the Premier, Mr. Chairman,

and I will simply anticipate his reaction. In closing, I would say I

don't personally dislike the Premier. I find him very honourable....

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I'd hate to be an enemy of yours.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, through you, to the Premier....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: With friends like you who needs enemies?

MR. PASSARELL: You do.

Mr.

Premier, people aren't your enemies just because they represent a

different political party. If the Leader of the Opposition is standing

out in the hallway, there's no reason to put your head down and walk by

and not say hello. That's what happened. Just last week we were

standing out there, and he put his head down and walked right by. Why

don't you open up a little bit and say hello to people? What's the

matter? Are you too big? Are you too important?

Those are a

number of the issues I've raised, and I shall be waiting with

anticipation, Mr. Chairman, to hear the wisdom of the Premier.

MR. KING:

I hope that my colleague, the member for Atlin, is an infinitely

patient individual. I hope that he didn't take the interjections from

the minister of small-mindedness — I mean the minister of small

business — too seriously, because empty vessels usually make the most

noise. We understand the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) well.

Mr. Chairman, I have

just one question for the Premier. It's a very serious question. He

made a comment regarding potential development of the townsite of

Tumbler Ridge, and offered his views as to how that development should

go forward with respect to the industrial relations of the matter. I

believe he also commented on a decision that the Labour Relations Board

had made pertaining to the town of Whistler and the development and

expansion that went on there as to whether it should be by trade

unions, unorganized workers or a combination of both. Certainly it's

not my position to advocate, one or the other, but I would remind the

Premier that we do have a Labour Code in the province which gives

jurisdiction to a quasi-judicial agency which is at arm's length from

government — the Labour Relations Board — to hear applications for

certification. It is an indication of the will of the majority of

workers, rather than some political dictate from his party or any other

as to what the status of the working people of the province should be:

organized or unorganized. It's always been held in law that that was a

choice for the workers to make. The Labour Relations Board dealt with

that question in their wisdom and under their legal mandate.

personally, Mr. Chairman, found it rather disconcerting to hear the

Premier of the province indicate that he would perhaps intervene with

regard to the potential townsite of Tumbler Ridge and dictate in some

political way what the status of that development should be. I want to

ask the Premier if he would today, in the final few minutes of his

estimates, indicate precisely what his policy and objective are. Are

they to override and bypass the legally mandated, quasi-judicial agency

— the Labour Relations Board — and to decide to dictate in a political

way what status the workers of that new development should enjoy? Or is

it his wish, as a partisan politician, to keep his hands off and let

the Labour Relations Board decide the matter, as is the requirement of

the legal framework at the moment?

I was very interested,

and I think the trade union movement and industry are very concerned as

to whether there is going to be political involvement here or whether

the rules of the game as they now exist on the statute books of British

Columbia will be the known guidelines under which the parties will

function. The Premier has made a public statement on it, and I would

very much appreciate some clarification from him.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, a number of items have been brought up. Some of them were

questions dealing with subjects that have been dealt with, but one

question that was brought up by the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) —

who I notice is no longer in the chamber....

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, he's right here.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, there he is. He's changed his seat.

I'd

like to say that the government of British Columbia has not been

reticent about sharing with Alaska and the Governor of Alaska any

information relating to the Stikine. A meeting took place in Vancouver

on June 30, hosted by Hydro, with participation by the government of

Alaska, the federal government, the U.S. federal government and the

government of British Columbia. A press release was issued. I have a

copy of the draft that was made. I want to say that everyone was very

happy with the meeting, particularly those

[ Page 6595 ]

representing Alaska. The reports I have on the

meeting — this was not handled in a political way but by people who

have nothing to gain in a political sense, so they were only there to

do a job — indicate that this was a cordial and excellent meeting. The

continuing excellent relations that Governor Jay Hammond and I have had

in the past — and which I have with other governments adjacent to this

province — continue. There was a general reaffirmation that we would

not allow distortions that may inadvertently appear in the press to

destroy relations between a province and a state and two friendly

countries. From recent events, Governor Hammond has a much clearer

understanding of politics in British Columbia, and he clearly

understands the importance of maintaining contact between our offices

to make sure that the messages are clear.

The other question asked about dealing with the native Indians.

I must say that that responsibility was delegated, from our election in

1975, to the present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), who was

Minister of Labour then. He has carried that portfolio, and the

commitment to sit down with the federal government has always been

adhered to. The difficulty is when there are a number of parties

involved. I must say that the first projects dealt with.... That member

talks about election promises. I remember visiting Terrace in 1979,

when I was presented with a demand to sign a letter that they claimed

had been signed by the leader of the New Democratic Party, making some

commitment to the native Indian band — and I would not do it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

No, I did not. And I would not sign that letter. Because of that,

perhaps you're a one-election wonder. I would not do it. However, it

was signed by the leader of the New Democratic Party. I don't know if

that letter has ever seen the light of day in any other part of this

province, as to its contents and its commitment. But we didn't sign it.

That was in 1979.

I'd like to deal with the member for Shuswap–Revelstoke (Mr. King), who

asked me about remarks made in a general conversation about Tumbler Ridge. Let

me say very clearly that I said this government believed that every citizen

in this province, whether organized or unorganized, should have some access

to a particular job: if it's a union job on that particular construction,

then it's a union job; if the construction of this building over here —

which might be in the same town — is non-union, then it's a non-union job,

and that contractor has equal access. I said — and I believe it very strongly

— that a whole community cannot rule out the opportunity for those who are unorganized

to get a job. I stay with that. It would be against everything I stand for in

the total community of Tumbler Ridge if where you might have a number of contractors

and a number of opportunities to bid, unorganized contractors and unorganized

workers were denied the opportunity to build, to submit bids or to construct

any part of the project in that area. I want to say that very clearly.

I also want to say that it was on that same philosophy that I disagreed with

that member. When they were government they said that people in this province

who were ordinary citizens couldn't bid on government work unless they were

organized. We changed that law when we became government. It's clearly a

difference of opinion. We say there are no second-class citizens when it comes

to dealing with those areas of public expenditures. Particularly when we tax

all people, surely they should all be able to provide a building for government

services.

Hopefully

there will be an opportunity for many British Columbians — small and

large businesses, organized and unorganized at Tumbler Ridge. It is

part of British Columbia, and every British Columbian should share in

the opportunity to successfully gain employment or a business contract

without contravening the conditions that relate to supply. As I say,

the total community cannot be shut out from one or the other.

MR. KING:

Just to correct the Premier, who seems a bit confused on this issue,

it's true that your government did abolish the Public Works Fair

Employment Act; but, interestingly enough, you kept the one

section of

it which gave some effect to the very principles you talked about. It

was introduced for the first time by a New Democratic Party government

in this province. That was the provision that the Minister of Labour

could designate a fair percentage of local employment on any public

project. Further, the interesting thing is that that provision has

never been used under a Social Credit government since you came to

office. The city council of Revelstoke, senior citizens' groups,

chambers of commerce and I wrote to your Minister of Labour and to the

Premier's office asking for that standard to be applied to the Mica Dam

project and to the Revelstoke dam project. Lo and behold, Mr. Chairman,

your minister refused. So all of the workers for those two local

projects, which are funded publicly, are dispatched from a union office

in Vancouver. Many of them are from out of province.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Are you speaking against it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition....

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, the Premier obviously doesn't know the laws that are on

the statute books of this province. I wish the government had used it.

It's not to say that it will be union or non-union. The provision is to

sit down with the trade union movement and the contractors and say:

"What is a fair percentage of local people that should be hired on

these projects? What are the skills that are available? What are the

number of jobs that are available?" You have that law available to you

now. We passed it in this House. Incidentally, the Social Credit Party

voted against it when we introduced it, but it's on the statute books

now. I fully support that. What I do not support and what I will never

support is the Premier or any politician interfering in the normal

certification process of workers in this province.

The

Premier is inferring that he will somehow intervene to decide who will

be union and who won't be union in Tumbler Ridge. That's up to the

workers themselves. That's their free and democratic right. We have a

referee in law which is the Labour Relations Board. The Premier or no

other politician should be interfering in that process. It's akin to

contempt of any other quasi judicial agency in the province. The

Premier should have a look and consult his Minister of Labour. The law

is now on the statute books to make sure that here is fair access for

local people. I just wish the Premier of his province and his minister

would have been so concerned about this matter to give effect to it on

the Revelstoke Dam

[ Page 6596 ]

project like he was requested to do by myself, the even by senior citizens' groups in that community. He failed to do it.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Just quickly so the member doesn't leave any misimpression, I talked

about not just local hiring but about British Columbians having

availability to bid in areas that did not contravene. Where there is a

contract in the union job that I talked about, a total community could

not be closed off in access to any British Columbian. I believe that

very strongly. Mine was one of saying I will fight not to hurt anyone

but fight for anyone to have fair access under the law to work in this

province and to provide a service.

MR. KING: You don't even know the law. Read the act.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

If you want to put any

interpretation on that, you may. I'll tell you,

I've read a lot of acts. I remember a lot of acts of yours when you

were government. I didn't have to read them to know they were wrong.

Many of the things you did.... I saw the results of them in this

province. Many people felt the results of them. You think that every

statute you passed was good. I don't make that assumption about ours.

Not every statute we pass is perfect, and sometimes it needs another

look. So don't tell me that every act on the books is ideal. I don't

want you to leave a false impression about where the Premier of this

province stands. He stands on the side of the people of this province

having reasonable access to jobs and to business opportunity. I don't

need any mumbo-jumbo from the member for Shuswap–Revelstoke to tell

people where I stand. They know where that member stands, and not by

what he says now. They remember him by his actions. They remember you

and many will never forget you.

MR. BARRETT: As we

wind down the Premier's estimates, I want to thank the Premier for

being candid about something we've been maintaining about him for some

time. Now he's said it. I want to thank him. He said: "I don't have to

read the law to know they're wrong." That's fine. Don't read it. Just

make up your mind. It's wrong if it's the NDP or Liberal or

Conservative. The fact is that the law passed by us in this House

clearly says that in a local area the trade union movement and the

local community can get together and work out an accommodation for

non-union workers. The member here from Shuswap–Revelstoke, the former

Minister of Labour, who was the author of that bill, asked that that

provision of the bill allowing small business, non-union people in

Revelstoke have the right to sit down and negotiate a part of the

contract. Who stopped that from taking place? Social Credit. The member

for Dawson Creek shakes his head and says: "It can't be so." It's

absolutely true, Mr. Member. It is a matter of record. If we can show

you in writing, Mr. Member, will you stake your seat on it? Of course

not. You see, it is that simple thing the Premier said: "I don't have

to read it to know that it's wrong." That will rank with the statement

by the former minister, Mr. Gaglardi. He said: "If I tell a lie, I only

think I'm telling the truth." That's what Phil Gaglardi said.

MR. MACDONALD: He was just an inadvertent liar.

MR. BARRETT:

That's correct. He said: "If I tell a lie, it's only because I think

I'm telling the truth." And the Premier said today: "I don't have to

read them to know they're wrong." Stubborn, closed mind, but trapped in

his own rhetoric, because the very thing that he says he's against is

what he sponsored on the Revelstoke Dam. The mayor of Revelstoke wrote;

the member for Shuswap–Revelstoke (Mr. King) wrote. They said they

wanted accommodation for non-union workers. And who blocked that from

taking place? Who blocked small businesses in British Columbia that are

non-union from having a share? It was that Premier right over there.

How ironic, but it's true.

Go read the bill, Mr. Member.

Open both eyes, separate them a bit and read the bill. You'll discover

that in that bill he voted against was a

section allowing him to do

exactly what he says he stands for; but when he had an opportunity to

do it, he blocked it. Then he says: "I don't have to read them to know

they're wrong." Thanks a lot for the most candid statement by the

Premier since he became Premier. "I've made up my mind. Don't confuse

me with the facts. I hate NDP so much that even if they bring in a bill

that makes sense, I'm against it." Just like you were against the

Petroleum Corporation. Just like you were then. Do you remember that?

Do you remember the crazy speeches made in this House by your

colleagues about the Petroleum Corporation? It's made close to a

billion dollars for the people of British Columbia, but it was

dangerous socialism because it was brought in by the NDP. You should

read some of the old statements by the Premier.

MR. KEMPF: Collected it, not made it.

MR. BARRETT:

Collected it, that's right. No matter whether collected or made, was

the money in the bank, Mr. Chairman? Was the money spent by this

government? It certainly was. There has been a fall-off of sales in the

States through no fault of the Social Credit or the NDP. There's been a

drop in the revenue, but the system is fantastic. It's a money-making

machine.

MR. KEMPF: Collected it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Tax collector.

MR. BARRETT:

Well, my dear friends. When they were in opposition it was called

socialism. When they're in government they call it collections. You

know, Mr. Chairman, I really enjoy these philosophical twists and turns

by the government. He gets up and says, "We want small business to have

a chance to bid on jobs," and in Revelstoke he wouldn't let it happen.

HON. MR. BENNETT: This isn't philosophical; it's garbage. Kelly Gibson wrote it for you.

MR. BARRETT: There it is.

MR. KING: It's true, Bill. You're caught in your own hype.

MR. BARRETT:

Yes, well, we've had a little example of it this afternoon. Now we have

the little example of a confused Premier who has made the most honest

statement he's made since he's been in government. I'm afraid I'll have

to quote it in in the same vein as Phil Gaglardi's. He says: "I don't

have to read them to know they're wrong. I just feel it." He lifts up

his little arm, waves it in the wind, and says: "Oh,

[ Page 6597 ]

it's

NDP, it's no good. Oh, it's Liberal, it's Trudeau, it's arson, it's no

good. Oh, it's Joe Clark, it's chinless, it's no good. I'm Bill

Bennett, I know everything." It's wonderful. What a way to go through

life. "I don't have to read it to know it's wrong." It's really

something. I'm glad you admitted it. You got badgered so much. You were

so upset by the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) that you coughed up.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's a tiger.

MR. BARRETT:

He certainly is. You laugh about him saying that you didn't bother to

vote federally. You didn't; you left for Hawaii. That member knows how

much one vote means.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Governor Hammond knows too.

MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. KING: So does Frank Calder.

MR. BARRETT:

I want to tell you that Frank Calder knows what one vote means, and so

does that member. He won by one vote. He'll forever be known in this

House as "Landslide." But democracy worked for him. Too bad the Premier

didn't take a lot of friends with him last time. It would have been

different. How many Social Credit federal MPs ran last time?

MR. SKELLY: He took all his friends.

MR. BARRETT: He took all his friends.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to make a little motion on the Premier's estimates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT:

Yes, and I want to tell you something: I don't regret it one bit; I

feel good about it. I'm going to propose that we cut a few bucks out of

the Premier's office. Just a few bucks. It's symbolic. But he's become

a bit of a spendthrift in his office. He's got more staff than have

ever been placed in the Premier's office before. He even has staff who

are being paid out of the Provincial Secretary's office but report to

the Premier — Mr. Heal, for example. [Laughter.] Oh, ha, ha, ha! I love

those laughs — you know, they're really deep-down, emotional and full

of humour.

When you come into the buildings, Mr. Chairman,

and you go to the security office and you say, "May I go to Mr. Heal's

office?" do you know what they say? They ask where he works. If you

say, "Well, I want to speak to Mr. Heal who works for the Provincial

Secretary," they say, "Oh, we have no Mr. Heal working for the

Provincial Secretary, but Mr. Heal is here under the Premier's office."

It's handwritten in. To find Mr. Heal, who is the Hollywood image

purveyor for the Premier for....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

Well, however you describe it. This is the man who hired people from

Hollywood and paid $14,000 of taxpayers' money to give this report. I

want all the taxpayers in British Columbia to understand. It was rather

self-evident, but this is what you paid $14,000 for. There were three

suggestions for the $14,000: the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy) shouldn't go on television with frizzy hair; the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) shouldn't

go on television, because he's inclined to go off the deep end — and we

had witness of that today; and the Premier needs a shave. We paid

$14,000 for that information, folks. Only Social Credit would spend

that kind of money.

Does the Premier come up front and say

that old Doug Heal — Cecil B. De Heal — works out of the Premier's

office? Not on your life. Little old Evan, the other car salesman, has

to take the heat. So what happens? When someone wants to come in and

see Mr. Heal for a Hollywood appointment, they go in the front door and

they say to one of the security people: "We want to see Mr. Heal." They

say: "Mr. Heal works under the Premier's office." They forgot to play

the game right down on the directory. You see, we're not supposed to

know that Heal is really working directly under the Premier. The game

is that he is working under the Provincial Secretary, but somebody

forgot to tell the security office down there.

MR. KING: How much money does he make?

MR. BARRETT:

Heal makes $64,000 a year. Now ask me how he got the job. He got the

job this way. He was hired as a consultant and paid $24,000 to

recommend someone who should have the $64,000 to improve the image of

the Premier. So Mr. Heal was hired at $24,000. For all those Loto

winners out there — they understand how these chances work — guess who

he recommended in his $24,000 report for his job? I'll give you three

guesses, and the first two don't count.

MR. MACDONALD: Dan Campbell.

MR. BARRETT: No, not Dan Campbell.

MR. KING: Phil Gaglardi.

MR. BARRETT:

No, not Phil Gaglardi. You lost. Surprise, surprise: it was Doug Heal

who recommended himself. To you folks out there in never-never land of

British Columbia, is there anybody out there who would like $24,000 to

do a survey on who is the best image-maker to hire and then have the

chance of recommending yourself? Only in British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT:

That's true. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that we have to have a

little bit of humour about this, because if we didn't it would be so

tragic. It's so lacking in political morality that it smells. We have

to have a little fun with it, because we've had a lot of smells out of

this government ever since the whole business of gerrymandering — the

tinkering around with the whole redistribution system with the Minister

of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) being accused of messing around

with it — the letters out of your office, the whole dirty tricks scam

and you come back with a hamikachi thing from Japan, saying: "It's okay

folks, I'm going to commit hari-kari on television." You know, the

behaviour of this Premier is absolutely incredible.

[ Page 6598 ]

And

the little games that he plays! Do you know who he's trying to convince

with the little games? Not the public, not the opposition, not his

backbenchers. He's trying to kid himself that he's fooling people. He's

trying to kid himself that he's really getting away with this kind of

stuff. That's really the problem. You really believe that you're

kidding yourself about this stuff. That's really the problem you're

dealing with. I am really convinced, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier

doesn't consciously understand that every time he plays one of his

games he's doing more damage than any Hollywood producer can possibly

clean up with any kind of advice.

The people of British

Columbia represent a small population. The one thing they would prefer

is frankness, candour and honesty. You don't need a Hollywood image to

deal with....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at this

point I must remind you that we must be parliamentary. Any personal

allusions or imputations a member is not honourable are not allowed.

I'm sure the member is aware of that.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I'm not implying anything. I'm reciting the facts of the

case. The Premier has hired people to improve his image, and he doesn't

need to do that. It's no substitute for candour, frankness and honesty

on television. Instead of running down the corridor away from

cameras.... Everybody in British Columbia has seen him run away from

television cameras. I've even seen him elbow reporters in the hallway.

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. BARRETT:

Yes. I suspect that the labour committee wants to make a recommendation

that workers' compensation cover reporters for rib damage in the

hallway.

Anyway, it's well known. I don't have to repeat all of it, but a little candour would go a long way.

want to move the following reductions and give you a total, Mr.

Chairman. The Premier has increased his travel expenditures from

$55,000 to $68,000. I remember when he yelled and hollered and hooped

when the travel allowance in the Premier's office was $28,000. He has

increased his personal and special services from zero to $6,000. We

once paid $1,200 to give the Premier a make-up job for television. I

want to know if that $6,000 is to pay for make-up jobs. We once paid

$900 for a television make-up job for the Premier. It cost us $900 just

to put cosmetics on the Premier, and it didn't work. They powdered him

up and he still came out as Blue Boy. Mr. Chairman, there's $6,000 for

special services. Is that for make-up? I hope it's a pancake job.

Office

expenses have gone up from $35,000 to $45,000, a $10,000 increase.

Office furniture and equipment is only up a grand — that's all. He

spent $16,000 on furniture; last year he spent $15,000. How many

couches can you buy in that place? Of course materials and supplies are

up a little bit, but motor vehicles are up $12,000. Are you buying a

new car this year, Mr. Premier? That's good news.

MR. LEA: With seatbelts.

MR. BARRETT:

Yes, with seatbelts, I hope. Do you remember that time, Mr. Premier —

wink, nudge — when the press caught you coming out of the back seat of

a car? They said: "Mr. Premier, why aren't you wearing your seatbelt?"

Quick as a flash, because he's very fast, he said: "There are no

seatbelts." And then the camera went from the Premier right down to the

back seat, and there were seatbelts in the back seat. From that day on

we've had the contradictions from the Premier, right up until today,

when he said that he wanted to open those labour situations. "No

seatbelts," and then the camera spotted them. I hope the $12,000 car

you're going to buy this year has seatbelts. Will you and your car ever

go on the ferry with ordinary people? Will you ever travel on the ferry

with ordinary people, Mr. Premier, in that car? I hope so. People would

like to see you.

Mr. Chairman, I move that vote 9, the

Premier's office, be reduced by $50,000, enough for the down payment on

a home for some lucky family in Vancouver who will never have the

services of Mr. Heal or Hollywood images or big advertising budgets.

Just give the taxpayers back $50,000. It would be a small gesture in a

province that can ill afford to throw money away purely for advertising

and image-making when candour would serve best.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 25

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 28

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Brummet

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

Vote 9 approved.

ESTIMATES: AUDITOR-GENERAL

Vote 3: auditor-general, $3,006,500 — approved.

Vote 4: building occupancy charges, $187,000 — approved.

Vote 5: computer and consulting charges, $75,000 — approved.

[ Page 6599 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, with leave, we'll proceed to public bills and orders —

second reading of Bill 35, Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension

Amendment Act, 1981.

MR. SPEAKER: In order to proceed through two stages of a bill in one day, leave will be required.

Leave granted.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ALLOWANCES

AND PENSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

HON. MR. WOLFE: In

moving second reading, I would just very briefly comment that this bill

provides for an adjustment in MLAs' indemnities and expense accounts as

of July 1 to the extent of approximately $3,000 total, represented by

$2,000 indemnity and roughly $1,000 in expense allowance. At the same

time, it provides for a similar amount of increase for ministers and a

similar percentage of increase to the opposition leader, the Speaker,

the Deputy Speaker, the Premier's office and certain other categories

which have been provided for previously in this bill. It provides as

well for a change in the present automatic formula which has been

associated with the annual wage increase in British Columbia for the

previous year. The previous formula adopted 75 percent of that increase

for the previous year. Instead of that, this legislation amends that

formula to provide for 100 percent of that increase so that on January

1, 1982, if this bill were to proceed, the formula would adopt the same

percentage as applied to the annual wage increase in British Columbia

for the previous year, as provided by Statistics Canada.

One

further thing should be mentioned, Mr. Speaker, and that is that this

is the first increase by legislation either for members or cabinet

ministers: in the case of members, since January 1979, except for the

automatic percentage increase, and since 1972 in the case of ministers.

Regarding

the change in the pension plan, the present formula for members'

pensions provides for 3.5 percent per year of service, up to a maximum

of 20 years for any member, based on the best four years of salary

during that period of time. This bill would change that formula to 4

percent from 3.5 percent per year of service, but would reduce the

maximum from 20 to 18 years, in order to establish the maximum pension

in the vicinity of 70 percent; in other words, it would be 72 percent.

other words, as of July 1 there are reflected here salary and expense

adjustments which are more in accord with and appropriate to what we

find out there in the public and private sector of the province. Also,

there is a necessary improvement in the pension plan which I think will

provide a more appropriate recognition of members with shorter service

than 20 years. In other words, it will provide a somewhat more

worthwhile pension to a member who does not happen to serve 20 years

for one reason or another.

That's the general nature of

these amendments to the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension

Amendment Act. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 35 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill

35, Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Amendment Act, 1981,

read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration forthwith.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ALLOWANCES

AND PENSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

The House in committee on Bill 35; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill

35, Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Amendment Act, 1981,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

ESTIMATES: LEGISLATION

Vote 1: legislation, $6,725,454 — approved.

Vote 2: Crown corporation reporting committee, $417,800 — approved.

ESTIMATES: OMBUDSMAN

On vote 6: office of the ombudsman, $1,236,125.

MR. KING:

On this particular vote I wanted to remind the House that when the

committee of the House was formed to select an ombudsman in the

province of British Columbia, it was the recommendation of that

committee, although a vehicle for making a recommendation was beyond

the terms of reference of the committee at the time, that there be a

legislative apparatus through which the ombudsman could report to the

Legislature. This year we have had three reports to the Legislature

from the ombudsman's office, without any vehicle being available

through which those reports could be received, considered and debated,

and any action taken relative to those reports. We also lack any

liaison whatsoever between the Legislature and the ombudsman's office

in terms

[ Page 6600 ]

of his mandate, his staff requirements, or whether or not the remaining sections of the Ombudsman Act should be promulgated.

feel that it is essential, if we are to give full respect, credibility

and meaning to the office of ombudsman in the province of British

Columbia, that there should be a formal mechanism for recognizing that

office, for receiving his reports and for dealing with them in the

Legislature in an important and credible way. I would point out to the

House that other provinces in the Dominion of Canada have a legislative

mechanism, an ongoing committee of the Legislature, to liaise with the

ombudsman's office and to carry recommendations from the ombudsman's

office to the Legislature for debate. In my view, there is no question

that it would facilitate the role that the ombudsman is asked to play

in this province to have that kind of liaison. There is no question in

my mind that it would give greater credibility to the ombudsman's

office. After all, the ombudsman is a creature of this Legislature,

created by a statute of this House. To have a situation where his

reports pointing out bureaucratic ineffectiveness or inequity are

delivered to this House and then not even paid the courtesy and respect

of any debate has a bit of a stultifying effect on the credibility of

the ombudsman's office.

So I suggest that all members of the

House very seriously consider the need to set up some ongoing

mechanism, such as an all-party House committee for liaison purposes,

to make recommendations regarding the administrative needs of the

ombudsman to the Legislature and to introduce the report so that there

might be a formal mechanism for dealing with those reports and debating

them. In my view, that's crucial and fundamental to giving real and

full meaning to the ombudsman's office in the province of British

Columbia. If citizens out there who have suffered at the hands of some

government agency goes to what they perceive as a court of last resort

— the ombudsman's office — he hears their complaints, investigates and

writes a report indicating that they were dealt with unfairly and

unjustly and that there should be a recourse.... Then he simply tables

his report in the Legislature, but it is never debated. It's not even

formally recognized in any way by the Legislature; I say, Mr. Chairman,

that that is a complete negation of the Legislature's support for the

whole philosophy of an ombudsman's office. I think the least we could

do as legislators is consider giving that kind of support and that

increased credibility to the ombudsman's office. Under this particular

vote I want to recommend as strongly as I can to the treasury benches

that they take this recommendation under advisement.

MRS. DAILLY:

I don't want to repeat what the hon. member for Shuswap–Revelstoke has

just said. I just want to endorse what he has said and briefly add a

couple of my own remarks, as a member of the committee that chose the

ombudsman. I know our present Chairman of the House was chairman of

that committee. I think it was an excellent committee. We were all

proud to be part of it. We chose an ombudsman. We gave credit to the

government for being willing to have an ombudsman for this province.

But all that credit will disappear if this government cannot see fit to

set up some kind of ongoing reporting committee to which the ombudsman

can refer some of these reports which he has tabled. Otherwise the

whole purpose of the ombudsman is not being fulfilled. May I simply say

that we ask the government to instigate as soon as possible a committee

to which the ombudsman's reports can be referred so that this House can

deal with them. I want to remind the House that under his jurisdiction

the ombudsman refers only to this Legislature. We are asking the

government to allow the Legislature to work with the ombudsman, so that

we can truly make the role of the ombudsman a purposeful one, and one

that will really serve the people of British Columbia.

MS. BROWN:

In support of the comments made by my two colleagues. I would like to

add specifically that the ombudsman investigated an instance where the

government of the province was involving itself in discrimination and

it found that the ministry was in the wrong. I'm referring specifically

to the Ministry of Human Resources, which discriminates, based on age,

in the amount of income that a person receives on income assistance.

The minister pays a different rate of income assistance to a person

who's under the age of 31 than it does to a person who is over the age

of 31.

The ombudsman investigated this, found that there was

no basis in fact, other than straight discrimination, and included this

in the report. He said quite frankly that he did not agree with the

actions of the Ministry of Human Resources, and that the actions were

discriminatory. What happens now? That is the point which was being

raised by the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) and the Member for

Shuswap–Revelstoke (Mr. King). What happens now? The ombudsman has

stated that a clear case of discrimination based on age is being

perpetuated by the ministry of human resources. And that is the end of

that. There is no indication whatsoever that the government is going to

make any move or take any action to eliminate this discriminatory

action. I really want to support the comments made by the member for

Burnaby North and the member for Shuswap–Revelstoke, despite the

heckling from the government benches. We have to find some way of

implementing the recommendations made by the ombudsman.

MR. BARBER:

I'd like to support as strongly as I can the three previous speakers.

The ombudsman is neither an employee of the government nor an agent of

the government; he is an officer of the Legislature. The Ombudsman Act

is incomplete. The Ombudsman Act does not permit him to do any more

than table reports from time to time via the Speaker. This was

obviously not the intention of the Legislature when we moved

unanimously to create that office in the first place. Four members of

the official opposition, which is to say all of us who will be speaking

today, and all of us, period, urge on the government the establishment

of a committee such as has been established in Ontario and in Alberta

to receive reports from the ombudsman, to cause further inquiries to be

made into them and to the associated affairs upon which he or she may

report from time to time, and to have an opportunity thereby to report

back to the whole Legislature, and to make recommendations by motion or

some other means.

The act right now is incomplete, and the

ombudsman is thereby less able to do his business on behalf, not of the

government, but of all of the people, and specifically on behalf of

this Legislature. Until we have such a committee it will be impossible

for the ombudsman to do all of the work that must be done to protect

the interests of the people of this province.

I have a

second brief matter I wish to bring to the attention of the

Attorney-General. During his estimates I asked when he was prepared to

proclaim schedules 7 to 13 of the Om-

[ Page 6601 ]

budsman

Act. He said he had not yet received the request from the ombudsman to

have that done. I would call the attention of the Attorney-General to

this year's annual report of the ombudsman, in which he made it

perfectly clear that he is prepared and willing and wishes and thus

indicates in his report to this legislature his desire to be held

accountable through an extended jurisdiction for the operations of,

among others, regional districts, municipalities, hospital boards and

so on. It is in the report of the ombudsman himself, Mr. Chairman, that

we find the ombudsman's recommendation to this Legislature that he is

able and willing to have his own jurisdiction extended at this time. I

ask the Attorney-General today, on the basis of the ombudsman's advice

in his annual report, if he is prepared to accede to that request and

to the request of the official opposition that the jurisdiction of the

ombudsman be expanded according to those schedules and to that specific

proposal.

Vote 6 approved.

Vote 7: building occupancy charges, $194,000 — approved.

Vote 8: computer consulting charges, $30,000 — approved.

Schedule A: $3,837,753 — approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report resolutions.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolutions.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House the rules be suspended

and that the reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply on

March 24, 25, 26 and 27, April 6, 7, 9, 24 and 27, May 1, 4, 5, 6, 7,

13, 15, 19, 27 and 29, June 4, 9, 10, 16, 18, 19, 25 and 29 and July 7

be now received and taken as read.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

MR. HOWARD:

I want to rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, not relating to

what the minister is doing at the moment, but to rise at this moment

because it is the first opportunity available to me. It relates to

something which took place during question period. I'd seek the advice

of Your Honour whether you would prefer that I deal with it now or let

the House proceed to deal with the business arising out of Committee of

Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps, hon. member, the best time to deal with it would be at the conclusion of the formal part of the closing.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules be suspended and the resolution from

the Committee of Supply be now read a second time, taken as read and

agreed to.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Ways and Means; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I move that toward making good the supply granted to Her

Majesty for the public service of the province there be granted from

and out of the consolidated revenue fund the following:

1. $3,837,753 to make good certain sums expended for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1980, and

$6,671,495,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses for

the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982, such sum to include that

authorized to be paid under

section 1 of the Supply Act, No. 1, 1981,

and

section 1 of the Supply Act, No. 2, 1981.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the resolution.

Motion approved.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER:

The resolution is that t