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, JUNE 30, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6509 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Compudsman Act (Bill M217). Mr. Mussallem.

Introduction and first reading –– 6510

An Act To Amend The Guaranteed Available Income For Need Act, R. S. Chap. 158 (B ill M218). Ms. Brown.

Introduction and first reading –– 6511

Oral Questions

Detoxification centre. Mr. Lauk –– 6511

Rent increase in Beach Avenue building. Mr. Lauk –– 6511

Little Mountain social housing project. Ms. Brown –– 6512

WCB investigation. Ms. Sanford –– 6512

Dumping of contaminated soil at Terra Nova landfill. Mr. Leggatt –– 6512

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Heritage Trust annual report for the year 1980-81, and the

British Columbia Heritage Trust auditor's report and financial statements

as at March 31, 1981

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 6513

Ministry of Health annual report, 1980

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 6513

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1981 (Bill 31). Committee stage.

section 6 –– 6513

Division

section 7 –– 6513

Mr. Leggatt

Hon. Mr. Phillips

section 10 –– 6514

Mr. Leggatt

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mr. Barrett

section 12 –– 6516

Mr. Leggatt

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Division

section 18 –– 6517

Mr. Lorimer

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Lea

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Mitchell

Division

section 19 –– 6518

Division

section 23 –– 6518

Mrs. Wallace

Hon. Mr. Curtis

section 24 –– 6518

Mrs, Wallace

Hon. Mr. Curtis

section 25 –– 6519

Mr. Cocke

section 44 –– 6519

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

section 45 –– 6520

Mr. Cocke

section 46 –– 6520

Mr. Cocke

section 47 –– 6520

Ms. Brown

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

section 54 –– 6520

Mr. Lockstead

Hon. Mr. Fraser

section 55 –– 6520

Mr. Lockstead

Hon. Mr. Fraser

section 58 –– 6521

Mr. Lockstead

On the amendment to

section 58 –– 6521

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Hall

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Division on the amendment

section 68 –– 6522

Mr. Barber

Hon. Mr. Curtis

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Skelly

Division

section 101

Mr. Cocke

section 103 –– 6532

Mr. Leggatt

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mr. Hall

Mr. Stupich

section 109 –– 6533

Ms. Brown

section 114 –– 6533

Ms. Brown

section 116 –– 6533

Mr. Stupich

section 121 –– 6533

Mr. Nicolson

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Division

section 126 –– 6534

Hon. Mr. Williams

Third reading –– 6534

Appendix –– 6534

TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Two constituents-to-be are in the gallery today: Jim

and Marjorie Hughes, presently residing in Ottawa but now visiting their property

in the Gulf Islands to make sure all is in readiness for their retirement. Mr.

Hughes is associated with the National Research Council, and I wonder if the

House would welcome them as British Columbians to be.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On behalf of my colleague the MLA for Okanagan North

(Hon. Mrs. Jordan), who has lost her lovely voice, I have the honour to introduce

Mr. Gabriel Siska, his wife Veronica and their two children, John and Juli-Anne,

who are in the Speaker's gallery. I would like the members to join the member

for Okanagan North and I in wishing them well on their visit to Victoria, and

in welcoming them to this House.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In the gallery today are visitors from Vancouver.

I would like to ask the House to welcome Rev. Georgette Williamson; Miss Sharlene

Reid, who is the daughter of Rev. Cameron Reid, who led us in prayer today;

and Michael and Jeanie Oulton. Will the House please give them a warm and hospitable

welcome.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like to introduce two visitors from Langley

and their children. My former constituency secretary, Madeleine Snell, and

her two sons Dan and Jimmy, are sitting in the gallery, along with Mrs. Mereda

Preece and her two daughters, Sheila and Erin. Welcome.

MR. RITCHIE: Visiting the precincts today are a group of Social Credit

friends from New Zealand who are visiting British Columbia. We're very pleased

to have them here. I believe there are about 1, 993 of them. I ask the House

to please welcome these people.

MR. BARNES: I rise on a question of privilege regarding report No. 6

of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills. The report

states in part: "The

preamble of Bill PR403, intituled

An Act to Amend

the Vancouver Charter, has not been approved, as the assertions in the petition

are not substantiated." I attended each and every one of the committee

hearings; I have read the transcripts of the hearings to refresh my memory.

The committee never discussed report No. 6 or the statement in that report delivered

to this Legislature. As a member of that committee I had no opportunity to discuss what the report would contain, and therefore

my privileges as a member of that committee and of this House have been seriously

offended by the Chairman.

In addition, the report appears to be incorrect and does not accurately reflect

the deliberations of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private

Bills. The Social Credit majority voted against the

preamble of the bill, and

during the debate of that motion several Social Credit members gave their reasons

for voting against it. None of their reasons appear in report No. 6, so in addition

the Chairman has offended the privileges of all hon. members of the committee

and presented a report to this House that will mislead he members. I therefore

wish to move the following motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the member would have the statement passed to the Chair, I would appreciate it very much.

MR. BARNES: If approved, I'd be prepared to move a motion.

MR. SPEAKER: If you're prepared with a motion, as soon as the statement is seen to be in order.... Could we have a copy of the statement?

MR. BARNES: Should I read the motion?

MR. SPEAKER: No, the motion would not be in order until we can determine whether or not a prima facie case of privilege really exists.

MR. BARNES: I'll proceed with the motion, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, you have an option. Although you are not able to move the

motion now, you may wish to give us the content of the motion.

MR. BARNES:

Thank you. Mr. Speaker. The motion is that a special committee of

privileges be appointed to consider the matter of a report filed by Mr.

W.B. Strachan, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing

Orders and Private Bills, concerning

An Act to Amend the Vancouver

Charter, which report is erroneous in that it does not reflect

proceedings before that committee, and that the said committee report

its findings to the House, the said committee to be comprised of nine

members to be named by the special committee of selection, and that the

committee so appointed have the following powers — namely, to have all

the powers and privileges of the Legislative Assembly under the

Legislative Assembly Privilege Act.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you, hon. member. We will consider not only the motion but the

statement having been made, and will bring a decision to the House as

to whether or not a prima facie case does exist.

I must

remind hon. members that this is at least the second, perhaps the third

time the Chair has been alerted to problems arising in committee, which

really should not be brought to the attention of the House, except by

report of the Chairman of that committee. I would not like to see a

motion of privilege used as an avenue to bring to the attention of the

House committee matters. Nonetheless this motion will be given due

consideration. and a decision will be brought back.

MR. LAUK:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Barnes) has brought a question of privilege to the

attention of the House. When a question of privilege is raised there

are only two avenues. One is open to the Chairman of a committee if

those privileges are brought to his attention. But if it's the

individual privilege of a member that is in question, he has an avenue

open to him and a right to bring that matter to the attention of the

House, as soon as it is apparent to him that his privileges are or may

be breached. I'm sure that the Speaker's remarks are not intended to

discourage his rights in that regard.

[ Page 6510 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly not.

Hon.

members, on Friday last the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk) rose on a matter of privilege and alleged that another member had

obstructed a certain proposal under consideration by the Select

Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills. The member

suggested that his privileges as a member of the House had been thereby

breached but did not indicate how the alleged obstruction had in fact

impeded him in his service to the House. In the twelfth edition of

Erskine May on page 63 it is noted:

"Both

Houses of Parliament enjoy various privileges in their collective

capacity as constituent parts of the High Court of Parliament, which

are necessary for the support of their authority and for the proper

exercise of the functions entrusted to them by the constitution. Other

privileges, again, are enjoyed by individual members, which protect

their persons and secure their independence and dignity."

The Votes and Proceedings

show that the first member for Vancouver Centre is not a member of the

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills. In the

absence of any suggestion to the Chair by the member as to how he has

been impeded in his service to the House, based on his statements, I am

unable to conceive of any way in which any privilege enjoyed by him as

an individual member may have been breached. Under these circumstances

there is no basis upon which the Chair is able to find a prima facie

case of breach of privilege as earlier defined.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, with respect to the question

of privilege that I raised on Friday last and on which Mr. Speaker has

just ruled, I should point out to Mr. Speaker that it's the privilege

of every hon. member of this House to bring legislation before the

House. That's a privilege contained in tradition and in our standing

orders. Had I known that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Hyndman) would renege on his promise, I could well have

brought

an act before this Legislature at a seasonable time for its

consideration. Because he has reneged on his promise in the twilight

hours of this session, I must bring it in very late in the day at the

risk of its not being called upon for debate by the House Leader. That

is a breach and an imposition. It also impedes my actions as a member.

Had I known that he would not keep to his word, I could have brought in

an act at the beginning of the legislative session, Mr. Speaker. That

is the point I thought was clear when I raised my point of privilege

last Friday.

MR. SPEAKER: It appears to the Chair

that the member is seeking to enter debate on the matter of privilege

itself, which would not be in order at this time.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the first member for

Vancouver Centre for a complete withdrawal of a statement he knows to

be absolutely wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: It is difficult for

the Chair to determine whether or not a statement made is correct or

incorrect. I am left with only those powers that are left to me. I must

therefore ask the first member for Vancouver Centre if any improper

motive has been imputed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs.

MR. LAUK: I have nothing to withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker has just referred to having received

several reports in the House of alleged irregularities in the committee

on private bills on the amendments to the Vancouver Charter. Mr.

Speaker will be intimately familiar with the ruling of Mr. Speaker

Pooley of 1890, in which he said that all witnesses in opposition to a

private member's bill must be founded upon a petition. It has come to

my attention that witnesses did appear in opposition to that bill. As a

member of this House but not of the committee, I would argue that my

privilege in this House to take action when a petition is brought into

this House to oppose a bill has been impeded, and that the appearance

of witnesses in opposition to the bill without their request to oppose

the bill being founded upon petition in this House offends the very

considered, very detailed and very well thought out decision of Mr.

Speaker Pooley, who argued that

whereas it takes a petition and a

waiting period to bring a bill through the House and have it referred

to the private members, if witnesses can suddenly appear in opposition

without any waiting period and without the proper procedure of

petition, this would create a problem.

I would ask Mr.

Speaker to look into the whole matter of this irregular proceeding. I

would say that as members of this House we have been impeded, because

there was no petition upon which that opposition was founded. Mr.

Speaker, I refer again to Mr. Speaker Pooley's ruling of 1890, which is

very clear in this case.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has

already undertaken, last evening at the request of the second member

for Surrey (Mr. Hall), to research the entire matter. It is indeed one

which requires considerable consideration, and a decision will be

brought as quickly as possible.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm not

arguing that this is part of standing order 115; I'm saying that there

were matters brought before that committee which were not brought

properly through the House in the first instance, and that as a member

of this House I have been given the runaround and not had my day. I'm

not a member of that committee, but I have the right to hear the

petition of opponents to that bill in this House before they have a

right to appear before a committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. member is, I think, aware of the fact that the Speaker and the

House have no knowledge of what happened in committee, unless upon a

report of the Chairman. The ideal time to bring these matters to the

attention of the House would be upon a report from the Chairman and

perhaps upon a motion for adoption of that report.

Introduction of Bills

COMPUDSMAN ACT

a motion by Mr. Mussallem, Bill M217, Compudsman Act, introduced, read

a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced a bill which should have been

introduced today, and I wonder whether it would be possible to consider

it introduced.

[ Page 6511 ]

MR. SPEAKER: No, it needs to be properly introduced. The member would require leave.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce a bill.

Leave granted.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE GUARANTEED

AVAILABLE INCOME FOR NEED ACT,

R.S. CHAP. 158

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill M218,

An Act

to Amend the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act, R.S. Chap. 158,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

DETOXIFICATION CENTRE

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The Alcohol

and Drug Commission together with the Vancouver City Police have almost

completed a detoxification centre in my constituency. It is widely

hailed in the constituency and the city, as it was intended to relieve

the drunk tank facilities, which were most inadequate in the city of

Vancouver. The fire marshal has stated recently that because of very

poor and faulty construction, it is illegal for anyone to be kept in

that detoxification centre overnight, which defeats the whole purpose

of it.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Well, it's

a very serious matter.... As you know, people die in the drunk tank,

and it's a very serious matter. We wanted the proper facilities

constructed. We thought we were on the right road. Will the Minister of

Health indicate what steps he's decided to take to remedy and upgrade

this facility?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, if the

building does not comply to the fire regulations, then it will have to

be modified to comply with the fire marshal regulations. Depending on

who may be held responsible for that, we presume that there would be

some recovery of any extra costs for seeing that it complies with the

fire marshal's regulations. I'd be pleased to look into it more

specifically to determine what those problems may be and how readily it

may be remedied. because we can't have a building that fails to meet

the fire marshall's regulations. I see no difficulty in making the

necessary modifications to the building to meet that code, and that

should be done as quickly as possible.

MR. LAUK: The

minister took the question partly as notice. I bring to his attention

that there is no intention so far, from what I understand, to use it as

a drunk tank — a detoxification centre — overnight, but it would be a

day patient type of thing, which would defeat its original purpose. If

the minister can investigate that and reply, I'll be much obliged.

RENT INCREASE IN

BEACH AVENUE BUILDING

MR. LAUK: I have another question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing said what?

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're doing a lot of speaking today.

MR. LAUK: He said, "Get lost," I think.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister does not have the floor; the member has the floor. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: Old No Chabot.

Earlier

this year during the minister's estimates I brought to his attention

the plight of a tenant at 2061 Beach Avenue in Vancouver's West End. A

widow on a pension was facing a rental increase of $551; that's a jump

of 77 percent. Since I asked the question of the minister this woman

has been forced to leave. That was her home for over 13 years. Can the

minister inform the House as to what action, if any, he took to protect

this woman from her gouging landlord, and what protection he is

providing for her now?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker,

the member refers to a landlord at that address by the name of

Hollyburn Properties. May I advise the member that, as I believe I

indicated publicly, this ministry has undertaken an investigation of

the activities of that company with respect to rental properties it

owns, in Victoria as well as Vancouver, on the basis of a series of

reports received by my office from various quarters alleging what

appear to be unconscionable rent increases. I was advised by the

rentalsman yesterday afternoon that that investigation and report will

be concluded and on my desk sometime this week.

MR. LAUK:

In the meantime there's a widow on a pension without a place to stay. I

do wish the minister would take these questions seriously when they are

initially asked. I'm asking him again, with respect to putting his

money where his mouth is, whether he has decided to do something once

the report is completed. Is he going to move on Hollyburn to set a

precedent against these landlords who, as he says, are giving notice of

unconscionable rent increases?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

There are two aspects to the question, Mr. Speaker. Firstly, any tenant

in this province, regardless of whether it is a rent-controlled rental

unit, who feels unfairly treated by a landlord has appeal provisions

under the Landlord and Tenant Act: alternately, if they want to send

particulars to my office, we'll look into them. In this particular

case, as the member knows, the upper ceiling on rent review is $700 per

month. As I understand it this particular apartment was renting for

above that level. I can tell the member that presently we have under

review all aspects of existing landlord and tenant and rent control

provisions, including the issue of whether that $700 maximum should be

increased. No decision has been taken as of today, but it is certainly

being looked at.

MR. LAUK: I thank the minister for the bureaucratic answer. It's the same one that I get from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith).

[ Page 6512 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May we have a question, please.

MR. LAUK: Ministers of the Crown are supposed to lead, not just provide reviews.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LAUK:

I brought this to the minister's attention, and he decided to launch an

investigation into the activities of Mr. Jim Ritchie, a Victoria real

estate agent who is using the loophole created in

section 17(1)(

e) of

the Residential Tenancy Act to convert apartments ostensibly. Yesterday

he gave an answer on another such project in the West End. I now hold

in my hand a letter that this man is sending around....

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is using question period for debate purposes. May we have the question.

MR. LAUK:

No, I'm asking the minister...setting out clearly what I alleged was

happening on Barclay Street. Has the minister seen a copy of this

letter?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I have not seen a copy of

the letter, but as the first member for Vancouver Centre knows, being

well versed in the law.... As I advised all members in this House

yesterday, a hearing on that

section is being held on July 7 — that's

within a week. I would suggest to Mr. Ritchie, or anybody else who

thinks they have spotted an alleged loophole under

section 17(1)(e),

that they would be well advised, as would be anybody interested in such

circulars, to await the results of that hearing.

MR. LAUK: I'll provide the letter to the minister.

LITTLE MOUNTAIN

SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECT

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my

question is directed to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Can

the minister assure the House that he has decided to fight for the

upgrading of the Little Mountain social housing project in Vancouver?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is yes.

MS. BROWN: Will the minister assure the House that he has not decided to sell the project, either to CMHC or to private interests?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Well, Mr. Speaker, that's a fairly ambiguous way of putting a question.

It confuses me slightly, but I would have to say no, we haven't

contemplated the disposal of these units of social housing to either

CMHC or to the private sector.

MS. BROWN: The final

reassurance I'd like from the minister, Mr. Speaker, is that the number

of social housing units in the project will remain the same. In other

words, we are not going to lose any of those social housing units.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Speaker, that's a fairly technical question. At the moment I would

assume from my recollections that no, there will be no decrease in the

number of social units there.

WCB INVESTIGATION

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In December

1980 a claims investigator for the WCB sent a report of his findings to

the subject's employer, B.C. Forest Products. The company had requested

an investigation into the activities of one of its employees, and WCB

had complied. Can the minister confirm that it is now the policy of the

WCB to conduct police investigations of British Columbia workers for

the benefit of employers?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm not

aware of the problem to which the member has alluded. Perhaps if she

has any particular information which might be of assistance in helping

me make the odd inquiry with respect to this allegation.... I'd be

quite prepared to do it. In the meantime, I'll take that question as

notice.

MS. SANFORD: The WCB claims investigator is

Mr. B. Qually. He completed a report and submitted it to B.C. Forest

Products at their request. By the way, this was subsequently used in an

arbitration case. The investigating officer acted in complete

contravention of

section 95 of the WCB act. I am wondering if the

minister is prepared to take action against Mr. Qually.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the member asking about future activity of the minister?

MS. SANFORD: Has he decided?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

It's very difficult for me to give an answer to that question without,

first of all, finding out what all the facts are. I appreciate that the

member has pursued her duty and disclosed to the House what is alleged

to be a contravention of a particular

section under the act, but I

think it's incumbent upon me to find out what other information might

be available. I also said that I would take that question as notice.

DUMPING OF CONTAMINATED

SOIL AT TERRA NOVA LANDFILL

MR. LEGGATT: My question

is directed to the Minister of Environment. Recently PCP-contaminated

soil was taken from B.C. Place and dumped on the Terra Nova landfill

site in Coquitlam. Would the minister advise, first of all, whether his

department approved this action, and also whether he supervised the

dumping?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yes to the first question and no to the second question.

MR. LEGGATT:

I'd like to deal with the "no" answer. Is the minister aware that the

soil removed from B.C. Place and dumped at the Terra Nova landfill was

dumped near a drainage ditch and is now leaching into the Fraser River?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, I'm not aware of that, but I'll take the member's information under advisement and discuss it with my staff this afternoon.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like the minister, if he would, to clarify the procedure under which approval is given for the

[ Page 6513 ]

transfer

of this kind of substance. I don't know whether it quite qualifies as a

toxic substance, but is there a procedure within the ministry where

there is supervisory work done, or are specific instructions given when

moving something like PCPs to be sure that the actual dumping at the

landfill site is controlled, as well as the movement of the substance?

MR. SPEAKER: This question could provoke a very long answer. Is that what the member intends?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Perhaps if I get a minute after question period I'll be able to spend

time with the member briefing him on just what the procedure is. At the

present time there isn't a waste manifest transportation system in the

province. It amounts to future legislation, which I would hope to

introduce at the next session.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table answers to all the questions on the order paper. [Laughter.]

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I have the honour to table the annual report of the British Columbia

Heritage Trust for the year 1980-81. Accompanying the report is the

auditor's report for the British Columbia Heritage Trust and financial

statements, as at March 31, 1981. These reports are in manuscript form.

The printed copy will be available in due course.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen tabled the Ministry of Health annual report, 1980.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 31, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1981

(continued)

The House in Committee on Bill 31; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Section 6 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Davis

Brummet

NAYS 16

Macdonald

Barrett

Lea

Lauk

Dailly

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Sanford

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

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

section 7.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister some questions about the

necessity for this section, which is to increase the preferred stock

from an authorization of $10 million to one of $600 million. My

understanding is that that $600 million of preferred stock would be

within the authorization that the government just received under

section 6. But why the necessity of preferred stock at all? If you're

going to take worthless paper and shove money into the railroad, go

ahead and do it. But what difference does it make whether you're taking

preferred stock or common stock? I don't quite understand the

significance of the preferred stock

section on a railway in which all

the shares are always going to be owned by the provincial government.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid the member for Coquitlam-Moody is here asking a lot of legal advice on business that he should know.

MR. LAUK: You're ripping off the taxpayers.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

No, we're not ripping off the taxpayers; we're investing in the future

of this great province. You're against railroads because they don't run

through downtown Vancouver. You don't recognize the necessity for

development in this province. A dollar generated in the north generates

two in the lower mainland and is good for your constituents. You don't

recognize all of that, my friend. You have tunnel vision. I

Actually, we want to buy preferred stock so we can redeem preferred stock.

It's pretty hard to redeem common stock when you have a debt on the railroad.

as you will see by

section 7. In other words, we can buy preferred stock; then,

when the surcharges come in, we can redeem our money through redemption of

the preferred stock. Understand?

MR. LEGGATT:

Would the minister now tell the House how the preference is to be

divided with regard to the preferred stock? Is it preferred in terms of

dividends? Is it preferred in terms of a specific percentage in regard

to dividends on that stock, or is there a fixed percentage to be paid

to the holders of that preferred stock?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

No. We intend to capitalize the Anzac route through the purchase of

preferred stock. Then, when the surcharge is paid back, we can redeem

those preferred stocks.

MR. LEGGATT: If I understand

the minister correctly, the preferred stock is a special issue to be

allocated only to the funds the government is advancing with regard to

the construction of the Anzac line — that's the single purpose of the

preferred stock. Would that be correct?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the member is reading into the record words I did not say. I said that is the intention at the present time.

[ Page 6514 ]

MR. LEGGATT:

Could the minister advise when the government anticipates being in a

position to start redeeming its preferred stock in the Anzac line?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: When the coal starts moving.

MR. LEGGATT:

I take it that we're looking at more than the life of this contract

before the government expects to have any redemption on its preferred

stock.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: With the world demand for

coal I would anticipate that when additional contracts are signed, more

tonnage moves on a surcharge. After 1989 the surcharge goes up. It

depends on the amount of coal. As I've said before, you have to look at

the entire project.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like the minister to again direct his attention,

if he would, to the original question about the preferred stock; that is, whether

the preferred stock is preferred in respect to common stock for purposes of

redemption, or preferred in terms of interest to be paid on the investment of

the government in that preferred stock. Is there some special dividend to be

attached to the preferred stock, or will the redemption simply be dollar for

dollar? In other words, for every dollar the taxpayer's putting into the

Anzac line is he just going to get a dollar back out of the surcharge?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's the intention of the government to recover over a period of time both the capital cost and the interest.

MR. LEGGATT: How much is the interest?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I can't look into the crystal ball and tell you what the interest rates are going to be ten years from now.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, I think it's fair to come to the conclusion that when or

if ever that preferred stock is redeemed it's going to be dollar for

dollar. You're going to be using inflated 1995 dollars if you do ever

get it back. That's another indication of the kind of shrewd investment

that's taking place on the Anzac line.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

MR. LEGGATT:

I'd like to ask the minister some questions about the need for these

changes under the law. As I read it, under the existing British

Columbia Railway Finance Act the government seems to have all the

authority it needs to guarantee. I don't know why you need these

additional sections. Perhaps the minister would advise us about that.

Also

there's some concern about the use of lease-backs for railcars. I don't

know whether the minister has any intention to work on a lease-back

deal as they do under the ferry system where they have this marvellous

financial deal where the federal government loses tax money in order to

keep the ferries running. I'm just wondering if the minister has that

kind of thing in mind for the railcars.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I'd be most happy to answer the member's question in my usual clear and

precise manner. I want to tell you something. There are some legal

opinions that when we get moving the coal on the Anzac route, because

we are moving it on to the CNR we may be entering into a contract which

would bring the entire British Columbia Railway under the Canadian

transport act and the Canadian Transport Commission. We want that

little railroad to serve British Columbia. Do you understand what I'm

saying? So there are some legal opinions floating around that it may be

necessary to form a subsidiary company to be in charge of the contract

to haul the coal over the Anzac line because it fits into the Canadian

National. All we're doing here is making sure that we have the

necessary legislation so that if we're faced with that we.could move at

that time.

MR. BARRETT: The purpose of setting up a

subsidiary company is to show that it makes a profit hauling coal out

of Anzac while the debts are left with B.C. Rail. There's no other

reason for it whatsoever. This government is claiming that they've made

a profit on B.C. Rail. I heard the minister make the statement this

morning. What he cutely forgot to mention is that the government gave

B.C. Rail $70 million of taxpayers' money to pay the interest charges

on the debt on that railroad. All that's taking place here is a device

to pull out the transportation of the coal to make it appear profitable

while money will be shovelled out of the taxpayers' pockets to pay the

debt for which that minister can't even tell us the interest rates. You

sign those contracts ahead, not ten years from now. The fact is that

this is a load of massive debt. It's a device by the government to say

that this little company is making profit when taxpayers will be

subsidizing that to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, just as

this year $70 million went out of the taxpayers' pockets to subsidize

B.C. Rail.

There was no profit. It is all a fake and a cute

game. Let's get that clear so we understand exactly what we're talking

about. B.C. Rail was given $70 million out of general revenue funds

from the taxpayers' pockets. B.C. Rail will have to be given money year

after year out of the taxpayers' pockets. No matter how many subsidy

companies you set up, how many dummy companies you play games with and

how many bills you try to hide this debt in, the fact is you're loading

hundreds of millions of dollars of debt on the people of British

Columbia. And that story will be told out there, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

As usual, the Leader of the Opposition is totally wrong. I want to

inform you and the House again that the operations of the British

Columbia Railway today are operations prior to servicing the debt which

you loaded onto them — hundreds of millions of dollars when you were

president of the British Columbia Railway. The railway is making a

profit, because the railway is being very well run. When you've got the

politics out of it and are not meddling in it like you used to do,

trying to go over and run it from here, and have put in an independent

board, the railway is very well run. Morale is up, car loadings are up,

business is up and, indeed, profit is up. By putting some money into

this railway we're trying to get rid of the debt which you allowed to

stay there when you were president of the railway As I said, the

purpose is to allow us — in case we become involved with the Canadian

Transport Commission — to have the ability to set up a subsidiary

company, so that the whole British Columbia Railway does not fall under

the purview of the Canadian Transport Commission.

[ Page 6515 ]

wasn't too long ago that the Leader of the Opposition was standing up

on his soapbox in British Columbia saying that I'd cancelled out

forming a separate corporation. Now he's saying I should form a

separate corporation. As usual, you're all over the block, Mr. Leader

of the Opposition, and I think you're just a little bit jealous that in

five years we've been able to turn the operation of that railway around

into a profit-making venture. When we put money into it today, it's an

investment in the future of British Columbia. You didn't have the guts

to put it in. You put out $35 million and you didn't know whether it

was a loan or a grant. I remember when I was over there and we called

it a groan, because you didn't know what you were doing.

MR. BARRETT: Did the provincial government give B.C. Rail $70 million last year to help defray interest charges? Yes or no.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

It's a matter of public record. The Leader of the Opposition is pretty

wise in the way he's phrasing his.... We are picking up — as

recommended by the royal commission — the historic debt of the railway

to cover payments and interests. The Leader of the Opposition knows and

understands that. I don't know why he's pleading ignorance here today.

MR. BARRETT:

I'm not pleading ignorance. I'm doing nothing other than point out that

this government has a device to attempt to hide debt payments. The

minister has admitted that $70 million was paid from taxpayers' pockets

to service the debt on B.C. Rail, and then he has the gall to tell us

that the railroad — after being given the grant to pay the mortgage

payment — actually made a profit. You can flimflam the people of this

province all you want and you can play games all you want. Today we're

debating — and 99.9 percent of the people in British Columbia will not

hear about the debate — the fact that you are driving this railroad

into massive debt with very little public accountability. It's $70

million. Every time people pay sales tax and property tax, part of that

money is going to pay the debt on this railroad. The royal commission

brought in by your government warned against this very thing. The hon.

Justice McKenzie's record is clear in stating that the whole debt

should be completely wiped out. Instead of that, you're going back to

the old shell game again under this bill.

Let there be no

mistake about it, it is the old shell game of where the shares shall

go. This railway is going to issue shares to the government, the

government is going to buy the shares, and that's the only money the

railway gets. The government is going to allow the railroad to borrow

money. Are you trying to tell the world that borrowing money is a way

of putting money in the bank? Somebody has to pay the interest, and the

interest is going to be paid by the taxpayers of British Columbia for

year after year. Let's get it straight. Nobody is giving the railroad

any money. This dead-weight debt is going to burden generations in this

province.

We say that if we're going to spend a penny on

northeast coal let's have some equity, not a subsidy. Let us have

ownership rather than a giveaway. There is no guarantee of a repayment

from those private companies or the Japanese. We put all the money up

front and the Japanese convert it into yen and laugh all the way to

Tokyo, while you try to explain that someday in the future — maybe, if

everything is all right — we'll get our money back. You've been skinned

again, and let's be up front about it; that's your philosophy. You'd

rather give welfare to big companies than ask them to give us equity in

our own resources. God put that coal into the ground for some

husbanding with a sense of common decency and commitment to the people

of this province. What are you afraid of equity for? You're the worst

kind of socialist that anybody could imagine; you're giving money away

to the companies with no commitment and no equity. Dumb-bell socialism

is what you're practising, handing out taxpayers' money to those

corporations, as if they need relief and no payment.

I say

on behalf of my colleagues: if we put up a penny, let's have equity,

let's have a share, let's have some ownership, not giveaways. Seventy

million dollars — you admitted it. And you say to me: "Oh, well, the

Leader of the Opposition is trying to twist something that's a fact."

What is the fact? I asked you a simple question; a simple question is

complicated to that minister. The simple question I asked him was

whether $70 million of taxpayers' money was given to the railroad last

year to help pay the interest on the debt. His answer was yes. It's a

simple question. Will there have to be more money given next year? Yes.

If this bill passes, that $70 million will climb to $100 million, $120

million and $140 million; S 140 million a year will come out of

education and health budgets, out of road budgets, out of municipal

budgets, because you are pouring it into one project without a cent

guaranteed in return from equity. That's dumb-bell business.

You

tell the seniors of this province why they can't have homemaker care;

you tell the junior colleges why they've got to cut 20 faculty members

and why 140 students have to go without education; you tell the blind

seniors why they can't have the bus pass to transfer from bus to bus.

I'll tell them what the answer is: you're pouring money down a rathole

on a scheme that has no comeback to the people of British Columbia.

This

debate will die and lull away, and this day will be forgotten. but the

same legacy of debt, debt, debt that has been poured on by this

government and by previous Socred governments will build up. The debt

in British Columbia has doubled in six years under this debt-mad

government over there. According to public accounts, not to Dave

Barrett, the public debt has gone from $1,900 per person to $3,900 per

person per year — and you're borrowing in Europe and the United States

at rates of 16 and 17 percent. You're putting future generations in

hock in British Columbia, and you don't have the guts to take 10 cents

worth of equity out of it on behalf of the people.

Sure

we're mad. You're darned right we're mad; but I'm telling you, if you

think giveaway is the kind of policy the people in this province want,

at least be honest about it and admit that we're not going to recover

one penny under your dumb-bell policies. Let it be understood by every

old-age pensioner, every person working in a factory or in a mill, and

every young student that a part of their heritage is being mortgaged

today in this omnibus bill that will have to be subsidized by the

taxpayers. You can say anything you want; you can try and sell me a

used car — you and I are old friends and long-time political opponents;

I like you as a person and I think you like me — but I want to tell you

that this is your gravest mistake for future generations, and it's

being made on the backs of the people of British Columbia. It's debt

that will make profits for the Japanese; it's a continuation of

giveaway policies that I thought we had overcome long ago in this

province.

[ Page 6516 ]

I'm

sorry, but $70 million this year, $140 million next year, no schools,

cutbacks in the hospitals, cutbacks in programs.... The Japanese are

happy. It's dumb-bell business, as far as I'm concerned.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Chairman, it's not much wonder that the British Columbia Railway

was going broke and incurred millions and millions of dollars in

operating losses while the gentleman who just took his seat was the

president. The debt that has been with the railway historically is now

being paid off. That's what the bill is all about, that's what we put

the money in for, that was the recommendation of the royal commission,

and that's why we're passing this legislation. But the ironic part of

it is, Mr. Chairman, that the member who took his seat, along with the

federal leader of the socialist party, Mr. Broadbent, wants to give the

resources of British Columbia and the future of British Columbians away

to Ottawa 3,000 miles away. You talk about the future, my friend, and

say that you and Broadbent have it. You want to give it all away to

Ottawa and take away the heritage of all the young people growing up in

this province; that's what you want to do.

You may be able

to fool the people in the galleries, my friend, but you're not fooling

me one little bit, because while you say we're putting money into the

railroad, while you stand on your feet and play to the galleries and

say that we're taking money out of the mouths of babes to put into the

railway, you also recommend that we put hundreds of millions of dollars

more into the coal mines. That's what you're recommending. You're

saying there isn't enough money to put into the railroad to build the

railroad and a transportation system, and out of the other side of your

mouth you're saying we should put hundreds and hundreds of millions of

dollars more into developing the mines themselves. I'll tell you, Mr.

Chairman, he may be able to fool the people in the gallery, but he

doesn't fool me. He talks out of both sides of his mouth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He knows that the royal commission recommended...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just a moment, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...that we....

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

First of all, it has been brought to the attention of many members, in

committee and in the House, that we should refer to the Chair and maybe

refer to debate of other members, but not to members in the gallery.

Secondly, I'll ask the hon. member to withdraw the phrase "out of both

sides of his mouth." It has been withdrawn in the past, and I find it

unparliamentary. Will the minister please withdraw it?

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll certainly withdraw the phrase if it's unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARRETT:

We could go on for quite a while, but there are just a few comments

that need to be replaced. If you are asking me my choice of having

equity versus debt, I'll take equity any time. What it really means is

that you're telling the people of British Columbia that the best way to

buy a house is to give it away to someone else and then have the

privilege of paying the loan for giving it away. Do you want to talk

about Ottawa? I'll tell you this plainly. I'd rather have the resources

in the hands of the people through Ottawa than give them to Tokyo. Take

your pick: Ottawa or Tokyo. If you want to put it that way, I'm a

Canadian and I've got nothing against anybody in the Maritimes, Quebec,

Ontario or the Prairies if something is held in common for all the

people of this country. I'm not ashamed of being a Canadian or

embarrassed about Canada. If the Canadian government owns a resource, I

as a Canadian citizen have a share of it just as much as somebody in

the Maritimes. So don't give me that huffery-puffery and nonsense about

Ottawa being someplace bad. It's the capital of this country. I'm a

Canadian and I'm part of it and so are you.

If the minister

doesn't like the federal government policies, let him belong to a

federal party. He belongs to a little rump coalition that has no

philosophy; it is a grab for power; it is a show-business government

that says they're prepared to give away resources to be back in power.

You want to bet what the slogan will be? I'll tell you what the slogan

will be: "Rather Ottawa than Tokyo." You would fight for Tokyo; I'd

fight for Ottawa. I'd fight for the people of British Columbia; you

fight for the jobs in Japan. You take your pick. I think that's clearly

understood. We're going to subsidize this railroad for jobs outside of

Canada. You sold off Railwest. We'll have to buy railcars from other

jurisdictions. The irony will be that we may have to buy railcars from

an American railcar plant that is now using the equipment that was paid

for by the taxpayers of British Columbia that you sold off at firesale

prices. You've sold off our ferries and our railcar plant. You sold off

our heritage.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. We must be relevant.

MR. BARRETT:

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm being as relevant as this

section hidden away in

this bill. It's all a game. There's no conscience over there on the

basis of piling debt on the people of this province. I'll tell you

this. You've really put the issue down to an understanding nutshell.

You asked me my choice: Ottawa or Tokyo. My choice is clear. I support

Ottawa over Tokyo any single time, any day of the year.

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

MR. SKELLY: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. SKELLY:

I'd like to introduce my brother-in-law and sister-in-law, Mr. Bill and

Mrs. Lynn Shewchuck from Cranbrook. They are here with their sons John

and Steven and are accompanied by my son Robbie. I'd ask the House to

make them welcome.

section 12.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister some questions about this,

which is really the key

section in this whole series in many ways. This

section provides:

[ Page 6517 ]

"The amount of the unredeemed securities issued by the company

less the value, as determined by the Minister of Finance, of sinking funds for

the retirement of those securities shall not exceed $1.2 billion." This in fact is an increase in the borrowing capacities of B.C. Rail. My estimate

is it's by $200 million. That's the way the figures come out when I

look at it.

It's

the same question. Here's B.C. Rail $750 million in debt now. The

taxpayers of British Columbia are feeding that company at a rate of $70

million a year. There's no profit in B.C. Rail. Let's admit that it's a

public transportation system and quit playing the game that somehow

it's a profit-making organization. It's not and never will be. If you

gave this thing to the private sector, they'd put it out of business.

They'd say: "This is a failure." It's $750 million in debt. If it was

anybody but the government owning the shares, it would have wound up

years ago. Why must we increase the borrowing capacity of this railroad

at this time? If it isn't, they just confirm the giveaway on the Anzac

line.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Because the economy of the

province is indeed going ahead.... We are looking after jobs and

economic development for the future so that there will be profits made

so that We can tax them to provide the services that the people of this

province enjoy today. That's what it's all about. Keep your economy

rolling. Certainly we have to increase the borrowing until such time as

we reduce the bottom end to facilitate construction of the Anzac line.

Section 12 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 17

Macdonald

Barrett

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Wallace

Mitchell

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

Sections 13 to 17 inclusive approved.

section 18.

MR. LORIMER:

section 18 and also

section 19, what this is is a care package for

the monopoly fish companies in this province. It prevents fishermen

from disposing of their fish to people off docks or whatever is the way

they have done over a great number of years. This provision will

prevent them, without a lot of licensing and difficulty, from doing so

and will basically force them to sell all their fish to B.C. Packers

and the rest of them. On this side of the House we will be voting

against both

section 18 and

section 19.

We've passed so many

laws in Canada over the year. I suppose there are hundreds of laws

being passed. This goes on year after year. Most of them are

unnecessary. Here's a case where two of them should not be on the books

of any jurisdiction. We've gone on for a hundred years without this

type of legislation. The fishermen have proceeded in a normal course,

and everybody seems to have been happy except the fish companies. We're

coming out now and we're going to give them a little bit of help at the

expense of the fisherman.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I believe

the member is misstating the situation somewhat in this particular

section. It does not prevent the individual fisherman from selling his

own catch. We only require him to keep a record of those sales which

are made. That is a licensing provision that already exists; however

there is currently no requirement for record-keeping of it. From the

point of view of inventory alone and of our species management in

cooperation with the federal Fisheries and Oceans, we would like to

have a record of what fish are sold by individual fishermen at the dock.

MR. LORIMER:

I said in my remarks that it would allow them to, but it would be

difficult for them to do so. That's the point. The problem will be the

amount of paperwork they have to do, documents in triplicate and

whatnot. It just won't happen. So it's fine to say it's allowed, but in

actual fact what this is doing is barring it.

MR. LEA:

I would very quickly say to the minister that to ask fishermen to keep

records like that makes it obvious that the minister has never been on

a fishboat. You're going to have fish all over the place, and you get a

little piece of paper, and try to write down all the species with

everything else going on.... It is impossible. All it is is a bunch of

bureaucratic nonsense that the fishermen are not going to be able to

comply with. Probably somebody in your department said: "Mr. Minister.

It's a good idea." You looked at it and said: "Yes, it seems like a

good idea." And here it is in the House. But it is crazy.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Chairman, this thing is simply a piece of.... It's just creating

jobs — red-tape jobs, the kind we don't need in this province. We need

jobs badly, but we sure don't need to create them in this manner. If

this Social Credit back bench can support this kind of move, and

they've let this thing slip through their screening process, is nothing

Socred?

MR. MITCHELL: I would like a little

clarification. Can the minister tell this House that this regulation

says you cannot clean a fish, you cannot ice a fish or freeze a fish

while either fishing or travelling? Is that what it says? I can see not

packaging.... Well, this is what it says. Let's read what it says:

"...in the definition of 'processing' by repealing paragraph (

a) and

substituting the following: (

a) a licensed fishing vessel which, while

fishing or delivering its catch, engages in eviscerating and icing,

freezing or packaging on board the product of its catch...."

Does that mean you can't clean it, you can't freeze it, or ice it? Is that what you're saying they can't do? If you don't

[ Page 6518 ]

want to package it, fine. But why can't they clean it? Are you going to freeze it with everything inside them?

Section 18 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 17

Barrett

Lea

Lauk

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

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

Journals of the House.

Section 19 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 18

Barrett

Lea

Lauk

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

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

Sections 20 to 22 inclusive approved.

section 23.

MRS. WALLACE:

This is the

section that deals with the tax on coloured gas. I think

this

section exemplifies the kind of bungling that goes on over in

those government benches. Here we have an amendment to section (6)4,

which isn't even in the statute books yet, because

section 4 was passed

through a bill in this Legislature just a few weeks ago. I think that

points out the kind of bungling that goes on with that government. They

don't know what they're doing when they pass a piece of legislation.

Here we are amending subsection (4), and we're tacking onto it a

proviso that every time a farmer or fisherman decides he wants to

participate in this reduced tax rate for gasoline he has to show his

permit. I suggest that this is simply bringing the bureaucracy to bear

a little harder on the farmer and the fisherman.

I believe

section 24 deals with the bona fide portion of this. I won't deal with

that now, but I want to deal with it, because I have some very grave

concerns about that. I would suggest that this is a

section that could

well be deleted, bringing more bureaucracy to bear on farmers and

fishermen and making it more difficult for them to participate in this

supposed tax reduction.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm sorry

for the member for Cowichan-Malahat, who in a few words has criticized

this government for having to amend legislation as it's been

introduced. The fact of the matter is that the former NDP government in

1973 introduced the concept of a permit system for control purposes for

coloured gasoline purchased by a bona fide farmer or commercial

fisherman for use in a family farm vehicle or the family fishing

vessel. That was exempted from tax in 1973, but it has since been

determined that there was no legislative authority to do that. We are

therefore correcting something which has gone on incorrectly since

1973. We can apologize for not catching it earlier, but it is caught

now. We have the advice of legislative counsel with respect to this. It

is an error. I would leave it to others to determine where the error

originated.

Section 23 approved.

section 24.

MRS. WALLACE:

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance how he is going to

determine who is a bona fide farmer. Is this now to be left to

regulation under the Lieutenant-Governor? This is a question no one

seems to be able to decide yet. What constitutes a bona fide farmer or

fisherman? I would suggest that this minister has had some problems in

trying to decide just how sales tax is going to be applied in other

areas relative to bona fide farmers in particular, where in fact he has

been taken to court for collecting the sales tax improperly.

Incidentally, he's lost that court case, and now he's involved — at

least I would hope he's involved — in some refund of sales tax.

Here

we have another situation where we're going to come up with a

definition of bona fide farmer or fisherman. As far as I'm aware, there

have been no accepted criteria as to what constitutes this. Is it

someone who earns 50 percent or more of his income from farming or

fishing? In the case of a farmer, is it someone who enjoys the farm

assessment classification? Is it someone who has a sales-tax exemption

number? How are you going to determine that, Mr. Chairman? I would

suggest that trying to come up with a definition of a bona fide farmer

or a bona fide fisherman and grant permits on that basis is going to

cause all kinds of problems.

[ Page 6519 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, we would be guided by a number of criteria which are in

place, not the least of which are Revenue Canada's; but there are other

standards of measurement in place in British Columbia which permit us

to determine a bona fide farmer or fisherman. The attempt here is not

to make the situation more difficult for the legitimate farmer or

fisherman who benefits, but rather for those who would abuse the lower

tax rate on this gasoline. After discussion with officials in the

consumer taxation branch of the ministry and with others, I'm satisfied

that this, rather than complicating the problem, is going to offer a

number of solutions. It takes the best efforts to ensure that not only

the legislation is correct but also the regulations which follow, and I

give the member that assurance.

Section 24 approved.

section 25.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I'm saddened about the deletion of sections 24 and 26 in

the Health Act. I knew it was coming. Since the Social Credit

government has been in power, the health engineers have been pretty

well put out of business.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Ostracized.

MR. COCKE:

"Ostracized," as the minister from Columbia River says, and that's a

shame. The only pollution control we had in this province was pollution

control provided by the Health ministry. Pollution control provided by

the Pollution Control Act in this province has been a joke — it's been

a licence to pollute — and the only tough-minded people we had working

for this government were the health engineers. What we find here is

legislation enacting what has already occurred: the health engineers

have been totally undermined. And now, of course, we see it in this

act. I'm interested that the explanatory note says that the amendment

eliminates an overlap of jurisdiction. Yes, indeed it does. But it's a

very sad time in this province, because the Health ministry was worried

about the health of the people as a result of environmental pollution.

I suggest that the pollution control department has never really been

worried about that; they've been worried about issuing licences to

pollute.

Sections 25 to 34 inclusive approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall sections 35 to 42 pass?

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, don't press it; will you do one

section at a time? This

is a very important bill, and if we skip a section, then we're likely

to....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: If the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) likes, we'll get up and speak on

every

section of this bill. What's the matter with him?

Sections 35 to 43 inclusive approved.

section 44.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman,

section 44 of this bill provides some concerns as far as

I'm concerned, and these are that the director of a mental institution

can act on behalf of a patient and can sign a form enabling that

facility to provide treatment. I sincerely believe that there are some

problems in this area. But I don't believe in a surprise piece of

legislation like this on such a very important subject.

You

know, I'm actually on 44 in the works, because I'm going to move an

amendment on each one of them. The reason I'm moving the amendment is

that I believe that the whole question should be discussed thoroughly

and that there should be witnesses who come forward to tell us just

exactly why we're doing what we're doing. I know some of the problems.

Under our present legislation a person can be committed, can refuse

treatment and can deny himself treatment. That's only for a 72-hour

period. At the same time, I think we should think in terms of the

liberties and rights of people, and so on and so forth. I think we

should hear from both the people who run the institutions and the

people who are advocates of those people who find themselves committed.

therefore move that

section 44 of Bill 31 be referred to the Select

Standing Committee on Health, Education and Human Resources. The

reasoning behind the amendment is as follows: if the committee....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the amendment is out of order. The committee cannot refer

to another committee. It can simply accept or defeat or in some way

properly amend the bill. But this is not an amendment, and I so rule.

MR. COCKE:

I had little doubt in my mind that that amendment would be ruled out of

order. However, I am making a point. The point is that I believe that

this is the kind of legislation that should very well be referred to

experts other than those who give us guidance with respect to this kind

of legislation. The people we hear from — that is the people the

ministry hears from — are people who are more or less committed to the

facilities and to the process. I really believe that there should be an

advocacy group, or a number of such groups, heard from in this kind of

legislation. I would like to hear from the minister as to how he feels

about this.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I don't

disagree with the member for New Westminster that there are many people

involved in this who should be heard from, and I can assure him that

many have been heard from. The amendment to

section 81(

a) is to make

consistent a practice which is permitted under

section 20 of the act

now, by bringing in sections 23, 24, 25 or 25(1) to clarify the

authorities of the director. It makes the act consistent within itself.

The question the member brings forward is much broader than what this

specific amendment is attempting to do.

MR. COCKE:

That's quite right. The director has been given this kind of a carte

blanche. Whether it was inconsistent or not before, the fact is that it

worries a great many people. We've had very little time to discuss this

with anybody. I think that the Chairman will agree that this kind of

last-minute legislation is the sort of thing that should be thought

about very carefully in the future. There are important changes all

down the line — sections 45, 46, 47, etc. — and that's my reasoning for

suggesting that this should not be something that is glossed over

quickly. The minister says

[ Page 6520 ]

we've

had lots of input. From where? You didn't have any input from the

opposition until we had a bill given to us three days ago. Now suddenly

it's before us for debate in committee. It's a very worrisome thing.

Yes, we're going to have to go out, during the time that we're out of

session, and find out from different groups just how this question is

going to affect people.

Section 44 approved.

section 45.

MR. COCKE:

I have exactly the same arguments on

section 45, Mr. Chairman. I won't

move my resolution. I think you know that I have a whole sheaf of them

here, but there is no point in wasting the time of the committee. But I

suggest that that also should be brought before the standing committee

and discussed in a public way so that people have input before we're

given this treatment. There is room in our society for a White Paper.

The last White Paper I can remember coming from that side was some time

ago, but these are the kinds of things I believe should have public

discussion.

Section 45 approved.

section 46.

MR. COCKE: The same exactly.

Section 46 approved.

section 47.

MS. BROWN:

I certainly support the recommendation made by the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) about referring this whole idea to a

legislative committee. For example, in

section 47 we find that this

psychiatric examination and treatment, which is recommended under

sections 44 to 47, should not apply when a person is in a child-care

resource as defined under the Family and Child Service Act. A

child-care resource as defined under the Family and Child Service Act

also includes a diagnostic centre, a centre established for the

treatment, training and rehabilitation of children, as well as

community-sponsored homes and group living homes. If, in fact, this

psychiatric treatment is indicated under sections 23 and 24 of the

Mental Health Act, why has a decision been made to exclude young people

who may be in a diagnostic centre or in an establishment for the

treatment, training and rehabilitation of young people or in a group

home? There are a number of young adolescents who come into contact

with the law, for one reason or another, who, it is indicated, need

psychiatric care and can get this on a day basis. It's not necessary

for them to be in a containment centre, which is defined in the

Correction Act as a jail, a prison, a lockup or a place of

imprisonment. Why has a decision been made not to include these young

people if they happen to be living in a diagnostic treatment centre, a

group home, a community-sponsored home, or in a centre which is

committed to their treatment, training and rehabilitation? Maybe the

minister could respond to that question.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I've been trying to follow the member's question. I must admit it is

not clear in my mind what that question is. The member referred to the

child-care resource as defined in the Family and Child Service Act. The

amendment strikes out "any jail or lockup in the province established

under any act, or in any child-care resource as defined in the Family

and Child Service Act," and it substitutes "a correctional centre or

youth containment centre under the Correction Act or a prison or lockup

operated by a police force." As the explanatory note says, that deletes

the reference to child-care resources, but this is a change in language.

I'm sorry, I just didn't quite follow what the question was, and I'm mildly confused.

MS. BROWN:

What I'm trying to explain is that a childcare resource as defined

under the Family and Child Service Act also includes a diagnostic

centre or a place for treatment, training and rehabilitation of

children, as well as group homes or community-sponsored homes. It is

sometimes possible for children living in these centres to need

psychiatric treatment as defined by sections 23 and 24 of the Mental

Health Act. Why was a decision made to eliminate that?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I'm advised that those youngsters can still receive the treatment, but

not necessarily under the involuntary

section of the act.

MS. BROWN: Now that doesn't make any sense. Maybe they could explain it to you some more.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I'm advised that that is not to deny treatment to those people whom you

identified. It would still be available to them. But they would not be

coming from some of these institutions as previously defined. I'm

advised that these youngsters whom you've identified would still have

treatment available to them.

Sections 47 to 53 inclusive approved.

section 54.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I have just one question for the minister on these sections dealing

with the Motor Vehicle Act. By the way, this

section increases the

penalty on damages before you have to file a damage report from $200 to

$400. But the minister has made it retroactive to January 1. I wondered

why and how the minister intends to collect on this section.

HON. MR. FRASER:

First of all, this amendment is in here to deal with inflation and cut

down on paper work, hopefully. I can't explain why, other than the fact

that they want to get the thing in order from January 1, I guess — the

retroactive part of it. But the basic amendment is here to deal with

inflation, and try to and cut down on paper work.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

The minister didn't answer my question. I understand the reason for the

amendment and agree with it. But I wondered how the minister intends to

collect retroactively the damage reports that have already been filed.

Section 54 approved.

section 55.

[ Page 6521 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Section 55 once again deals with the Motor Vehicle Act, and penalties

imposed on drivers who are under suspension. What I wish to question

the minister about in this

section is this: the

section seems to remove

the court's discretion to grant a conditional discharge, and requires a

prison sentence for a first conviction. The second question is: when

this

section comes into force, and because it's not mentioned in the

commencement section, when does the minister expect that this

section

will come into force?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm not clear

which

section the member refers to in the first part of his remarks.

But to answer the second part, all sections of this legislation will

come into effect on royal assent.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The

question I asked concerns the fact that the

section removes the court's

discretion to grant a conditional discharge to drivers. I was wondering

for what reason, if any, the ministry felt that they should be taking

away the court's discretion in this regard.

HON. MR. FRASER: Which

section are you referring to under

section 55?

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Section 55 deals with a number of items. I don't have the specific area

in the section, but what it does — just for the record — is remove the

discretion of the court to grant a conditional discharge under

section

54. That's what it appears to do, and I wondered why.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm advised that there still can be an option of the court.

Sections 55 to 57 inclusive approved.

section 58.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

It seems to me there is quite a serious action taking place under this

section. It deals with penalties in relation to drivers who are

suspended. There are a great many every year. For people who didn't pay

their penalty points there were approximately 11,000 suspensions issued

every year through ICBC alone — never mind other offences. I believe

there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40,000 suspensions per

year. The point I'm making here, and about which I propose to move an

amendment, is that the possibility exists of an accused being convicted

without having received notice and without being able to call witnesses

or the officer who served the notice. In effect, we know that many

people move, they change jobs and localities, and there are mail

strikes. For whatever reason, we know that there are many people every

year who do not officially receive notice of their driver's licence

being suspended. Yet under

section 58 of the act, the proposed

section

94 really means that the person is unwittingly subjecting himself to a

minimum of seven days in jail and up to a $2,000 fine if caught while

his licence is under suspension; they wouldn't even know about it. One

of the things that the minister might consider is that three people

could at least be notified by registered mail. At the present time

they'd have to be. In this way they would know if they were driving

under a suspension or not.

In any event, what I'm going to propose is an amendment which deletes subsection 3.

On the amendment to

section 58.

HON. MR. FRASER:

The amendment would delete what the government is trying to achieve.

We're opposed to it, but I think that the committee should know that we

are going to take stronger measures to deal with people who already

have a serious offence which has suspended driving. What is happening

here in our province is that at the present time we have 52,000

suspended drivers. We cannot, of course, say they're all driving at any

one time, but they certainly are. We have no way under the present

set-up other than to give them a ticket for more points. That's my

understanding.

This is all part of trying to deal with a

very serious situation in our province related to high-point drivers.

The causes of the suspensions are for impaired driving or dangerous

driving and speeding. What we're trying to do here is to get them out

of the road system. In 1980 the total fatalities in our province were

811. In 1979 there were 740. In 1978 there were 636. So there is a

definite increase every year in fatals, damage claims and injuries. The

pattern stays the same with injuries. In 1978 there were 32,000

citizens injured; there were 37,000 in 1979; it jumped to 41,500 in

1980. I would say that it is continuing into 1981. From January to

March this year we have had 165 fatalities. So the proportionate

increase is continuing out there on the road system.

Licence

suspension is a significant deterrent to the average driver. If it is

not enforced by heavy penalties for driving under suspension — I

repeat, that is after they've had their drivers' licences suspended —

it will not be effective. We have had the task force tell us that. It

showed up in a long study on it. Other statistics also showed up. These

drivers are the ones that cause a great proportion of our accidents.

These drivers seem to have an influence on the other drivers.

Dealing

with the concept of expecting a driver to know of his suspension, it's

in the present act. The notification of suspension is by certified

mail. When the person signs for the letter, the sheriff's service is

advised; in court it's by the suspension or the driver knows on

conviction. As an example, with impaired driving they know, or should

know, that it's mandatory suspension.

Therefore I reject the

amendment. We don't want to hide anything. We definitely are stepping

up the penalty provision for suspended drivers.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I appreciate the minister's response, but the point I’m attempting to

make here, and which the minister really didn't address himself to, is

that there is a method by which people are notified by ordinary mail of

suspensions some way or another, and some people are unaware that

they've been suspended.

section 58(3) says:"...creates an absolute

liability offence in which guilt is established by proof of driving,

whether or not the defendant knew of the suspension." The point I'm

attempting to make, Mr. Chairman, is that in my view that's a denial of

natural justice.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I listened

very carefully to the minister, because I have very great sympathy for

what the minister is attempting to do. The minister addressed and

defended his legislation to a certain extent. He certainly addressed

half of the member for Mackenzie's (Mr. Lockstead'

s) amendment, because

this particular subsection (3) —

[ Page 6522 ]

and

the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) will, I

am sure, correct me if I'm wrong — seeks to do two things.

First

of all it says that absolute guilt is established by simply driving the

vehicle. You can't get out of it by any fancy arguments by any

high-priced group of lawyers. If you're in the car and you're driving,

that is guilt; you've had it — guilt, period. No "no, it wasn't me, it

was my brother, it was anybody else." That's guilt.

The

second thing it says in this

section is that it doesn't matter whether

you knew or whether you didn't know that you were suspended, you're

still guilty. It's the second part that the member for Mackenzie is

upset about. He's saying, just as the member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr.

Fraser) and everybody in this House is saying, that we want to get

tough with the people that the minister wants to get tough with; so do

1, and so does everybody else out there. We want to see the repeaters

caught. But just on the grounds of some false economy, or just because

the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) may not want to send some

policeman around or ICBC don't want to do some extra work, I don't want

to see some people in jail because they don't know that they've been

suspended.

The amendment simply would remove "...whether or

not the defendant knew of the suspension." I just don't see how we can

pass legislation when the so-called accused hasn't got the information

to know that he's doing wrong. I think that is changing what

traditionally has been the kind of law that we've been passing in

parliaments for many years. Now there may be another explanation that

has completely eluded us. If there is another explanation, then perhaps

someone on the other side can tell us. But I can't see it; subsection

(3), to the best of our ability, indicates two things: one is that

proof of driving establishes the guilt; the second thing is that it

doesn't matter whether the defendant knows whether he was suspended or

not.

HON. MR.GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, just for the

interest of the two members who were discussing this particular

section, I could commend them to take a look at sections 82 and 92 of

the Motor Vehicle Act. They will determine that this is dealing with

court-ordered suspensions; it does not deal with the failure to pay

insurance premiums and so forth. The words that were complained of by

the hon. member across the way — "whether or not the defendant knew of

the suspension" — are just a rearticulation of the existing law set

forth under

section 92(10) of the Motor Vehicle Act, which reads:

"Subsection (9) creates an absolute liability offence in which guilt is

established by proof of driving, whether or not the defendant knew of

the suspension." So we're not developing new law in the procedure here

at all; it's a rearticulation of the existing law and deals with all of

the much more serious driving offences — only the very serious driving

offences.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

Barrett

Lea

Lauk

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Sanford

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

NAYS — 28

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Mussallem

Brummet

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

Sections 58 to 67 inclusive approved.

section 68.

MR. BARBER:

Some 100 residents of Saltspring Island came to the capital yesterday.

They made a simple request of the government. They asked the Social

Credit Party to withdraw this

section of the bill — specifically that

which affects their interests on Saltspring Island — pending the

outcome of two processes: (1) the unimpaired outcome of the court

judgment, and (2) the unimpaired decision of the people of Saltspring

Island to be taken by referendum to determine whether or not they wish

to construct a sewer service at Ganges. These were simple, fair and

reasonable requests put to the government yesterday afternoon by the

people of Saltspring Island.

My first question today is to

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who is also the MLA for

Saanich and the Islands. I ask him whether or not he is prepared, on

behalf of his own constituents, to accede to their request for a

referendum in the traditional and democratic way on Saltspring Island,

and accede specifically to their request to withdraw this part of

section 68 which is before us now.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The member should know that while I serve as a member of a

constitutuency and can speak on this with the Chair's permission, this

section and others in this particular part of the bill are in the

charge of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm).

MR. BARBER:

As the House knows, every member is entitled to speak on any

section of

any bill. That includes the member for Saanich and the Islands, who

just declined the invitation which I now extend a second time. Will you

commit yourself on behalf of the government? Will you stand up on

behalf of your constituents, Mr. MLA for Saanich and the Islands, and

will you announce at this time a decision by your government upon the

request of your own constituents to withdraw that part of

section 68

which specifically affects the residents of Saltspring Island and

Ganges? The member for Saanich and the Islands is entitled to speak by

virtue of his position in cabinet. He most certainly has the political

authority to speak. I ask him to speak and to use that authority on

behalf of his own constituents in Saanich.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I can recall the words of the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk) when he said a little earlier this afternoon: "A minister

certainly has

[ Page 6523 ]

the

responsibility to take the lead in particular situations." I think we

have an example here of where the minister needs to take the lead. I'm

sure the member for Victoria would agree with his colleague for

Vancouver Centre that the statement he made earlier certainly has

merit. There are many times when a minister must take the lead when

certain actions are required.

We do have a situation on

Saltspring Island where there is obviously a split. I'm aware of this,

as I'm sure many members are, but me particularly perhaps, because I've

received delegations and many letters from both sides. I suppose it

might be argued that the situation on Saltspring is not unlike, and is

perhaps best demonstrated by, the split between the two Islands Trust

members, where one seems to be in support of and the other appears to

be opposed to. So the split may well be 50-50. I don't know what the

split is and, as you say, if there was a vote it could be that a more

clear split might be established. However, we know that there is a

problem. I'm sure that the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) would

agree, because he is close enough to it and perhaps has been there and

has spoken to various people involved.

There is a pollution

problem in Ganges. It's one that needs to be addressed, one way or

another, at some time. It may be delayed, but I'll agree that sooner or

later that problem needs to be addressed. That point has been made by

the health authorities, by the pollution control board and over again

by the hospital board and by the members of the school board. I'm

guessing these are all very responsible people, and they are obviously

very aware of what's happening there. That's not to say that everyone

in Ganges or on Saltspring necessarily agrees with all of these local

people, but certainly there are many who are aware of the problem, and

they know it needs to be addressed.

There has been money

spent and work done. We know that whether the project proceeds or not

it could well be, because of very generous provincial sharing, that it

might cost more for the residents of Ganges to drop the bylaw and not

have the sewer system proceed than to have it go ahead. If they proceed

they'll only be charged a levy at the equivalent of 2 1/2 mills, and

the mill rate on Saltspring, relative to everywhere else, certainly is

low. So it could be that it may be cheaper for them to pay the 2 1/2

mills and get the sewer than not to proceed and to be burdened with the

cost of the moneys that have already been spent. It wasn't necessarily

their decision that those moneys be spent, but certainly the system

where the regional board makes decisions on behalf of a regional

district is such that they're obviously burdened with those costs. You

can argue whether that is fair or not. It may be that perhaps the whole

of the regional concept ought to be addressed, but I don't want to get

into that debate. The fact remains that there is already a substantial

cost on the area. If they proceed, the cost to the individual

ratepayers will be relatively little compared to many other parts of

the province, and compared to areas that are incorporated now, where

there is development taking place and where they must provide for

people, industry and commerce. Compared to all of those areas, the cost

is very low.

One of the reasons that the cost is

particularly low is because we did, for a time — only two years.... It

was short-lived, granted, but there was a federal program which

allotted us a sum of money which we could distribute to communities

where there was a sewer installation with high costs. This particular

sewer installation was fairly hefty in cost, but became more so when a

decision was made — probably a very good one — that was going to cost a

lot of money: to extend the outfall much further still, in order to

assure all of the experts that there wouldn't be the pollution problem

that some of the people had complained about. So that decision was

made. The cost went up, and we then agreed that a large portion of the

funds would be paid from these community grant programs. Those

community grant programs will not be available after February of next

year. If a decision were not made to proceed with that sewer project,

or if a decision were not made right now, or if we did not know now

that we could proceed, we would immediately need to make a decision to

divert those moneys elsewhere.

I think in fairness to the

people of Saltspring Island — certainly those who are very supportive

of the project, and that's not everybody — those moneys should rightly

go to this project. When you take the lead, as the member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk) said earlier, it's not always a popular thing, and

it's not always what everyone agrees to. But a decision needs to be

made in order that we might proceed and see that community receive a

service which it desperately needs and which will see it develop

orderly and beautifully as a fine part of the Islands Trust area.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Municipal Affairs misses the point and

makes a few other points that are completely irrelevant. He wants to

have it both ways. When it serves his political purposes, he blames

regional districts for everything that goes wrong with planning in

British Columbia. When he can credit regional districts, as in this

particular instance, and grant them the authority to make a particular

decision, he then has it the other way. Neither way is highly

principled, to say the least; each way, however, well illustrates the

traditional tendency of Social Credit to overrule the possibility of

granting the free expression of opinion, through a referendum, by the

residents of Saltspring Island. I don't know whether or not a sewer

system is required there, because I'm not a health inspector and I'm

not in a position to recommend — and neither is the minister. I don't

know how the people on Saltspring Island would vote if they were

granted a referendum and neither does the minister. But I do know this,

and apparently Social Credit doesn't: it is the right of people to

decide these things freely and democratically by referendum, and Social

Credit has denied them that right.

It is typical of Social

Credit to deny people democratic rights. It's part of the tradition of

the injury they do to democracy in this province. However, it is not

acceptable to the hundreds of people on Saltspring from whom I have

heard by petition, by correspondence, by attendance at public meetings

that I've been at, by phone calls and most recently by their presence

yesterday on the steps of the Capitol. The residents of Saltspring make

a simple request. They ask this government and in particular their own

MLA to guarantee them the right to choose by referendum. This right is

not a novelty, Mr. Chairman. It is not a new feature of public policy.

It is, in fact, a traditional and a reasoned approach to the

construction of public works like sewers. What has Social Credit done?

By the personal refusal of the member for Saanich and the Islands and

the Minister of Finance, who are one in the same, Social Credit has

denied the residents of Saltspring that freedom of choice.

spoke on the steps of the Capitol yesterday to those residents. I said

that I was personally not competent to tell them whether or not we need

a sewer system there. I don't

[ Page 6524 ]

have

those qualifications. However, I'm competent to speak in favour of a

high democratic principle which says that the residents of Saltspring

must have the right to choose freely and openly. They've been denied

that right so far. They are denied that right today, specifically by

their own MLA, Mr. Curtis, and by the provisions of this amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, please, we do have parliamentary rules here. I'm sure the

member is quite aware of them. We do not refer to a member by his

common name.

MR. BARBER: Fair enough, Mr. Chairman. By their own MLA, the member for Saanich and the Islands.

don't know what Social Credit has to be afraid of here. Are they afraid

of the free outcome of a free vote of the residents of Saltspring? If

so, whose interests are they protecting? If they're afraid of a free

vote, upon whose behalf do they fear a legitimate and democratic

statement by the people of Saltspring as to whether or not they wish to

have a sewer system? If Social Credit is not afraid of a free vote on

Saltspring, whose interests are they then representing? Well, the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) — because it now

suits his purpose — tells us he's representing the interests of the

Capital Regional District. Ordinarily this minister is hardly the

champion of regional districts. On the contrary, he ridicules them and

undermines their political stature in this province at every

opportunity. The Minister of Municipal Affairs can barely keep his face

straight when he tells us that he's defending the Capital Regional

District in this instance, because he knows we know what he says about

them behind their backs, and we know what he says about regional

districts generally across this province. But I won't say the word —

hypocrisy.

I do observe, though, that it is a wrong thing

for the member for Saanich and the Islands to deny his own constituents

the freedom to choose in a democratic vote in this instance. I do

observe that the official opposition has asked him twice — and I do so

now again a third time — to withdraw that

section of this amendment and

to thereby commit his government to a new and democratic course. I ask

the member for Saanich and the Islands to trust the people of

Saltspring Island to make a sound decision themselves. I ask him:

what's wrong with such a policy and why does Social Credit reject it?

The

Minister of Municipal Affairs says there's contrary and split opinion

on the issue. There no doubt is. When I spoke on the steps of the

Capitol I told the residents: "If we manage to obtain a referendum and

a free vote for you, you might lose. Are you prepared to be bound by

that?" Most of them said yes. As far as I'm concerned, they must be. If

the opponents of a sewer system on Saltspring lose in a popular vote in

a referendum, that's the end of the battle as far as we're concerned.

They have no further recourse. The referendum — the will of the people

— is the final will to be exercised and the final choice to be made.

From

a medical point of view, I don't know whether or not it's required —

and neither does any member of the government opposite, I would argue

But I do know that the people of Saltspring have not been freely and

democratically consulted by referendum. I do know that by the

continuing refusal of the member for Saanich and the Islands, who most

certainly has the political clout to pull this

section of the bill,

that popular will and its expression — no matter which way it goes —

will continue to be frustrated by Social Credit. I think that is not in

the interests of the people of Saltspring Island.

This

section 68 is defective in law. It asks us to simultaneously amend

provisions of the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act that

affect the regional district of Nanaimo, the city of Prince George, the

Local Services Act subsidiarily, the residents of Ganges and Saltspring

Island, and the city of Port Moody. It does all of that in

section 68.

This is defective procedure. If you turn back — and I'll refer to it

only briefly — to when the government decided to amend the Mental

Health Act, they did not bring in only

section 44; they brought in

several separate sections. In today's bill we see the Mental Health Act

amended by sections 44 to 49. When they amended the Mental Health Act

they brought in several separate sections and allowed the opposition

and the people a chance to debate each

section individually. When they

bring in

section 68, the amendment to the Municipalities Enabling and

Validating Act, they put it all under one cover. You have to ask why.

You have to ask why the Minister of Finance in particular would find it

in his interest to require us in this case to vote simultaneously on

the issues that affect the people of Nanaimo, Port Moody, Prince George

and Saltspring Island. To ask us to do so is to ask us to do a wrong

thing.

It may be typical of Social Credit bungling — that

could be argued — but it's not even typical of this bill. I again refer

you to the fact that the Municipal Act is amended under several

separate sections, starting at

section 44, through to

section 49.

However, in this case

section 68 alone has the effect of amending the

letters patent, of manipulating the legitimate outcome of a court

decision — if you read the bill, it makes it very clear what Social

Credit's intentions are — and requires us to vote in one moment on

several separate and absolutely distinct items. This is defective

law-making and defective policy, and Social Credit has no business

doing it. Nonetheless, what is primarily defective is the commitment of

the Minister of Finance, who is also the MLA for Saanich and the

Islands, to allow the residents of his own constituency to have a free

vote, through a popular public referendum. That is fundamentally

defective.

Let me state this for the last time, Mr.

Chairman: if Social Credit has nothing to fear from the outcome of a

referendum, let them hold it and be bound by the results. I believe

that the residents of Saltspring are prepared to be bound by the

results, pro or con, The official opposition takes no position pro or

con, because we're not health inspectors or doctors, and we don't know

about that, but we do know something about constitutional law, and we

know quite a lot about democracy. We know simply this: there is nothing

wrong with a referendum as an expression of popular opinion; there's

nothing wrong with allowing the people of Saltspring Island to decide

this issue by themselves through referendum, as traditionally the

people of British Columbia have been granted that right for year upon

year. If Social Credit is not afraid of the outcome of a referendum on

Saltspring, why do they deny such a referendum to those people?

MR. SKELLY:

I was hoping that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm) or possibly the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) — since

he's been spearheading this

section of the act — would answer those

questions.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs says there's a

split in the community on Saltspring Island. That's quite true. The

efforts of the government and of the Minister of Finance to get this

sewer system through, regardless of the wishes of the people in that

area, have accentuated this split and have

[ Page 6525 ]

caused

serious problems in Ganges. It's your efforts that have caused this

split and this problem. How do you resolve such a split in a community?

What is the final way that a democratic government can resolve that

problem? Simply by submitting the question to the electorate, as they

should have done in the first place. That is how you resolve such a

split in a community. You don't take it to the Legislature. You don't

ask 57 people who represent diverse areas of the province to vote on a

situation that they know very little about — located on one of the Gulf

Islands. Very few members of this House have paid close personal

attention to it, but the Minister of Finance knows all about it.

The

Minister of Municipal Affairs also said there was a serious pollution

problem taking place in Ganges. Well, the simple facts from regional

district studies are that, regardless of how this sewerage system is

going to be built, there will continue to be a pollution problem. It's

just a matter of where you have the pollution, whether in Ganges

harbour or close to the shoreline in Ganges harbour or whether you move

it farther out from Ganges harbour. That's the only question that the

Pollution Control Board dealt with when they dealt with this issue some

time ago. So the pollution problem will persist. It's simply a matter

of where the pollution is going to be isolated or sent away to. We're

still going to have that pollution problem.

The biggest red

herring of all that the minister dragged across the path of this

legislation is that we've already spent this money; we've already spent

a great deal of money to ram this sewer system down the throats of

people on Saltspring Island without consulting them by way of a

referendum. That is no argument at all.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

Whether

too much taxpayers' money has been spent is another question that

should not be resolved by people in this legislative assembly but by

the taxpayers themselves, who are given that right under the Municipal

Act. To date, every effort that's been made by the Minister of Finance,

the MLA for Saanich and the Islands, has been to deprive the people in

that area of the right to vote as to whether they should spend that

money on a sewer system or not. Time after time he has been attempting

to deprive his own constituents of the right to vote whether or not

they want to spend that money. That's the reason this issue hasn't been

submitted to a referendum in the area. The Minister of Finance knows it

and knows why.

There have been other examples where it has

been a bitter decision on the part of government and leadership, even

though they've spent a great deal of money, to stop a project in its

tracks and look at the alternatives. The Spadina expressway in Toronto

is a classic example for Canadians. The Skagit nuclear plant is one

that the Minister of Municipal Affairs should be aware of. Millions of

dollars were spent on that project in the United States, and he was one

of the people who stood up and demanded that the project be stopped. He

didn't say: "They've already spent a few million dollars; they should

proceed with the project." He said: "It should be stopped dead in its

tracks." That was a better expenditure of public money than kicking a

lot of good money after bad as we're doing in the case of the Ganges

sewer system. There was the Austrian referendum on nuclear power. They

had plants in Austria that were ready to produce and had already been

fuelled up. Billions of dollars had been spent on those projects. The

government had decided it was safe, their experts had decided it was

safe, the government said it was better to start up these projects no

matter how safe or unsafe they were; but to give them credit, at least

that government — the government of Bruno Kreisky — submitted that

issue to a referendum of the people of Austria. It passed by 51 percent

to shut down the nuclear plants even though billions had been spent on

them.

The people are the ones who have the right to decide

in a democracy, and that's who the question should be submitted to. The

people have the right to decide whether money has been wasted to this

point. The people who have the right to decide are the electors of

Ganges and Saltspring Island. For the minister to come into this House

and say what we're doing here is to make sure we haven't wasted the

tens of thousands we've spent already is a total red herring. What the

government and the Minister of Finance are doing here is attempting to

ram a sewer system down the throats of the people on Saltspring Island

in the Ganges area — to force them to accept that sewer system whether

they want it or not, because they haven't had an opportunity to be

adequately consulted. Why are we doing it? Why is the Minister of

Finance making such an issue? Why is the MLA for Saanich and the

Islands pushing this issue? Why does he want this sewer system?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'd

like to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

three questions. Will the minister.indicate what property-owners in the

core area of Ganges will profit by the increased land development

opportunities presented by this sewer system? Will the minister detail

how many thousands of dollars Mr. Tom Toynbee, personal friend and

supporter of the Minister of Finance, who assisted him in the

liquidation of B.C. Housing Corporation and was recently appointed

chairman of B.C. Buildings Corporation, stands to gain from the

increased development potential of his property in the core of Ganges?

Will the minister explain how many thousands of dollars James

Richardson, former Liberal cabinet minister — one of whose companies,

Jarco, owns several lots in the core of Ganges — stands to gain from

the increased development potential of his property as a result of the

construction of this sewer system? How many owners of property in the

core of Ganges who are supporters of the MLA for Saanich and Islands

stand to benefit substantially in a significant way from the

construction of this sewer system? How much do those people stand to

gain at the expense of other citizens of Ganges who are opposed to this

sewer system?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I'm

very pleased that those questions were asked, because I think it again

establishes the real concern of the NDP. It's not so much whether there

ought to a sewer system. That's not their concern. As mentioned by the

member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), he really doesn't know whether there

should be a sewer system or not. Perhaps that's not too important to

him. He doesn't appear to care that much about that particular

question. The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) says that we're pushing

this sewer system down the throats of the people on Saltspring Island.

He forgets to mention that in fact the provincial government — our

treasury, the people's money from all over the province — will pay a

good 75 percent of the bill. If we were so concerned about cutting

[ Page 6526 ]

costs

or whatever, perhaps we wouldn't proceed. We would follow the route

suggested by the member and simply forget about Saltspring — forget

that it's there, not spend the money. But no, we didn't take that

option. We had a responsibility to do what's right.

The

truth came out in the questions asked by the member for Alberni. What

the NDP is really concerned about is that somebody might benefit in

some way from the installation of a sewer system, that small business —

because there's no big business on Saltspring — might in some way

profit from a new service that the island needs desperately. That would

be too bad if some small business person benefited from a service for

which they will pay a large portion of the taxes, compared to the total

taxes paid by the islanders. I don't know how many people will benefit.

I have not actually gone around the island and made a count of those

who own properties or what properties they own. I've never talked to

Mr. Toynbee or Mr. Richardson. They have not come to me and said: "You

must proceed with this sewer system. We need this sewer system. Get on

with this sewer system." I have not been lobbied by those gentlemen. If

I have talked to them on some occasion, it was not to do with this. I

don't recall it. They have not lobbied this ministry or this minister.

hope that their businesses will somehow prosper. I hope that the

community will develop more beautifully and that Ganges might be a

cleaner, prettier, more attractive and healthier area for the people,

for the children, for those seeking employment, for all the people

depending on a good economy. Certainly I hope that, and I think that's

where we differ from the NDP. I don't mind admitting that I would like

to see all the people do well in Ganges and everywhere else. If somehow

this helps them, more power to them, more power to the economy of

British Columbia, more power to the future for all of us.

MR. SKELLY:

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Municipal Affairs said that the truth

finally came out in my questions, and I'm sure it did. But the truth

sure as heck didn't come out in his answers. The minister simply laid a

number of new red herrings across the path of this issue. He said he

doesn't know how many people on Saltspring Island support this sewer

program. Mr. Chairman, there is one way to find out, and that's to

conduct a referendum into the issue. If we believe in democracy in this

Legislature, isn't that what it's all about — to give people in those

outlying areas the right to make their own decisions as to whether they

want a sewer system or not? That's what democracy is all about. He said

75 percent of the money is going to come from this Legislature — from

this provincial government. That is not true. Every nickel that this

Legislature spends comes from the people of this province, and we

should be consulting those people before we spend their money on

anything. Remember the statements that we heard all around the province

from that now-silent Premier: "Not a dime without debate." Here the

minister is saying that since we in this Legislature allocate 75

percent of the funds, we have the right to put in a sewer system

wherever we want, no matter who wants it or doesn't, and he hasn't seen

fit to find out whether they support it or not. That's as undemocratic

as you can get: spending people's money without consulting them. There

were revolutions fought over that in the United States a few years ago,

Mr. Chairman.

It's another red herring. He said that the NDP is against small business.

Well, again, the minister doesn't know one way or the other. James Richardson,

of Richardson Securities, definitely isn't a small businessman, or the Minister

of Finance wouldn't have him pushing bonds for this government in Europe

and the United States and around the world.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the committee to come to order and the member to relate to

section 68.

MR. SKELLY:

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Municipal Affairs doesn't know how many

small businesses are for or against this sewer system, because he's

never taken the trouble to conduct a referendum in the area to test the

owners and electors in the area, to find out what their wishes are on a

sewer system in Ganges. So he doesn't know whether what I'm saying is

against small business or in favour of small business, or whatever,

because my indication is that many of those people in the Ganges area —

small businessmen and otherwise — are absolutely opposed to this sewer

system.

Let me outline for you a chronology of how the

demands for this sewer system came about, because this is a final

attempt on the part of government — the Minister of Finance, the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Capital Regional District

administration and the personal friends of the Minister of Finance — to

ram this sewer system down the throats of the people of Ganges without

their permission and their vote, and without testing how they feel

about this sewer system.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY:

The minister says that 75 percent of the funds will come from

government, but connection fees will be paid by every resident on

Saltspring Island, taxes will be paid by residents on Saltspring Island

to pay for the operating system, and every resident of this province

will pay for the pollution that is caused in the outer Ganges harbour

area as a result of the design of this system.

Let's go back

to the first effort of this government and their friends and the

Minister of Finance to get this system developed on Saltspring Island.

In July of 1977 the Capital Regional District circulated a petition

under sections 591 and 592 of the Municipal Act. The result of the

circulation of that petition for about three months resulted in 25 to

30 letters from citizens of the area, accusing the capital region and

their employees of harassment, intimidation and threats against those

who refused to sign the petition. When the petition was finally in and

certified by the administrator of the regional district, there were

accusations against the administrator that names on the petition had

been forged, that certain votes recorded in favour of the sewer system

were not legal votes under

section 591 and 592 of the Municipal Act.

spite of those allegations by a large number of people from Saltspring

Island and Ganges that the petition itself contained forgeries and

illegal votes, the administrator of the Capital Regional District

certified it as correct and acceptable, and confirmed that it had

received the required number of names — 66 2/3 percent of the

owner-electors of the area. But in fact after the petition was

challenged, it was found that only 47.3 percent of the electors had

agreed to it legally, and the final

summary of votes indicated that an

insufficient number — 58 percent — had petitioned in favour of the

sewer system. But when that petition was challenged, what did the

Minister of Finance, the Capital Regional District and the

[ Page 6527 ]

personal

friends of the minister do when they found out that the petition was

defective and illegal and that it contained forgeries and illegal

votes? Did they say they would not go by way of petition, challenge the

administrator of the regional district to go a different way, find

another way to bypass the rights of the citizens and the owner-electors

of Ganges, find another way to get around a referendum, and find

another way to sabotage the democratic rights of the citizens of the

Ganges area?

On January 11 members of the capital regional

board requested — at the suggestion of the then Minister of Municipal

Affairs, the MLA for Saanich and the Islands (Mon. Mr. Curtis) — an

order from the director of pollution control instructing the CRD to

build the Ganges sewer system, whether the citizens of Ganges wanted it

or not. Six days after the letter by the administrator of the capital

region to the director of pollution control, the order was issued. It

was a setup to bypass the wishes of the people of Ganges; it was a

setup to bypass a democratic vote of the people of Saltspring Island.

The director of pollution control issued the order within six days. He

also indicated in his order that, as a result of this order, the

citizens of Ganges were not entitled to a vote of the owner-electors

pursuant to

section 253(1) of the Municipal Act.

I'll just wait while the Premier is taking leave of the House, Mr. Chairman.

should say that pursuant to the order of the director of pollution

control, cabinet passed supplementary letters patent for the regional

district, saying that pursuant to this order they could build the sewer

system and could levy the cost of that sewer system from the

owner-electors of the Ganges area, whether they wanted it or not,

without a vote.

The concerned citizens of Ganges and

Saltspring Island went to court on this issue. Judge Gould, who heard

the case in March of this year, had the following to say about it:

"This device — that is, obtaining an order from the director of

pollution control — might be described by the word 'tricky'. The

officials involved were, so to speak, caught in the embarrassment of

the vote by the owner-electors having failed. They obviously believed,

and to this day believe, that this is the way around it. The

interesting question is: is it?" So the judge, Mr. Justice Gould,

struck down the order of the director of pollution control and said it

was ultra vires the director of pollution control and the Pollution

Control Act.

Having failed in that effort to bypass a

democratic vote on the Ganges sewer system on Saltspring Island, what

did the regional district do? Did they say: "Well, we failed this time,

and we failed last time. Now let's go to the people and consult with

the people to find out if they want a sewer system or not. Let's not

waste any more money on court action, let's not waste any more money on

supplementary letters patent, and let's not waste any further money

trying to ram this issue down the throats of the people of the area

whether they like it or not"? Is that what the Capital Regional

District board, the minister and the friends of the minister, who stand

to profit from this legislation, said? No. They said there was another

way around a free democratic vote on the issue.

The

third effort to pay off the minister's friends was to attempt to impose

the sewer system by way of the supplementary letters patent.

Unfortunately, the supplementary letters patent say that they were

issued pursuant to the order of the director of pollution control. The

citizens of Ganges, who were concerned about the procedure and the

undemocratic way in which they were being treated, took that issue to

court. It appeared before Mr. Justice Legg, a few weeks ago in

Victoria. Even before the hearing before Mr. Justice Legg the Capital

Regional District knew that they were going to fail in that attempt and

that they wouldn't be able to bypass a democratic vote that way.

spite of the advice of their legal counsel that the citizens of Ganges

were going to win in court and that they would lose again in their

efforts to thwart a democratic vote of the citizens in the area, even

before the hearing in court they attempted another route. That route

was that they came to the cabinet ministers involved. They came to the

Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. This is

not the first time they came to the present Minister of Municipal

Affairs, Mr. Chairman. One time before they did come to him and they

asked him to take a look at the petition that was circulated on

Saltspring Island. The minister said: "It's a fraud. We're going to

have to refer this to the Attorney-General." He said the petition was a

fraud. Knowing that petition was a fraud and knowing that every other

attempt that the Minister of Finance and his friends in Ganges have

made to bypass the right of the citizens of Saltspring Island to vote

on this issue...and knowing that he was serving his friends and those

people in the core area of Ganges....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Mon. member, we must not impute improper motives to another member of

this House. I'm sure the member is quite aware of what is parliamentary.

MR. SKELLY: I'm aware of that, Mr. Chairman.

Even

before the decision of the judge was rendered in the case, the Capital

Regional District directors came to cabinet to ask for an amendment to

the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act to legitimize all t