1979 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JULY 26, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1029 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions.

Shaffer report on proposed transmission line. Mr. Skelly –– 1029

Price Waterhouse tax study. Hon. Mr. Wolfe replies –– 1029

Floorcraft Floor Covering Ltd. Hon. Mr. Wolfe replies –– 1030

Appointment of Ed Gould. Ms. Brown –– 1030

Amendments to liquor licence regulations. Mr. Levi –– 1030

Inquiry into Delta police. Mr. Macdonald –– 1031

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services estimates.

On vote 177.

Mr. King –– 1031

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1032

Mrs. Dailly –– 1032

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1032

Mr. Howard –– 1033

Mr. Hall –– 1034

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1035

Mr. Hanson –– 1035

Mr. Mitchell –– 1035

Mr. Barber –– 1036

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1037

Mr. Hanson –– 1039

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1039

Mr. King –– 1040

Mr. Nicolson –– 1040

Mr. Barnes –– 1040

On vote 178.

Mr. Macdonald –– 1041

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1041

On vote 179.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1041

Mr. Nicolson –– 1041

On vote 194.

Mrs. Dailly –– 1042

On vote 195.

Mr. Levi –– 1042

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1042

On vote 203.

Mr. Levi –– 1042

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1042

On vote 204.

Mr. Levi –– 1042

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1042

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation, Communications and Highways estimates.

On vote 211.

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 1043

Mr. Lockstead –– 1043

Mr. Mussallem –– 1049

Mr. Barnes –– 1049

Mr. King –– 1050

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 1052

Presenting Reports

British Columbia Assessment Authority annual report as at December 31, 1978.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1054

THURSDAY, JULY 26, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker,

visiting with us today — and I'm very honoured and proud to have them

here — are two gentleman who were almost neighbours to me in Holland,

and they now serve in California. They're brothers and priests: Father

De Groot and Monsignor De Groot. I would ask the House to bid them

welcome.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, visiting us today from my constituency is a very good friend, the editor of the Ashcroft-Cache Creek Journal , one of the more successful weekly newspapers in British Columbia. Would the House please welcome Ida Makaro.

MR. HALL:

I'd like the House to make welcome two young ladies on a visit to

Victoria, finding out about the capital city, and on summer holidays,

Miss Jacqueline Harris and Miss Tracey Hall.

MS. BROWN:

One of the pleasures of living or visiting in Victoria is the

opportunity to listen to the beautiful singing voice of Louise Rose.

Louise is visiting with us today. I wonder if the House would join with

me in saying welcome to her.

Also in the gallery are some

visitors from Stockholm, Sweden. We have Miss Sylven, Mr. Hans

Lindstron and Mr. Anders Ferlund. Anders Ferland is a very young man

who is involved in politics; he's going to be running in the next

provincial election. They were brought to visit the House by Kelly

Hill, a resident of New Westminster, and by our very able past and

future representative from Delta, Mr. Carl Liden.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

May I have the honour to inform the House that a very special member of

the constituency of Dewdney is here. She is the head of the crisis

centre, and she is doing a remarkable job in Maple Ridge to help all

the people when they need it. I sometimes suggest to her that she could

do a great deal here. May I ask you to welcome Mrs. Molly O'Dell.

Oral Questions

SHAFFER REPORT ON

PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE

MR. SKELLY: My question is

to the Minister of Environment. Yesterday the minister said that

although he hadn't seen the Shaffer report, he had an overwhelming

curiousity about it. Has the minister had an opportunity to satisfy

that overwhelming curiosity and read the report?

HON. MR. MAIR:

Well, I've got it half done. It arrived on my desk at about a quarter

to nine this morning. I have not yet had an opportunity to read it, but

I have scanned it, and I have indeed talked to Professor Shaffer. I can

now assure the member that both the report and the professor exist.

MR. SKELLY:

On a supplementary question, I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the

minister has found out something that the rest of the people in the

province knew all the time. [Laughter.]

In view of the

minister's statement yesterday that the Shaffer report was commissioned

on the initiative of the secretariat without the approval of the

government, will the minister acknowledge that the secretariat has the

right to release the report to the public on its own initiative?

HON. MR. MAIR:

I may be slow, but I'm usually sure. The answer is no. They have not

got the right to do that, Mr. Member. The secretariat, as I tried to

explain to your colleague for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) yesterday, does

certainly have the right to do things on their own initiative. Contrary

to the slightly erroneous press reports.... While I did not personally

see that this specific report was paid for out of the budget for

Environment, it is paid by the government. Of course it is. It is a

government report and the only person who can authorize its release is

myself, or the government.

MR. SKELLY: Now that the

minister has half read the report, will he confirm that the report

indicates that the Cheekye-Dunsmuir 500-kilovolt line is not needed

until 1985, which gives the government an additional two years to study

alternative sources of supply for Vancouver Island?

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Speaker, with due respect, I heard a number of questions down the

line. The first one I heard was: will I confirm? The answer to that is

no, I will not confirm. I have not read the report, as I indicated to

the members. I'm not in a position to confirm anything in it.

MR. SKELLY:

At a meeting in the minister's office last week, Mr. Speaker, the

minister offered to a group of residents from Sechelt and Vancouver

Island that he would take a question to the Environment and Land Use

Committee of cabinet. I believe he did that yesterday, and the question

was whether they would be willing to release the information which went

into their decision to allow the 500-kilovolt line to proceed. Does the

minister have a report back to us from that ELUC meeting?

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Speaker, I will remember this. It's a very interesting way of

asking a question about future government policy; it's very carefully

framed. But I'll answer the question because I think this will perhaps

satisfy the member. I'm going to read the report, and I'm going to read

it in the light of what I've said to you across this House many times,

Mr. Member — that I don't think reports should be kept secret except in

most the extenuating circumstances. I'll find that out. I see you

weren't at your minstrel show today; you've got a new jacket on.

[Laughter.] You're still as yappy as you usually are.

don't think there will be any reason, but I'm going to look at the

report. If that report is as I suspect from the background material for

the memorandum I received, that we know about, then I will give every

consideration to releasing it in very short order.

PRICE WATERHOUSE TAX STUDY

HON. MR. WOLFE: I recently took a question on notice from the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), and I

[ Page 1030 ]

would

like to respond to that question now. He asked me about a study that

had been commissioned from Price Waterhouse on the taxation in British

Columbia. The answer to the question is that no study has been

received. What we have asked for and received is the terms of reference

for such a study on the impact of taxation in British Columbia and in

other regimes. So no decision has thus far been made to proceed with

such a study.

FLOORCRAFT FLOOR COVERING LTD.

Secondly,

I would like to respond to a question from the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi). He asked about sales tax in

reference to Floorcraft and their situation in terms of bankruptcy. The

member asked whether we could waive the collection of this sales tax,

which is held in trust by the company as a liability, in favour of

other creditors, particularly the employees. I am advised that there is

no authority for the Minister of Finance to waive or forgive the

payment of social services taxes which have already been collected by a

company. In other words, the only authority that I might have under the

Revenue Act would be in terms of the taxpayer, and remitting to him.

But where a firm has collected the sales taxes, and is in fact holding

them in trust, I have no such authority under the Act to permit waiving

of the collection of those.

MR. LEVI: On a

supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister mentioned

the matter of hardship. Now in the final analysis the minister does

have a discretion which in many cases, I think, goes past the law. He

has a discretion which he can exercise. What we have here really, if it

stays this way, is the government collecting taxes over the business of

making it possible for the payment of wages. Can the minister exercise

the discretion in respect to a hardship matter, which this is?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

No, Mr. Speaker, this would not be possible in terms of funds collected

in trust. What I think the member might be referring to is a

section in

the Revenue Act which would permit a decision on the basis of taxpayer

hardship. But we're talking now about third parties — funds collected

from taxpayers, but waived in terms of third parties. I am advised that

we cannot waive these. Those funds are, of course, remitted by other

taxpayers for the benefit of the social services — hospitals and

schools — that we set them aside for. I don't think I can avail myself

of those hardship clauses in the Revenue Act.

MR. LEVI:

Mr. Speaker, in respect to this matter, three other government agencies

waived: the Workers' Compensation Board, Revenue Canada and B.C. Hydro,

which is a Crown agent. I understood that the final ministerial

discretion was always there to exercise, regardless of the amendment to

the Act last year. Is the minister saying that he has no discretion in

this matter at all?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

APPOINTMENT OF ED GOULD

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Provincial

Secretary, although I really would prefer to find out from the Minister of Environment

(Hon. Mr. Mair) about this minstrel show that he keeps telling us about.

has to do with the appointment of Mr. Ed Gould, who was first hired to

be a writer — whatever that is, Mr. Speaker. We have not been able to

turn up an order-in-council or any public service competition for this

job. Mr. Gould reappears in Human Resources as a press secretary and,

again, we haven't been able to find either an order-in-council or a

competition for this. I wonder whether the minister would tell me

whether Mr. Gould is still employed or not.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question, in which there were

really about three parts. I would like to make sure that my answer is

complete and correct, and I'll take it as notice.

MS. BROWN:

Maybe the Minister of Human Resources would be better able to answer

whether or not Mr. Gould is still employed in her ministry as a press

secretary.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

AMENDMENTS TO

LIQUOR LICENCE REGULATIONS

MR. LEVI: Could the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs tell me, Mr. Speaker, if his

decision in respect to Paulson Investments Ltd. — this is in respect to

a neighbourhood pub — that they are restricted to a seating capacity of

60, means that there is a change in the D licence category under the

liquor Act. The minister ruled that it had to be 60. The D licence in

the regulation is set at 100. Could the minister tell us whether there

has been a change made to that regulation?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I think I would prefer to look at that specific licence,

because there are discretionary powers as to conditions of licence, and

sometimes these affect seating. The original concept was that the

licence be for up to a certain number of seats. There have been some

legal discussions, by way of an appeal to the commission, as to what

precisely that might mean. But I'd have to look at that specific case.

If the member would let me have some basic details as to which

neighbourhood pub that is, I could respond to him. But there is some

discretionary authority for the general manager, or, if it's appealed,

that could have to do with seating capacity.

MR. LEVI: I'll make the relevant material available to the minister.

But

what I want to ask is: is it not the practice, when amending a

regulation, that it be done in exactly that way? In this particular

case the minister has amended the regulation and gone by the general

manager completely.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: I know, Mr. Speaker, that the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr.

[ Page 1031 ]

Mair) would love to get in on this. He knows far more about booze than he does about gas.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Well, that's the Premier; but we'll leave that out of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May we have the question, please?

MR. LEVI:

Could the minister tell me if it is the practice of the ministry to

award the licensing regulations by ministerial fiat? This is what we

have in this case.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, if

there are to be general changes in regulations, they should be done by

amendments to those regulations, rather than by practice in individual

cases. If it is to be a universal regulation or rule, the regulation

should certainly be amended to show that.

MR. LEVI: I

have one more question. The minister wrote to this particular company,

Mr. Speaker, and he said as follows: "After many complaints to the

liquor and licensing branch, I have revised the maximum seating

requirements to allow 60 patrons and 15 stand-ups. This policy has

resulted in far fewer complaints of traffic noise and inconvenience to

the community." You have now established a policy. When I asked my

first question, I wanted to know whether or not you've amended the

regulation to make this policy of yours fit with the regulations. Or is

this ministerial fiat?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker,

again, I would have to look into this specific case to see what

conditions were considered in relation to seating capacity. But terms

and conditions may be established in the issuing of a licence for a

seating capacity, as they could have to do with other conditions.

INQUIRY INTO DELTA POLICE

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, there is an investigation by the Police Commission into

the activities of the Delta police. I have available to me, and

tendered to me, affidavits relating to the so-called riot at the

Tsawwassen Beach in which the Delta police were alleged to have used

excessive force. Is that question within the ambit of the inquiry of

the Police Commission?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Would you repeat the question?

MR. MACDONALD:

Is the question of the Tsawwassen beach disturbance or riot — call it

what you will — something that is within the terms of reference of the

inquiry which you have directed into the Delta police?

HON. MR. GARDOM:

In response to the hon. member, it's a general reference and if you

have some specific information, sir, I would appreciate it if you would

mail that to the commissioner, Judge McQueen.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL

SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

(continued)

On vote 177: minister's office, $182,096 — continued.

MR. KING:

The people on that side of the House seem to have a problem with

recognition. I think that problem is becoming more acute as the years

go by.

When we adjourned this debate some days ago, I raised

a problem with the Provincial Secretary that I had encountered in my

new, inherited riding with respect to the rather unorthodox use of a

ballot box. I want to apprise the minister of it, and explain to him

what I believe the problem to be. I have a letter, of which I would be

prepared to send a copy to the minister so that he can understand the

problem better.

During the May 10 election a floating ballot

box was established for the hospital vote in the city of Armstrong.

That same ballot box, I understand, was dispatched to a senior

citizens' home as well to accommodate the people in that institution. I

think this is great. I have no objection to that whatsoever. But the

problem arose thereafter.

Up to that point, as I understand

it, there had been a scrutineer accompanying that ballot box from at

least two — perhaps three, I'm not sure — of the political parties.

When the ballot was completed at the senior citizens' residence, there

was only one remaining scrutineer available. At that point, the ballot

box was returned to the Social Credit Party campaign headquarters in

the city of Armstrong, and dispatched therefrom to a private residence

to accommodate the vote of someone on the voters list, who perhaps was

indigent or an invalid.

But, of course, the implications of

that kind of conduct are very evident to everyone. Certainly no one, as

I understand it, is entitled to enjoy a ballot box being dispatched to

their home to accommodate the exercise of their franchise. The real

abuse was the fact that it had been dispatched on the basis of a

directive, under these circumstances, from the Social Credit Party

committee rooms. It's completely inappropriate and in violation of the

Act, I believe, that any political party be involved in that kind of

direction.

I don't believe it was the intent to do anything

wrong. I do not believe it was the intent to manipulate the vote or to

violate the Act or to provide one party with undue advantage. I believe

that this kind of occurrence is born out of ignorance at the local

level of how to administer the machinery provided under the Elections

Act of British Columbia. There are a number of reasons for that. Once

the election is announced, there is usually a short period for the

selection of personnel.

Basically my appeal to the minister

is this: for goodness' sake, try and do something about a more

appropriate and extensive training course for all of the personnel

involved in the conduct of provincial elections. I believe that's what

is needed.

In that kind of case it could be the grounds for a challenge to the validity of that election. In this particular

[ Page 1032 ]

circumstance

the margin wasn't that tight, and there was no great point in doing so.

But it is unfortunate when this kind of thing occurs. It creates some

bitterness at the local level. People have very intense feelings at

election time. I would like to see the system be above reproach, and I

know that the minister would also. So I appeal to him to have a look at

that situation.

Those are the facts as related to me in

writing; I'll provide the minister with a copy. What is basically

needed is more education, and perhaps a fresher look at the returning

officers who are appointed in each constituency. Make sure they have

the administrative ability to organize, advise and instruct their staff

adequately. I think that is where the problem flows from.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I thank the member for elaborating on the remarks he commenced on

Tuesday night when we last met in Committee of Supply. I think that all

of us would share the comments he made with respect to the fact that

the electoral process must be above reproach, and it must be seen to be

above reproach. I'm pleased he made it clear that in his view nothing

was done with the intent to violate the law. Indeed, perhaps he knows

better than I that there are provisions for action in the elections

Act, depending on the date when this information reached the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke. I think it's 21 days, but certainly there are a

given number of days. The democratic process in this province is

precious; it's very good; it can always be improved. I take the

member's remarks, and we'll follow them up.

I wanted to

observe the other night, Mr. Chairman, that I think it's important in

debate on estimates that some time relatively soon following the

debate, we have available to us our own notes, as well as Hansard ,

in order to mark off those points which are raised in an attempt to

enable a ministry to perform more effectively. So I thank him for his

remarks. They are taken in the spirit with which they were offered.

MRS. DAILLY:

The Provincial Secretary, Mr. Chairman, has been quite cooperative in

answering our questions. However, there is one question which I posed

to him when we were last in these estimates, and it was with reference

to the abuse or misuse of the Queen's Printer by this government. As

the minister is responsible for the Queen's Printer and for what

emanates from the Queen's Printer, I would like to hear from him

specifically how he can possibly rationalize or accept the fact that

the British Columbia Government News

was sent over and sent out from Vancouver just several hours before the

last provincial election, and even extra staff were hired, which

entailed a cost to the taxpayer for Social Credit propaganda literature.

simply would like the minister to comment, and give us some idea of

what his philosophy is in this job, in reference to the Queen's Printer.

The

second question for the minister is this. It may be difficult to get at

this time, and it probably should be a question on the order paper, but

I notice that in the estimates the amount estimated for the Captain

Cook Bicentennial celebrations is $1 million. We witnessed the

considerable amount of publicity and extreme amount of literature which

went out for what, I gather, was not the most lucrative centennial type

of program we've put on in this province, under the auspices of the

former Provincial Secretary (Hon.Mrs. McCarthy). A report in Victoria pointed out that the Princess Marguerite

has done much more for the tourism industry. I want again to remind the

House that it was first conceived and brought into existence and run by

the NDP government.

I would like to know, as the Captain

Cook Bicentennial was not really a great success.... The member for

Victoria behind me here just said it was a flop. I wasn't going to be

that unkind. We are not here to belabour something that is gone. But I

do think that the Provincial Secretary should give us an idea of how

much of the taxpayers' money was expended on this program which, I

know, was initiated by the former Provincial Secretary, so we can't

hold you responsible. It says $1 million here. Mr. Chairman, I really

think that more than $1 million was spent on this, but I'm ready to

listen to the Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to respond with a different point of

view with respect to the success of the Captain Cook Bicentennial,

because I don't agree with the member in her observations. However, I

look to the Chair.

I have some difficulty, as there is no

budgetary item in this year's estimates for Captain Cook. The member is

nodding. There was an item last year. I think perhaps the best, Mr.

Chairman, is that it be a question on the order paper and an effort

would be made to answer the question. I believe I've answered all

questions but one on the order paper. But it's a nil dollar amount for

the estimates which are under debate at this time.

MRS. DAILLY: The Queen's Printer?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Notwithstanding the member's interjection, it is a nil item in these estimates, Mr. Chairman.

With respect to the British Columbia Government News , I recall that the budget issue of British Columbia Government News

is distributed very quickly after the budget is brought down. That was

the case this year, it was the case in 1978 and, as I recall, it was

the case in 1977. We may be able, in fact, to find that it was the case

in years previous to that.

The preparation went ahead, therefore, on the British Columbia Government News

issue, and the member will recall that happened in previous years. I

did not know if an election was about to be called. I don't think that

anyone who was involved with the preparation of British Columbia Government News

knew that an election was about to be called, because that decision —

as you knew when you were in government — is made by the Premier. But

it was, indeed, precisely the same process and the same form as in the

year 1978 when there was no election, and the year 1977 when there was

no election.

Incidentally, speaking of the Queen's Printer —

and I realize the member will have other questions — he's not in the

House at the moment, but he occupies a very special seat in this House.

I think he left because I indicated that I was going to make some

reference to him. Mr. Ken MacDonald retires as Queen's Printer at the

end of this session, whenever that may be. He has served the people of

British Columbia and this House for 44 years, and I would not want my

estimates to come to a conclusion, inasmuch as I have responsibility

for the Queen's Printer, without

[ Page 1033 ]

acknowledging

his service. I am only sorry that he appears to have ducked out. I

don't think we can summon him back. Nevertheless, his retirement is

well deserved, and the government will certainly recognize him in other

ways as well.

MRS. DAILLY: I know the former

Provincial Secretary (Mr. Hall) in the NDP government will want to make

some comments about the Queen's Printer, and I know he will be doing

that following me.

I want to point out to the Provincial

Secretary that the misuse of the Queen's Printer when it comes to

government propaganda simply does not wash. I think the comments the

Provincial Secretary made were a valiant attempt. And perhaps you had

nothing to do with it; I'm sure the Premier of this province is

entirely responsible for the issuance of that. May I say that it was

done in a most unseemly manner, and with most unseemly haste, which we

have never before seen happen here. I can assure you that the taxpayers

of British Columbia do not appreciate it. As a matter of fact, I think

that, if anything, it lost you votes when it arrived on their

doorsteps. For the sake of honesty in politics, Mr. Chairman, I would

hope the Provincial Secretary can assure us that he will try to stand

up to the Premier of this province so that will not happen again.

MR. HOWARD:

I understand, although I didn't have the opportunity to hear the

minister say so the other evening, that the government is currently

working on a revision to the Provincial Elections Act. I want to

express, if I could, in a very gentle and polite way....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Discussion of legislation is out of order in estimates;

we are on the administrative responsibilities of the minister.

MR. HOWARD: I'm sure I'm in order, Mr. Chairman. I don't really know what it is you're calling me to order about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The discussion of legislation in Committee of Supply is out of order.

MR. HOWARD:

Well, I'm responding, Mr. Chairman, to what I understand was a

statement that the minister made the other night to the effect that he

and his government are currently examining the Provincial Elections Act

with a view to revising it. What I want to raise by way of objection —

through you, of course, sir — is that I think that is not a very

appropriate way to approach that particular piece of legislation. If

there is a piece of legislation in this province that belongs to the

public, it's that particular document. The elections Act is the

foundation of our democratic process. It provides and guarantees the

opportunity for people to vote by secret ballot and elect members to

come to this chamber. It sets up the rules and the mechanisms and the

procedures to afford the residents and the citizens in this province

the opportunity and the right to vote. Taking that into account, I

don't think it's appropriate to have one particular element in this

Legislature which belongs to a particular political party have the

initial determination as to what should go into that particular piece

of legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. When the

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) was discussing the

administrative responsibility of the Provincial Secretary, and

specifically the difficulties incurred in his riding in the last

election, that was appropriate for discussion in committee because it

involves the administrative responsibility of the minister as it

pertains to the elections Act. But the necessity for a new Act, or the

legislation required in a new Act, would be out of order in committee.

What the member must do is either put it forward in terms of a motion,

or a private member's bill, or at a time when

an Act is before the

House. I caution the member.

MR. HOWARD: Contrary to

your advice, Mr. Chairman, I can't put it forward by way of a private

bill, because it's not a private bill. It's a public bill; it's a

matter of public concern. It's for this Legislature to concern itself

with proposed alterations to that particular statute.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. The matter could be discussed as a private member's

bill. It's a matter of getting the appropriate time in this committee,

or the House itself, to discuss this matter. The appropriate time is

not during the administrative estimates of the Provincial Secretary.

MR. HOWARD:

We are being asked now to vote sums of money, on behalf of the

taxpayers, to be dealt with by the Provincial Secretary. Some of that

money, which is being considered and voted today under the other items

here, by the minister's own statement will be used to examine the

Provincial Elections Act and prepare draft changes for it. Are we not

entitled to examine that particular question? I submit that we are. I

think you should examine that a bit more closely, Mr. Chairman. You

should not deny the full examination of the democratic process in this

province. I think, with respect, Mr. Chairman, to persist in the

direction in which you would have me go, is a denial of a fundamental

democratic right in this province.

MR, CHAIRMAN:

Well, hon. member, I will proceed to read from Sir Erskine May, which

is the rulebook we use to determine what is admissible in this House,

the sixteenth edition, page 739.

"General Restrictions on Debate in Committee of Supply.

" The administrative action of the department is open to

debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation

cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply, nor can the actions of those high

public servants whose conduct can only be criticized upon substantive motions."

That I find quite clear. If the member has a quarrel with that.... As I expected, the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK:

You expected? Mr. Chairman, the general restriction on debate in

Committee of Supply has numerous exceptions, and if you will read on in

Sir Erskine May, one of them is not to discuss the necessity of

legislation but the adequacy of the role of the minister with respect

to a particular statute or responsibility within his ministry. In so

doing reference can be made to the existing statutes and their

inadequacies. Those exceptions are clearly set out in Sir Erskine May.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask the member to cite his reference of Sir Erskine May for those remarks.

[ Page 1034 ]

MR. LAUK: I think the Chair has all the copies. [Laughter.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The library just down the hall has several copies.

MR. KING:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make this point. It

is my understanding that the minister has indicated he may be preparing

legislation, and with respect I submit that what my colleague for

Skeena (Mr. Howard) is discussing is the administrative manner in which

the minister should proceed with that role of his ministry. That is not

really a debate regarding the need for legislation; rather, it falls,

in my view, within the parameters of this debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The Chairman has some difficulty, because the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke understands why what the member for Skeena is saying

is out of order.

If sometime you could explain to him what is and what is not in order, it would be much easier for the Chair.

must caution you that the Acts which are under the administration of

the minister are quite in order, but the necessity for new legislation,

as I read to you from the Journals , is not in order.

MR. HOWARD:

I don't know that it's a question as to whether there is a necessity

for new legislation. The question is that the money being appropriated

here, according to the statement of the minister the other night, is

being used to develop alterations to an existing law. What I am putting

forward is not whether there is a necessity for new legislation, but

that the procedures being advanced by the minister to get to that end

are not appropriate. We are being asked to spend money toward that

particular end. Whether there is necessity for new legislation, I

think, is completely beside the point.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I might just take this opportunity to remind you that there are two

sides to that sentence. It says, "...but the necessity for legislation

and matters involving legislation," and the member can take that at its

word. Please proceed.

MR. HOWARD: If that is the

case, Mr. Chairman, then why was the minister permitted to make this

statement the other evening? I submit that once a minister of the Crown

is permitted to proceed in a certain direction, with respect to the

rules, especially rules which are as vague as the ones indicated here,

then certainly fair comment in response should be permitted. Otherwise

it falls in the category of dealing in two different ways with the same

set of rules, and I don't think the Chair would want to do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

You are quite right; the Chair would not want to do that. The Chair

also takes objections from either side of the House as to when too much

latitude is extended to either member, and I have on many occasions

brought ministers to order for having transgressed the bounds of what

is discussed in Committee of Supply. I think the matter has been well

canvassed; perhaps you can proceed.

MR. HOWARD: Mr.

Chairman, I think the procedure and the money being spent, whether

under this vote or another, as advanced by the minister to be followed

in examining something, is not an appropriate way to do it. Because it

gives one political group within this House the sole initial authority

to have input into a piece of legislation that so intimately affects

our whole democratic system and our whole democratic processes. That's

what I'm objecting to.

I don't think the minister should

have that opportunity. If we are to deal with a piece of legislation

which is the foundation of our democratic system, in which every member

of this Legislature has an equal interest, in which every voter in the

province has an equal interest and is going to be affected thereby in

an equal way, then it should be a piece of legislation drafted by a

composite group representing all sides in the House, and all political

opinions and views in the House. That is what I am objecting to.

think it's most unwise. I don't know when the last change was made to

the Provincial Elections Act — 1953, or somewhere in that period of

time. It was some years ago, in any event. I think it is most wrong and

incorrect to have the determination made about a piece of legislation

of this nature, which is British Columbia's legislation, which is this

Legislature's legislation, distinct from government legislation.... It

should not be proceeded with in the fashion it is being proceeded with

— namely, to have it become a political document reflecting the

political views of the particular government that happens to be in

office.

Far better to abandon that course completely and

refer, as is done in other jurisdictions, where there is probably a

greater respect for democracy than exists in the government today here,

in the next session, because I gather this one is coming to a

conclusion fairly shortly, by the looks of what's on the order paper,

in any event.... Far better to look at a subsequent session of the

Legislature and set up a committee of members of this House and refer

to that committee the general subject matter of the Provincial

Elections Act and let everybody in on the act and in on the development

of that particular piece of legislation.

Otherwise, to

continue on this course, we are seeking to turn a piece of legislation,

so fundamental to democracy in this province, into a political document

representing the particular views of the government in office. That is

what I object to.

MR. HALL: I wanted to respond a

little bit to what the Provincial Secretary had to say about the

imminent retirement of the Queen's Printer and to congratulate the

Provincial Secretary that he's been Provincial Secretary during the

career of Mr. MacDonald, and has enjoyed the support and the services

of Mr. MacDonald. That's a lucky thing for any Provincial Secretary to

have.

We all wish him well, and I hope we'll be seeing him

next week, and continually printing, until his retirement. I hope at

the same time to say to the Provincial Secretary that I wasn't able to

join other members of the House in wishing another old colleague and

friend good wishes on his retirement from public service. He is Mr.

L.J. Wallace whom, I also hope, is still in good spirits and good

health in the U.K. I certainly want to send along my good wishes to him

and to say that the Provincial Secretary's ministry has been well

served for many years by those two gentlemen.

I want to go

over two points with the minister, if I may, very, very briefly. One is

that I was not able to catch in the minister's responses to me a couple

of days ago whether or

[ Page 1035 ]

not

he is going to table the full information on grants, special services

and events from last year in the amount of $3.1 million, as has been

the practice heretofore. That is the only way in which most of us can

observe what has happened in that interesting ministry. I wonder if the

minister might respond to that question.

The second one is

to apologize to the minister. I must have confused him regarding the

presence and absence of the Indian Advisory Act. I wasn't asking the

minister to comment on whether the New Democratic Party administration

should or should not be returned to do away with the Indian Advisory

Act — as he chose to answer — but, rather, to ask him these questions.

Does

the presence of the Indian Advisory Act on the statutes of British

Columbia make one scrap of difference to the welfare of our native

people in this province? Does it make one iota of difference to the

administration of the First Citizens Fund? Does it make one particle of

difference to any of the things that go on through the public purse for

us to have a piece of paper in the statute books entitled the Indian

Advisory Act?

It may make a difference to those people who

draw salaries by virtue of that Act. But that's not the end of the

world. That can be looked into and looked after. My questions to the

minister were: does this Act actually do anything to help the first

citizens of this province, and isn't it time we faced up to it, did

away with it and got on with the job of looking after people in the

best ways we can? I think in view of what the Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. Williams), who has special interest in first citizens, had to say

the other day, I would imagine your responses might be the same as the

responses I found from my colleagues in 1975 — that this may indeed be

a redundant piece of legislation.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Indian Advisory Act, I have had not

had an opportunity in the relatively brief interval since Tuesday

evening to discuss with any of my colleagues their views with respect

to the Act and what should happen to it, if anything, in the future. I

take the suggestion as one which is given in a helpful fashion. I

believe he was in the House a few moments ago when I said that my

practice with estimates is in the weeks following to review each point

that is made. I don't necessarily agree with every point that's made,

but I review them with senior staff and determine those on which we can

act.

Now the hon. second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) has

spoken twice about the

summary, a list which he indicated would be

quite lengthy, of special grants. He was the Provincial Secretary under

the former administration, so I would be happy to be guided by

precisely what he did when he occupied this position in government. I

don't know what that was. I don't know what practice he followed. He

indicated that it has been done in the past. But I'll be very happy to

follow his example precisely.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Chairman, I have a request to make of the hon. Provincial

Secretary. I would like him to table in the House the spring

schedule

of theGood Times Express, the museum train. Perhaps I could just outline briefly for you my concerns about that.

There

is a rumour around the city of Victoria, and I'm sure there is no

substance to it, that the Good Times Express was scheduled to go on an

international tour in the United States in the summertime, and the fact

that it was quickly rescheduled and retooled up for a spring tour of

British Columbia had something to do with a coming provincial election.

In fact, the government employees felt that there was, with absolute

certainty, going to be a provincial election when the Good Times

Express hit the rails this spring.

Now the fact that it

happened to be in Kelowna on the Premier's birthday, and was in Terrace

or Smithers for the Social Credit rally there, and was, in Vancouver

and the lower mainland during the wind-up rally in Vancouver for Social

Credit, I am sure.... I want to tell all government employees that the

Good Times Express was not used for political purposes. As a

representative of my constituents here, I want to allay their fears

that the Social Credit Party would use, the museum train, the Good

Times Express, for political purposes.

So if he could

provide us with the schedule, then we could just perhaps overlay that

with the major events on the Social Credit side and quickly dissipate

any anxiety that may exist as a result of this.

MR. MITCHELL:

Mr. Chairman, I'm a little scared that when I do stand up you're going

to rule me out of order, because I've looked all through the estimates

of the Provincial Secretary, and I can't find what I'm looking for. It

is the Provincial Capital Commission, and I believe it is under his

department now.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, it is.

MR. MITCHELL: Then I can carry on speaking. I didn't want to get ruled out of order as I got halfway through.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, if it discusses the administrative actions, you're quite in order. Please carry on.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Prior

to the May 10 election, there was a meeting held in Esquimalt with two

cabinet ministers and one ex-MLA, or MLA at that time, and they met

with the Victoria Arts and Crafts Association. The meeting was held at

the old Lampson Street School. At this time, the Victoria Arts and

Crafts Association are attempting to get funding to restore the Lampson

Street School as an arts and crafts centre for the greater Victoria

area. At that time, I believe one of the cabinet ministers did state

that there was money available from some fund by which they could do a

feasibility study of the building. I've attempted, with the help of the

Minister of Finance, to locate that fund — without success.

was wondering if, under the provincial capital fund, we could pry loose

some money to do a feasibility study of the building, to have it become

a part of the Victoria arts and crafts cultural association. Could I

have some indication of what is available to do feasibility studies?

MR. BARBER:

I'd be happy to yield to the minister if he cares to answer my

colleague at this time. Or would you prefer to do it in a moment?

[ Page 1036 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, I'll take them in groups. Go ahead. I'll answer in due course.

MR. BARBER:

I would like to raise three matters. The first is in regard to the

elections Act. I wonder if the minister could indicate whether or not a

Mr. R.A. Patterson is still employed in the office of the chief

electoral officer. If so, could the minister indicate precisely what

position Mr. Patterson holds? Could he tell us, as well, what Mr.

Patterson's qualifications are? I understand he used to work as a

postal clerk. After the minister has given me some information on that,

I have some other questions. That's the first body of questions. I

realize you may not have it immediately at hand.

My second

question is in regard to the cultural policy of the province of British

Columbia — or the lack of it. The minister will be aware that during

the term of our administration the then Provincial Secretary initiated,

for the first time ever, a comprehensive examination of what a

contemporary and effective cultural policy might be for the province of

British Columbia. He initiated a program called Arts Access. He

initiated a number of important surveys. He was able to introduce a

program whereby one-half of 1 percent of the capital cost of all new

provincial buildings would be devoted to art that would decorate and

beautify and enhance the architectural value of those structures. That

program, unfortunately, has since been abandoned by Social Credit.

However,

then, as now, there was in place no genuinely able, genuinely respected

and genuinely and generally effective arts and cultural policy in

British Columbia. I'm aware that a year and a half or two years ago a

major survey was undertaken by the cultural services branch. I saw the

survey in its first form, and I saw the results. What I should like to

know now is whether or not the minister is prepared today, or at

sometime in the future, to identify a cultural policy for the province

of British Columbia? It doesn't exist right now. The people responsible

for the branch are extremely frustrated by the lack of such a policy.

So are many people I know, particularly in the performing arts, who

find it very difficult to understand precisely what the ground rules

are.

What does the province wish to support? What does the

province wish to pay respect to, financially and programatically? What

kinds of programs — in the performing arts, in the visual arts, in the

plastic arts, in the teaching arts — are considered, legitimately, to

be part of the cultural enterprise of the people of British Columbia?

all the fields of native arts, in which the native people of British

Columbia have fantastic talent, how, too, shall those talents, and that

level of artistic expression, be honoured and recognized?

don't have a cultural policy now. We didn't have one when we were in

government. Again, I recognize it is extremely difficult to develop

such a policy. Some people's view of all the performing arts would be

country and western music. They would like to see us support and

sponsor country and western music. That may be legitimate. I don't

question it at all. A lot of people think that is important. There may

be other people whose sole interest in arts is in being able to obtain

reduced-price tickets to the Vancouver opera. They, as well, may think

that's all the arts world consists of. That may be legitimate, too. But

each of those interests is rather narrow and specific. It doesn't help

us to determine, in a bright or sensitive way, what the whole of an

arts cultural policy for British Columbia should be.

I'd

like to urge on the minister that one important aspect of that policy

must be — if I may restate it — that particular attention be paid to

the role of native artists in British Columbia: native sculptors,

native painters, native lithographers. Native Indians have an

astonishing range of talent and an astonishing tradition. They deserve

every encouragement and opportunity of expression.

Secondly,

I would like to encourage the minister to recognize that a major burden

of a good cultural and arts policy should be directed toward children.

Young people, especially, should be encouraged to express every gift

they have within them. They should be encouraged to do so through

schools. They should be encouraged to do so through special interest

groups that help them learn the best things they want to learn in any

of the artistic fields. In my own judgment, if I had to choose among

age groups, as a matter of public investment in the arts and cultural

fields, I would favour investing in the very youngest people in the

province. They deserve a special high regard as far as any intended

arts policy should go in British Columbia.

So I'd like to

ask, as the second matter, whether the Provincial Secretary, at some

time in the near future, is going to be able to announce a

comprehensive arts and cultural policy for British Columbia. I hope he

does. I hope it's a good one. I hope it's one that will earn the

respect of all the people — volunteers and professionals — in the

dramatic, the visual, the performing, the plastic, and all the other

arts in British Columbia. They are very important,

The west

coast of Canada has an extremely lively and active artistic and

cultural community. We're very lucky to have them here. They exist here

and they flourish here disproportionately to their numbers in relation

to the rest of the population, particularly, I think, because of the

west coast influence; particularly, of course, because of the fact that

we're an hour and a half away from California, which is an enormous

centre of innovative artistic expression.

We should

recognize as well unique opportunities in British Columbia to further a

western Canadian artistic and cultural identity. A good comprehensive

arts and cultural policy on behalf of the province would help us do

that.

The third and final matter I would like to raise with

the minister relates to the convention centre in Victoria. I'd like to

ask the minister whether or not he is prepared to announce any policy

toward the subsidy of the operating losses which inevitably will accrue

in the first few years, if not all the years, of the convention centre

in Victoria. I appreciate as well that the same policy would have to

apply to the convention centre in Vancouver. It may well apply, say, to

the Peach Bowl; it may well apply to other facilities. I would like to

ask whether or not the government has considered at all that in the

first few years — that period of start-up operation of any new

convention centre — there exist some very special problems which will

result in some very considerable losses.

The convention

centre committee in Victoria hopes to be able to keep those losses at

less than $300,000 a year for the first five years, and hopes, beyond

that, anticipating the likely revenues that will result, to finally

manage to break even. The province has contributed, I think very

generously and appropriately, to the capital costs of the construction

of the Victoria convention centre. I wonder if the minister has

[ Page 1037 ]

given

any thought to participating at least in that start-up period where the

revenues will be down, where they're just getting going and just

attracting convention and other interests and other programs to the

building. Has he given any thought to a provincial share in making good

certain of the operating losses of the facilities?

Those are the three areas on which I have questions for the minister.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) spoke about

the Good Times Express, the Good Times tour in the spring of this year.

Sir, I have to report that is not within the estimates which are being

debated here. It is correct that this ministry supplied three museum

cars. The rest of the train, including the locomotive, all the staff

and other items required, were provided by the Ministry of Tourism. We

have the responsibility, as the member knows, for the Museum Train

during the months of July and August. Therefore I am unable to assist

him, inasmuch as that is not within the parameters of these estimates

or these votes.

The member for Esquimalt (Mr. Mitchell)

spoke about the Provincial Capital Commission and a particular

building, Lampson Street School, in Esquimalt township. I would be very

happy to examine that. I'm not sure that the Provincial Capital

Commission is the appropriate agency for assistance there, but there

are other mechanisms which are available, and I undertake.... I think

the member, and others who have spoken about the Provincial Capital

Commission, would realize that assignment was given to me in June,

rather than at the time of the re-election of this government. It came

just a little later. I have had good briefings, good start-up meetings

with individuals responsible for the Provincial Capital Commission but,

frankly, it just happened — if you will pardon the pun; there's no pun

intended, Mr. Member — last month. If the capital commission is not

appropriate — and I have very real doubts about its appropriateness —

we'll examine others.

If you wish to provide me with any

other information, inasmuch as I was not present at a meeting which

occurred, as you've indicated, I believe, prior to the provincial

general election, anything you wish to provide to assist me in that

respect I would be happy to receive.

The first member for

Victoria (Mr. Barber) spoke about three matters. The one which seemed

to occupy his attention and his interest to the greatest extent was

that of a cultural and arts policy. I wouldn't want, and I'm sure the

member opposite wouldn't want, to leave the impression that this

government is not supportive of culture and is not supportive of the

arts. In fact, I think that the record is really quite a good one. I

think it can be made better, and I intend, as I become more comfortable

in this particular portfolio, to make it better.

The member

suggests that there is frustration within the cultural services branch

of the ministry. I try to operate a very open ministry. I think that

there are members in this House who know that. I believe there has to

be a two-way communication between senior staff and minister. I don't

like morning parades with the senior staff standing there saying: "Yes,

sir; no, sir; anything you say, sir." I think that it's vital — and

it's style, but more than style; it's substance in terms of operating a

ministry — that one makes oneself available to senior staff so they can

say: "We are unhappy about this. We feel we should be doing more about

that." Those meetings occur in my ministry regularly. I have weekly

staff meetings, and not just with my agenda, Mr. Member, but with those

items which members of staff wish to bring forward.

Now I

wouldn't want to suggest that I meet with every branch head every week

because, frankly, that would start to become very cumbersome, and we

would just have a succession of meetings throughout the working week.

But any member of any branch — any branch head particularly — who wants

to come to me and say, "Minister, we're not happy about this or the

lack of that," knows that he's welcome to do so.

MR. BARBER: But it's the arts community generally that wants the policy.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You're speaking of the community rather than the branch? I understood you to say that the branch was unhappy.

think we would get into a philosophical discussion. It's early in the

afternoon; we could take some time. I'm not sure that government should

attempt to develop a cultural policy. Now the argument immediately

invited by that statement is: "Well, then you're just going to ad hoc

your way all over the place." I think we have to find something in

between. If you have a provincial government cultural policy, that

suggests that it's going to be imposed from above; it's going to be

laid on the arts community. That's just a short step or two from

saying: "Well, we like that kind of play, but we don't like that one.

We like this type of painting, but we don't like that one. We think

that's good music but this is bad music."

MR. BARBER: What about the Ontario Arts Council?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member is interjecting. I'd like to complete my remarks, and then I'm sure he will be on his feet again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Order, please, hon. members. The minister has the floor now. We'll have lots of opportunity for debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I think that the government which attempts to say that this is the

policy and this is the approach to culture and the arts runs the risk

of making it so cut and dried, so inflexible, that the moment some new

suggestion comes along it has to say: "No, no, it doesn't fit within

the policy. That's not the policy. Government policy is this and,

sorry, you're outside it."

I want a lot of flexibility in

terms of cultural assistance. I think the member really, if he were to

think about it — and think about it overnight, if he wishes — will

understand how I feel. It's very, very dangerous, in my view, for any

government to so build its policy in this type of ministry. It's a

little different in a straight service ministry where there is a

product, as in Transportation, Communications and Highways. In some

other activities, fair enough; but not in the arts. I think there's the

grave danger of the minister or his senior staff or the government as a

whole starting to impose and to review the parameters all the time and

say: "Oh, oh, that's out of it." We have the tent across the way in the

Inner Harbour right now, not because government said, "Well, part of

our policy is that we want a tent

[ Page 1038 ]

theatre,"

but because Kaleidoscope Theatre Productions came to us and said: "Hey,

we want to do some theatre in a tent this summer." It was a great idea,

and it was not up to this ministry to think of that. The community

brings that to us and we say: "Great idea. We'd like to help you." We

don't guarantee in advance we're going to help every group with every

suggestion, because that's a carte blanche. But I don't think the

member really wants a cultural policy in the sense that he has

described it this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. R.A.

Patterson is the deputy registrar of voters for Victoria, Esquimalt,

Saanich and Oak Bay. He was a member of the postal branch staff in the

provincial government before winning a competition for this position.

Prior to that work, he had gained what was considered to be appropriate

experience working in the elections branch. His appointment to his

present position was subject to a public service competition

adjudicated by the Public Service Commission.

MR. BARBER: Is Mr. Patterson also the son-in-law of Mr. Morton, the chief electoral officer?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I am informed that he is.

MR. BARBER: Was that known at the time the competition determined to hire Mr. Patterson?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Not by me, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARBER:

To the best of your knowledge, did the members of the panel who

interviewed him for this position know that he was Mr. Morton's

son-in-law?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I can't assist the member in that respect. I do not know.

MR. BARBER:

I'd like to reply very briefly, if I may, to the minister's comments

about a cultural policy. Having had some experience myself in the

performing arts, not always very successfully, I share your....

AN HON. MEMBER: Division!

MR. BARBER: Not among my audience. There was no division there — they all walked out. No, I'm joking.

But

having had some personal experience there, and dealing particularly in

the musical performing arts, I too would resist and resent any

government that indicated, in the form of an arts or cultural policy,

that it was appropriate to play Chopin but not appropriate to play

Weber. Obviously no one wants that; I don't want that either.

You have, I think, four principal options in the development of a

cultural policy. One, of course, is to have none at all. Another is to

deal, as I understand you are presently dealing, essentially by ad

hockery, and essentially at the decision of a cultural services branch,

which, in my opinion, is a good one — I have great respect for those

people — or by the personal approval of a minister who may or may not

have sensitivity to the arts. I also happen to think that the current

minister has such sensitivity, and I am pleased with that. I also

happen to think that his predecessor did not, and I was less than

pleased. So the second policy option you have is the ad hoc basis on

which decisions are made right now. If the branch decides it's okay, it

happens to be run by good people; if the minister decides it's okay,

and it happens to be a good person sensitive to these things, then you

get a good decision. But by my standards that's much too disorganized.

It is much too reliant on happenstance and good fortune.

There are two other options you have.

One is to go all the way with that extreme policy you have described

and which I also would resist and resent and oppose, which is the

narrowest and most literal

interpretation of a policy that says you may

do all of these things but none of the rest. That's foolish. That

undermines the whole innovative expression of art. That contradicts the

whole purpose of new original expression, of human skill, talent and

sensitivity. I don't agree with that either.

There is a

fourth option, and it is the one that is being explored in Ontario, and

now in Quebec, with some success. In Ontario I think particularly of

the very effective work of the Ontario Arts Council. This is a group

assigned with considerable advisory responsibilities, so much so that

they, for all practical purposes, I'm told, make the decisions, but at

arm's length from government, and armed with a budget and a policy in

advance, which basically and apolitically says: "Within the ambit of

Ontario interests in the arts we're prepared to support this kind of

work. We may have some misgivings about that kind of work but we'll

take a look at it if you come to us." What they seem to have achieved

for some years now in Ontario, and fairly recently in Quebec, is some

broadly agreed upon statement of what the arts should be encouraged to

do, but not restricted from doing, in that particular province.

Ontario

has a particular artistic identity — obviously centred around Toronto,

and obviously centred around certain of the arts, particularly the

theatrical and the performing arts. Quebec, of course, has a very

different body of interest and a very different kind of cultural

renaissance underway right now. The Quebec equivalent of the Ontario

Arts Council, in a very aggressive and brave way, at arm's length from

government, removed from the political interests that any party

occupying the government benches from time to time may have, is able, I

think, to meet the interests of the minister in not being so narrow or

literal or specific that the arts become cut and dried and finally

unimportant.

There are four options. Of the four of them, I

think the minister might at least want to consider some study of the

Ontario and Quebec models. They appear to succeed, by and large. They

appear to have obtained, by and large, general respect in the arts and

cultural communities in those provinces. There are, of course,

criticisms from time to time. There are criticisms made of their

policies as there are, of course, of the policies of the Canada

Council. But at least in those provinces people in the arts community

have some broad idea of what the province is willing to consider from

time to time. It is not exclusive, I think, at least by the terms of

reference that I've read. It's not so narrow that it forbids artists

from coming forward with bright new stuff which was never supported

before. It is not so austere and insensitive in aspect that it denies

really innovative new work. I think somewhere else in Canada, maybe in

Ontario or Quebec, they've got something to teach us about how to

develop an arts policy that meets the fears of the minister and the

requirements of those in the arts community who talk to me about these

things. I quite agree that we don't want something narrow and

restrictive — that's dumb. But I

[ Page

1039 ]

also

think that at the moment we are lucky to have in place decision makers

who appear, by and large, to be sensitive. In times past we haven't

been so lucky, and luck isn't good enough. Luck is not an adequate

policy or an adequate statement of government response to the arts

community or any other community. I think that stuff is important.

wonder if the minister could as well, if he cares to comment any more

about that, answer my earlier questions about the convention centre and

the question of whether or not, specifically, the government would be

willing, at this or any other time, to entertain a subsidy during the

start-up period of the Vancouver and Victoria convention centres.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to add a couple of remarks to those of my

colleague for Victoria (Mr. Barber). I think, as the minister is aware

— and I know that Mr. Turner, the deputy, is aware — that the term

"culture," as defined in anthropology — and I'm not trying to be too

arcane here — refers to the totality of values and beliefs, the glue

that holds society together and makes things meaningful. This

Legislature and the parliamentary process are an element of culture.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Why are you telling Turner? Don't you think I understand that?

MR. HANSON:

Oh, I know you understand. I'm going to make a proposal, though. There

are a number of givens that we all accept. One is that Canada is a

multicultural country, and British Columbia is a multicultural

province. Under this minister's estimates is the most appropriate place

to raise this subject. It is a multicultural province, yet each day in

this Legislature we get a message which is a part of the belief system

of only one of the component parts of our culture. We have an

Indo-Canadian community in British Columbia; we have Asian communities;

we have communities from other parts of the world. In fact, I think in

Victoria the Intercultural Association represents 36 different

affiliated organizations. Some of them would be broad-banded into the

same belief system, but others would not.

Coming out of

Folkfest, coming out of an agreement that we have multiculturalism, I

think it would be appropriate if we could, in our daily prayer period,

have a representative of a different culture who would give a daily

message to this Legislature. I think that would do a number of things.

Firstly, it would make all members aware at all times that the members

of this Legislature do represent a multicultural society. Also, I think

it would be enlightening to hear the daily word from another culture.

You're nodding your head? Would you lend support to that proposal to

the Speaker? We're in agreement on the Maritime Museum; we might as

well be in agreement on this subject. We could jointly submit a

proposal to the Speaker to request....

We have contacts with the Intercultural Association, both provincially and here in Victoria. At the Folkfest on the Sunday

we had a prayer period that was given by a number of cultural groups.

It can be done; it should he done. I would like to hear the minister's

comments on it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I am sometimes misunderstood in this

House because I nod my head as I listen, and I'm sorry. Sometimes it's

mistaken for complete agreement. What's happening is that I'm listening.

I should see a doctor about that sometime.

The

suggestion is a very good one, and the second member for Victoria (Mr.

Hanson) has alluded to the fact that this should be presented to the

Speaker. I would not presume to indicate for the Speaker that this

should happen, but it seems like a good suggestion and it can be

carried forward. For all we know, indeed, the Speaker may already be

aware of the suggestion.

In the debate of these estimates,

we should not overlook the leadership which has been given by the

Premier in terms of multiculturalism. It has been outstanding

leadership, I think. He has encouraged it; he has participated in a

number of multicultural events, and that is particularly helpful in

this ministry. We sponsored a multicultural conference in Vancouver,

and Mr. Fielding of this ministry has undertaken, in addition to his

heavy load already, specific assignments related to multiculturalism.

They've gone very, very well. He's to be congratulated for them.

wanted to get back to the point made by the first member for Victoria

(Mr. Barber). First of all, there is a meeting of ministers who have

responsibility for culture, arts, recreation — it varies from province

to province, as all members of the committee know. I'm looking forward

to attending that interprovincial meeting in New Brunswick in

September. Will the House have adjourned by September? If it hasn't, I

still want to go to that meeting because it will be two or three days

which should be very helpful to me. I can examine the Ontario model,

the Quebec model, indeed the models in the other provinces as well.

dealing with that question the member should not overlook the fact that

there is a British Columbia Arts Board, chaired by Dr. Peter Smith of

the University of Victoria. It has good, province-wide representation.

I won't take the committee's time to read the names — they're available

and they're known. We have representation from Prince George, Trail,

Kelowna, Vancouver, Terrace, Dawson Creek, Port Alberni and the

University of British Columbia.

I've just received an

excellent letter from Dr. Smith which summarizes in four great pages

his views as to how the Arts Board is functioning and how it can be

improved. I have not met with him as a result of that letter, but it's

assurance to me — and I can pass on that assurance to this committee —

that the Arts Board is functioning very, very effectively. Dr. Smith is

just now completing his first year as chairman of that board. Grants

are awarded annually from the Cultural Fund, and the member would know

that they are evaluated, adjudicated on and recommended by that

consultative body, the British Columbia Arts Board. There are 15

members in all. It does represent all regions of the province and, I

think, a good cross-section of cultural interests. So we're partway

there in terms of arm's length, and that's working quite well. I've

heard what the member has said, and I will take it under consideration.

With

respect to the conference centre — so that he doesn't have to ask again

— it's premature, quite frankly, for me to outline for the committee

the precise form in which the government would assist with operating

subsidies. I have not yet had an opportunity to consider all of the

ramifications of that. But clearly it's a major project. I don't want

to reflect on a bill which has passed, but the money has been awarded

to the project, allocated from the people of British Columbia for the

project, and I don't think we'll be in a position to — nor would we

want to — just turn our backs and walk away from the facility once it is

[ Page 1040 ]

completed.

What form, what extent our involvement will be, I don't know. I'm not

witholding information from the committee. At this moment I do not

know. But there will have to be some very serious consideration given

to it.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the small community of Silver Creek in my riding

has a tiny library. At the moment they operate it one day a week out of an eight-by-eight

room. The regional library is at Kelowna, which, of course, is many miles away.

They have a circulation of about 13,000 books a year and they're seeking

to expand their service to two days a week, and are interested in finding out

what type of assistance might be forthcoming from the provincial government,

particularly in finding a more appropriate facility, whether it be connected

with the school or whatever. The eight-by-eight facility requires manhandling

large boxes of books and so on, and is very, very difficult to operate.

would appreciate it if the minister could take a moment and apprise me

of what procedure might be used by the library group in this small

community to make application to the minister's ministry for assistance

and guidance with respect to providing a very useful and a very basic

service to that rural area.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr.

Chairman, it might be eligible under RFAP, the Recreation Facilities

Assistance Program; but it certainly could and should be referred to

the library services division of the ministry. We'd be quite happy to

examine the proposal and assist if at all possible.

MR. NICOLSON:

I was going to wait for vote 179; but since this subject of libraries

has come up.... There appears to have been a change in policy last year

in terms of granting. I believe that for small community libraries,

such as the Salmo library and others in my riding, there were two

grants. One was a book grant and the other was an operational grant.

I'm

informed that the Salmo library is now to get along with just a book

grant, and that operational grants are no longer in effect. When this

was presented to me, I told them that I didn't really see the

government doing this consciously; it didn't seem to be a very good

area to cut back in. I just wonder if somehow this came about by some

mistake. But if it is a change in policy, I'm sure that many members

would be very concerned about this, and I think that most rural members

would be looking for some kind of reassurance that maybe this was a

directive that went out in error or something. Can this type of library

service be restored?

For several years after the Broom

report was brought down, people were making great plans in anticipation

of implementing some of thoe recommendations. Although we've been in a

holding pattern for about four years, it's really disheartening to

these groups. The Salmo library is run from permanent premises, and

it's open about 12 hours a day. The recent guidelines for small

libraries came out and suggested that they should be open 20 hours a

day. That's a provincial government recommendation to them, but the

funding was cut.

I see the minister is checking with his staff, and maybe he can shed some light on this.

MR. BARNES:

I have just a few very brief comments — a five-minute comment — in

response to the minister's very kind cooperation in tabling those

letters related to the B.C. Games' contractual arrangements.

had an opportunity to review those letters that were tabled last night

at 6 o'clock, and there were nine in total. I just wanted to make sure

that these are recorded, and I've paraphrased them. I'm not going to

read them in detail, but it's obvious that there is a commitment of

some sort. Rather than pursue the question further, I'm quite prepared

to let events take their course over a period of time. Before I read

these paraphrased notes from the letter, I want to wish the minister

well in the upcoming games starting on August 2. You'll be there, I'm

sure, officiating, and so will I, but not officiating. Maybe I will be

in a few cases, I hope. In any event, we don't want to have anyone

upset at the games. We want to have a good time and have everybody

participate with a lot of enthusiasm.

Letter No. 1 is to Mr.

J.R. Peters of the Western Broadcasting Co.: "I am prepared to grant

BCTV exclusive rights to telecasting of the 1978 B.C. Summer Games. I

am sure you will mutually enjoy working on this vigorous, top-level

provincial program." This is signed by Mr. R.J. Butlin November 18,

1977. However, I didn't note him making reference in that letter to

having to consult with his board, with his advisory council or with the

minister. It would appear as though that arrangement was strictly

between the managing director of the games and the broadcasting company.

No. 2 is to Mr. Butlin:

"We would be very pleased to accept the rights

to telecasting the games in Penticton. It is understood these exclusive rights,

subject to keeping you advised on promotion and publicity, and your approval

of specific coverage.... The cooperation you received from our sister station

in Calgary, CFCN, is going to be more than met."

That's Mr. Peters, November

25, 1977.

No. 3 is to Mr. Peters: "I am pleased to extend exclusive

rights...to cover 1979 Winter Games held in Kamloops first week in

March, 1979." It's signed by Mr. Butlin, February 20, 1978. Again, Mr.

Chairman, there was no reference to the managing director referring to

a board of any sort or to the minister. It would appear as though he

gave express approval on his own behalf.

No. 4 is a letter

to Mr. Butlin: "...confirm acceptance of exclusive rights to telecast

1979 Winter Games in Kamloops. Thank you very much for this

cooperation." That's Mr. Peters, March 22, 1978.

No. 5 is to

Mr. Peters: "I am prepared to grant exclusive rights for the 1979

Summer Games in Richmond and the 1980 Winter and Summer Games. We are

extremely grateful for your support." It's signed by Mr. Butlin,

September 21, 1978. Again, there is no reference to an advisory board

or to your ministry, which indicates that the managing director made

that decision solely on his own.

No. 6 is a letter to Mr.

Butlin: "I accept your very kind offer of exclusive rights to telecast

the Richmond games in 1979 and both games in 1980. We look forward to

the next two years." It's signed by Mr. Peters.

No. 7 is a

letter to a Mr. Curtis, which, I note here from the letters you

submitted, appears to be the first time there's been any communication

between your ministry and the managing director. It is a tentative

agreement, I suppose, as a result of him meeting with somebody from

BCTV — I'm not sure who was there — and the president of the Cable

[ Page

1041 ]

Programmers Association. There were four conditions

tentatively agreed upon. This is a letter to your office from Mr.

Butlin, July 5, 1979: "

(1) A one-week delay of all telecasts;

(2) BCTV

has first vantage position as far as cameras are concerned;

(3) Advance

work by cable on some playoffs and zones is a requirement." I'm not

sure who's giving directions to whom, but apparently the cable

companies are required to do the advance coverage of the playdowns.

"

(4) Cable not restricted in doing in-depth telecasting."

No.

8 is a letter to the chairman of the B.C. Cable Programmers

Association, Miss Vianne Lyman. This is from Mr. Peters, July 5, 1979.

He states: "We should experiment in Richmond to work out a plan whereby

cable and BCTV can together achieve maximum coverage." These are his

suggestions: "

(1) That Mr. Butlin, the chairman, approve all

arrangements;

(2) BCTV be assured of one-week telecast delay by cable;

(3) because BCTV will feed the entire province, it maintains first

camera positions;

(4) Cable to form one equipment pool to serve all

cable crews" — this being suggested as a convenient way of avoiding

people getting in each other's way when they are broadcasting.

The

final letter is from the chairman of the Cable Programmers Association.

As I suggested, it looks like a fait accompli, so I'm not arguing. It

simply states:

"We agree with arrangements as

discussed. Since receiving the letter, I have made a few attempts to

contact people in the province to ensure that everyone concurred with

the agreement. In closing, I will just say that there does seem to be

some dissatisfaction. However, there seems to be some doubt as to

whether they can successfully negotiate any other conditions at this

late date. With that, I'll leave this matter for the time being. With

respect, and good luck to you and the gang."

Vote 177 approved.

On vote 178: general administration, $849,071.

MR. MACDONALD:

I have a very short question under administration. I wrote the minister

way back in January about Frog Hollow Neighbourhood House, which didn't

receive a recreational grant. Frog Hollow Neighbourhood House in

Vancouver East didn't receive a recreational grant, even though a

similar recreational centre in Vancouver South, which had been

evaluated by Vancouver city council as being totally on a par with Frog

Hollow, did receive a recreational grant. I want to ask the minister

whether he considers that the substantial difference in quality between

the members for Vancouver South and those in Vancouver East meant that

Vancouver South and not Vancouver East should get this grant. Will he

at least look at the matter?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm

happy to inform the member that Frog Hollow's request has been

approved. I didn't want the member to croak when he heard the news. I'm

not sure that the letter will have been received as yet. We watched

that one. It looks like a very good project.

Vote 178 approved.

On vote 179: heritage, cultural, recreation, sports and fitness programs, $20,832,844.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, in response to the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr.

Nicolson), the library policy was changed and announced in May 1978. It

is a per capita grant for the purchase of books. There was a lengthy

announcement at that particular time, and it included this comment:

"These grants will apply to the supply of books for libraries. The

costs of operating library premises and staffing them will be the

responsibility of the local library boards. where the greatest

financial control can be exercised."

In a ministry as

diverse as this, and with some parts coming home — because library

services have returned home to the Provincial Secretary, if that's a

fair statement to make.... In my few months so far I've undertaken a

number of meetings with trustees and professional librarians. There was

one conference which I was to attend, but other matters intervened — I

believe I was ill as well, and could not get to their meeting in

Kelowna. But I see a lot of work required in library matters generally

in British Columbia, and we're going to be addressing ourselves to

that. The member would perhaps now recall the announcement in May 1978

— it was quite widely distributed at that time — when the

responsibility rested within the Ministry of Recreation and

Conservation.

MR. NICOLSON: I certainly recall the

announcement being made. In fact, last year, when I talked about other

matters dealing with libraries, I think I was promised that an

announcement would be made. I don't want to belabour the thing, but I

think it was an error and probably an oversight. I would hope that the

minister would look at that change in policy very carefully, because

what people are largely looking for is an improvement.

In a

case like Salmo, the village does provide part of the budget. It's not

that government even provides the lion's share of the budget for

operation. But if those operating grants could be restored to libraries

of that size across the province, I don't think it would amount to a

prohibitive cost. It was done in the past, and what people in these

small communities really see is a withdrawal of government service, or

a withdrawal of government funding.

I didn't try to make a

political issue of it during the election, because I think it was part

of an oversight which arose when library services got shunted through a

few different ministries — and they have come back, perhaps, where they

belong. I would hope that the minister would look at this very

carefully — and I'll send him a memorandum with some specifics — and I

hope that some policy change could be made.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for his comments. Mr. Cross, the

deputy minister, and Mr. Turner, assistant deputy responsible for this

particular part of the ministry's activities, already know of my desire

to examine and clarify all of our services to libraries. I think they

can be made better.

Vote 179 approved.

Vote 180: central microfilm bureau, $1,129,632 — approved.

[ Page 1042 ]

Vote 181: grants, special services, and events, $2,260,225 — approved.

Vote 182: public information and publications, $507,651 — approved.

Vote 183: Indian Advisory Act, $83,459 — approved.

Vote 184: Government House, $176,299 — approved.

Vote 185: agent-general's office and British Columbia House, $607,095 — approved.

Vote 186: legislative library, $753,822 — approved.

Vote 187: postal branch, $7,130,263 — approved.

Vote 188: Queen's Printer, $10 — approved.

Vote 189: British Columbia lottery branch, $10 — approved.

Vote 190: unemployment insurance and workers' compensation, $14,500,000 — approved.

Vote 191: Public Inquiries Act, $10 — approved.

Vote 192: Provincial Elections Act, $633,945 — approved.

Vote 193: Government Employee Relations Bureau, $8,842,709 — approved.

On vote 194: Public Service Commission administration, $3,051,300.

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Chairman, on June 15 the Provincial Secretary very kindly answered

a question I had placed on the order paper. It was with reference to

the number of public servants employed by the present Social Credit

government as of June 15. According to the figures that were tabled

here, as of June 15 there were 45,026 public servants under the Social

Credit government. If we go back and look at December 1975, under the

NDP government — that government that was known to have over-hired, so

Social Credit said — there were 39,498. According to these figures

there has been an increase of 5,528 public servants under the Social

Credit government.

I can recall, Mr. Chairman, campaigning

in 1975 and listening to the Social Credit candidates all over this

province saying that the NDP were wasteful, and that when they came in

they were going to cut down on the public servants of this province. I

just thought that we shouldn't let this afternoon go by without getting

on the record that the Social Credit government has increased the

public servants of this province by over 5,000 members.

Vote 194 approved.

On vote 195: salaries and benefits — sundry employees, $1,080,000.

MR. LEVI: Last year the allocation was $4 million. Has the minister

any idea how much was spent? What does this cover, actually?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, with respect to vote 195, this applies to employees who

are not within the British Columbia Buildings Corporation. They are

Public Works personnel, and we are building a good team. These are

those left out of the Public Works transfer to B.C. Buildings

Corporation.

Vote 195 approved.

Vote 196: Public Service Adjudication Board, $396,596 — approved.

Vote 197: superannuation branch administration, $1,606,162 — approved.

Vote 198: public service superannuation and retirement benefits, $70,455,000 — approved.

Vote 199: Members of the Legislative Assembly Superannuation Act, $135,000 — approved.

Vote 200: employee benefits, $33,164,063 — approved.

Vote 201: parliament buildings restoration, $1,200,000 — approved.

Vote 202: Queen Elizabeth II British Columbia Centennial Scholarship Act, $24,000 — approved.

On vote 203: building occupancy charges, $9,416,000.

MR. LEVI:

There is a reduction of about $1.5 million here. Have they let go some

buildings, or have they got cheaper rates? Could the minister give us

the reasons for the reduction?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr.

Chairman, it relates to the reorganization of the ministry which took

place in December of last year, with components coming from Recreation,

Conservation, Highways and so on.

Vote 203 approved.

On vote 204: computer and consulting charges, $1,435,000.

MR. LEVI:

Could the minister tell us what the need is in his ministry for the

computer services? What takes up the lion's share of the amount?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Certainly the most important function is superannuation, Mr. Chairman,

inasmuch as this ministry is responsible for the Public Service

Superannuation Act, several other superannuation Acts out of the public

sector, and the legislative library as well. Of that, $749,000 is

attributable specifically to superannuation and $160,000 is

attributable to the Government Employees Relations Bureau. The other

items are relatively small.

Vote 204 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION,

COMMUNICATIONS AND HIGHWAYS

On vote 211: minister's office, $168,872.

[ Page

1043 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: I would like to make the one comment that the best

is saved to the last.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I might remind the minister that the last is vote 1.

HON. MR. FRASER:

This portfolio was reorganized in December 1978 from the Ministry of

Energy, Transport and Communications, and Highways and Public Works.

They were joined to become the Ministry of Transportation,

Communications and Highways.

The B.C. Ferries Corporation

and the Motor Carrier Commission were also added to the ministry's

responsibilities. The Public Works

section was eliminated, becoming

part of Government Services, an addition to the Ministry of the

Provincial Secretary. By joining Transport, Communications and Highways

together, the government felt that such a move would enable it to

respond more effectively to the major transportation problems

facing.British Columbia.

The transportation element of the

ministry has six branches: motor vehicle, engineering, motor carrier,

weigh scale, air services and transportation policy analysis. The

engineering branch is located in Vancouver, as is the Motor Carrier

Commission and the motor carrier branch.

Communications has two branches: telecommunications and systems development and regulations branch.

Highways has four divisions: engineering, construction, operational and administration.

Under

the first three there are ten branches: design and surveys, traffic

engineering, geotechnical and materials testing, bridge engineering,

highway safety, planning, construction, paving, maintenance and

equipment. In administration there are three main branches: personnel,

financial services and property services.

The ministry

operates 42,000 kilometres of provincial highway system, weigh scale

stations, highway ferries, motor vehicle branch offices, government

telephone services and the government aircraft services. The ministry

administers the Highway Act, Commercial Transport Act, Motor Vehicle

Act, Motor Carrier Act, Highways (Scenic Improvement) Act, Controlled

Access Highways Act, Ferries Act, Pipe-lines Act, Railway Act, Motor

Vehicle Transportation Act, Telecommunications Utilities Act and the

Industrial Transportation Act.

A few projects were completed

in the prior year, and I think the one that is foremost — people have

waited over one hundred years for it — is the completion of Highway 19

to the north end of Vancouver Island. I might say to the committee, Mr.

Chairman, that I am happy to say that the reporters don't have to worry

about dust on their cars to go on this highway now, as they mentioned

in a front-page

article a short time ago. They were all upset because

they got some dust on their car. The road is all black now, right to

the north end of Vancouver Island — Port Hardy. The road is not quite

finished but the blacktop is on and there is no gravel left on this

long-awaited road.

A few other items in this area — widening

of the Trans-Canada Highway out of Victoria, and the Blanshard Street

extension. I've been here for a while, but the Blanshard Street

extension, I think, was talked about for 25 years before it was finally

completed.

On the lower mainland, a few large projects have started there of a vital nature

— the four-laning of the King George Highway, the Mary Hill bypass, Marine Way

in Burnaby, to name a few.

Another

one that took a long time was finally completed in the Kootenays. I

refer to the Castlegar-Salmo

section of Highway 3, which was completed

late last fall.

In other parts of the province, work

continues on reconstruction of Highway 97, better known as the Hart

Highway, north of Prince George to the Peace River. Reconstruction of

that is going on and will continue to go for some time. We have quite a

bit of it completed, and even completed part of the rebuilding of the

section of the Pine Pass.

Highway 16 — Terrace to Prince

Rupert — a lot of work has been going on there, with a lot more to go

yet. But we can now see when it probably will end — everybody being

willing and funds being available. Highway 37 and 37A, to Atlin: that's

a long piece of road — 500 miles of it — and we're working on different

sections of that, have been for some time and intend to continue.

well as building quite a few passing lanes all over the province, more

paved shoulders, more rest areas, and undertaking extensive guardrail

replacement programs, we're in the third year of an extensive pavement

replacement program.

Last, but probably not least in this

section, we've also made a start, contrary to some remarks, on the

Coquihalla, the third route to the Pacific coast. Contractors are at

work on that.

In the transportation branch, I would think

one project that was new last year, and was very popular throughout the

province, is the airport assistance program, upgrading some remote

strips and some not so remote, so that citizens in outlying areas will

have better transportation available.

We are developing an overall transportation policy for the province and we're considering all the basic elements of that.

There's

another thing that I think is popular with a segment of our community:

in the transportation

section we've introduced the personalized licence

plates. Application forms, I believe, were available July 1. There is a

great response coming from the public. We've gone to cyclical billing

on licence plates, and now our citizens — I think it will take five

years for the program to be fully covered — won't have to line up for

licence places every March. It will be spread out over different times

of the year.

The communications branch is working with

communities to assist in improving communications systems such as

telephone and television. The communication branch is also spearheading

discussions between the provinces and the federal government regarding

several items of significance in the communication field.

Those

are just a few opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, to members of the

committee. I certainly look forward to the debate on these estimates.

we'll try to get you most of the answers to your quetions.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I appreciate the opening remarks of the minister. It's always fun to

debate with this minister. We always have straightforward and good

answers from this minister. I also don't intend to take too long in

these opening remarks, Mr. Chairman. All the members in the House are

extremely interested in highways and transportation, but during the

course of my remarks, Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Chairman — I'm

going to discuss a few

[ Page 1044 ]

overall

highway and ministry policies, a couple of major highway problems and

some water transportation problems in regards to the coast.

wanted to start off my remarks, Mr. Chairman, by saying that in spite

of this minister — a good minister — in spite of his very quiet

approach to highways, that ministry, in my view, has become one of the

most political ministries in the government of today. I'd like to take

a few minutes to give a couple of examples.

For the years

1977-1978 the ministry had overruns of $91,316,000, and for the years

1978-1979 it had overruns of $89,940,000. These are the months leading

up to an election, and if that's not political, Mr. Chairman, I'd like

to know what is. While we still have major problems financing our

hospitals and keeping up health care and other items, here we have a

ministry that has overruns in this last fiscal year of over $89 million.

But

what's more astounding, Mr. Chairman, is the amount of day-labour

projects that have taken place within the last couple of years. I think

everyone in the House knows that day-labour funding comes under the

direct control of the ministry, and it leads to a great deal of

speculation. In the year 1977-78 we have $82.9 million in day-labour

projects alone. These aren't necessarily contracts that are let, but

these are day-labour projects. What's even more astounding is that for

the same year in the minister's riding of Cariboo $20.6 million was

spent in day-labour projects alone. I have the figures here, Mr.

Minister, and you can correct me if I'm wrong. That's by far the

highest figure for any constituency in the province. Still more

astounding is that in the riding of Cariboo — and anybody who's living

in Cariboo is interested only in highways — $39,817,000-plus was spent

for the fiscal year of 1978. Perhaps the minister would care to comment.

have a couple of other examples, but I want to say that the difference

between this minister and Flying Phil Gaglardi is that Phil Gaglardi

used to talk a lot and put his foot in his mouth, and this minister is

very quiet. But these things are happening today in the province of

British Columbia.

Another political aspect of the ministry

which I don't care very much for, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that in

government ridings government MLAs, for some reason or other, have the

opportunity to make announcements about new highway projects in their

ridings; in opposition ridings we have a difficult time even getting

the information out of the ministry. Now I'm not knocking the ministry;

they've been very good on many aspects of little local projects. But on

major projects I'm often told by ministry officials: "I can't give you

that information. You'll have to get it from the minister." Then the

minister says: "Get it from somebody in my ministry." So there you are.

We in the opposition often don't hear about these projects until

they're in progress.

Not too long ago — about a year and a half ago or so — the Premier, by order-in-council,

was apparently allowed to talk with people in his riding about highway projects

and contracts. I'd like to know from the minister if that is still going

on. Is the Premier still signing contracts or talking with people about highway

projects in his riding? I notice from an old press clipping here that Graham

Lea, the member for Prince Rupert, asked for a special deal too, but he didn't

get any special deal as far as I know. I'd like to know if any contracts

were actually signed while the Premier was in charge of highways in his own

riding of Kelowna.

have one further item along this line, Mr. Chairman. On March 21 of

this year I wrote to the minister and asked about a supplementary

vessel to serve Route 7, between Earls Cove and Saltery Bay-Powell

River, as the present Powell River Queen had

been stretched, and I knew that the Ferry Corporation will very often

take a supplementary vessel off after they stretch a ferry. As it

turned out, this was the case.

So I asked the minister,

knowing that there were going to be problems this summer, to make sure

that there was a supplementary vessel on Route 7 this summer. I didn't

receive a reply from the minister, and in the meantime we were put into

an election campaign. Lo and behold, about two-thirds of the way

through the campaign, the Social Credit candidate in my riding made an

announcement about a supplementary vessel being placed on that

particular route, and everybody in Powell River was very happy about

it. But that is not so bad. I can understand that he perhaps had access

to information from somebody in the ministry, and the minister was busy

with his own campaign and didn't have time to write and let me know,

even though I was still the MLA for the area.

What bothers

me a bit is that Mr. K. Sorko is on the board of directors of the B.C.

Ferry Corporation. I haven't got my copy of the thing here, but Mr. K.

Sorko was, during the election, the campaign manager for the Social

Credit Party candidate in my riding. Did that candidate receive that

information from you or Mr. Sorko? Where did he get that information? I

didn't get that information until May 29, when the ferry was

practically in service and everybody in town knew about it anyway. If

that's not political, I'd like to know what is. I'm a bit disturbed

that a director of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, who was a campaign

manager for a Social Credit Party candidate, would possibly make that

information available to that candidate at that time.

I have

a couple of questions on the Coquihalla highway, Mr. Minister. I would

like to know what the completion date for that particular highway is.

What is the anticipated total cost of that highway? The first

section

of highway, 4.5 kilometres, is to be constructed from Nicolum Creek to

Pearse Creek, and the cost for that

section — I think the bids came in

— is around $950,000 per kilometre. Extrapolating from this, that would

mean that for the total length of the highway, which is 112.6

kilometres, the cost would be about $1.07 billion. This doesn't include

the cost of bridges and the cost of moving the pipelines and other

things that have to go on and have to happen for the construction of

the....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Why don't you check yourself out for a change? Pay your bills.

any event, Mr. Minister, if you would be good enough to explain this

project and the anticipated cost, I would appreciate that very much.

While

we're on highways, I'll just take a couple of minutes of the time of

this House. I know every member wants to get up and talk about highways

in their own riding. Before I move on to discussing the B.C. Ferry

Corporation and other matters, I'd like to discuss a few problems

taking place in my own riding. I wonder if the minister could tell

[ Page 1045 ]

about the continued reconstruction of Highway 101, which hasn't been

happening in the last while. I know there was a bit of work done prior

to the election; in fact, they are finishing off that particular little

project now. But that is not the continued reconstruction of Highway

101. It's taking a few bends out of the highway. It doesn't even link

up with that portion of the highway that was completed north of Half

Moon Bay a couple of years ago. I would like some assurances from the

minister that this project, the reconstruction of Highway 101, will

proceed.

The Langdale-Gibsons bypass has been kicking around

for years, but could the minister let me know what's happening in

regard to that particular project? I hope, of course, the minister will

not proceed on that project until he's consulted with the municipality

and the regional district. A great deal of controversy surrounds that

particular proposal. Recently the ratepayers in the area sent you a

letter in this regard. They have come out in favour of a bypass,

providing the municipality, the regional district and the ratepayers in

the area can be satisfied that the highway is in the right place.

Not

a great deal of work has been done on Highway 101 through Powell River.

I know that you've been up there, and you looked at the areas that are

falling into the ocean. I hope that you are continuing to meet with the

municipality with a view to repairing that

section of the highway or

perhaps even changing the highway completely — a different route

through the area. The traffic is getting heavier and heavier all the

time.

Of course, there are many major side-roads that need

upgrading and blacktop. But almost every riding in the province, except

for Vancouver Centre, requires this kind of work, so I won't go into

the many hundreds of roads that we have in my riding.

But I

have been getting a series of letters of complaint from Ocean Falls. In

fact, I am going up there on Saturday to have a look at the situation.

I've been getting a series of letters of complaint from that small

community in the last while, and perhaps someone in your ministry could

tell me what your intentions are in regard to highway repair in that

small community.

I have one last item in terms of local

areas. For the whole length of Highway 101, from Langdale through

Gibsons through Powell River up to Lund, there is not one rest area. I

would hope, Mr. Minister, that you could have Highways people look at

some of these. There are a number of areas along the way over that 80-

or 90-mile

section of highway that would be ideal locations for rest

areas, tables and toilets. I hear more and more complaints about this

every year. So perhaps you could have one of your ministry look into

that matter.

I'd like to change the track of these opening

remarks, and once again get onto the topic of problems in coastal

transportation. You know, Mr. Minister, as well as I do that the

transportation on this coast is about as bad as it has been in 30

years. I'm told the transportation system has improved, and the people

in your ministry know that very well. I've discussed it many, many

times with various people in the B.C. Ferry Corporation and in your own

ministry.

The fact is that the province made a very bad deal

a while ago, when Northland ceased its service in the province after

requesting a subsidy of $3.5 million some — two and a half or three

years ago. The province undertook to take full responsibility for coast

transportation in this province. As a result, Northland pulled out, and

the service has been terrible.

Mr. Minister, I do thank you

for tabling answers to my questions on the order paper the other day,

but I must take a small exception to one of the answers that you gave

me, in terms of answering those questions, where you say that the $8

million the ministry received was used in order to fulfil the

province's commitment in respect to the federal-provincial agreement.

Mr. Minister, I can't agree with you. I don't think you have fulfilled

those agreements that were made at that time when that agreement was

signed. I do have a copy of that agreement, but the fact is that in

many areas of this coast — the Queen Charlottes, Bella Coola, and many

other areas — water transportation is either non-existent or very poor.

We are still receiving a great deal of correspondence from people up

and down the coast. I'll give you a more recent example of what's

happening here in Tasu in the Queen Charlotte Islands. I won't read

this whole thing — it's a petition and everything else — but just to

give you an idea of what's happening right now in 1979, this is a copy

of a letter to the Premier. Copies went to a lot of other people and to

yourself as well. They say this:

"In terms of food supplies, there are undated eggs with

blood spots — stale and rotten at times. The local gastro-intestinal illness

is unusually high for a small community. Many cases are not even reported. Poor

quality of food is believed to be a cause of this complaint, and the poor quality

of food is because sometimes six weeks elapse before anything will reach these

areas and by the time it gets through the stores and into the hands of the people.

Luncheon meat, dated six months ago and frozen, when thawed turns green within

two or three days...assorted meats, rancid and sour bacon...."

These could be charges and allegations made by people

living in the community, but what's interesting about this particular

piece of correspondence is that I have a similar letter from the Queen

Charlotte Islands from a doctor who says the very same thing. He claims:

possible cause could be that we are not receiving supplies, especially

meat, that is in good condition when it leaves Vancouver. Our supplies

come in by barge every six weeks, which makes it more important that

supplies should be as fresh as possible to start with."

what I'm saying, Mr. Minister, is that the transportation to many parts

of our coast is still in very poor condition. I was hoping the minister

could explain to this House and to the people of this province what

your plans are for the future for areas like the Queen Charlottes,

Bella Coola and Bella Bella.

Please, Mr. Minister, when you

answer about the $8-million-a-year subsidy from the federal government,

and we talk about that, don't give me that very funny formula that you

worked out over some mythical stretch of highway about the $8 million

being equal. Whatever that is, I don't want to hear it again, but I

want to hear from you how you intend to improve the transportation.

I'll

refer to a piece of correspondence by a Mr. David Vink. I think that

Mr. Gallagher, general manager of the corporation, is familiar with

this case. I had a call again

[ Page 1046 ]

from

the fellow who is attempting to bring fresh supplies into the community

of Ocean Falls. The fact is that he cannot get a reservation on the

Queen of Prince Rupert. In discussion with some of your people in the

corporation, Mr. Minister, I thought I was told that he would get

preferred treatment. He got stuck in Ocean Falls for nine days. He

couldn't get on the Queen of Prince Rupert

on his regular stop in that community. This means that people up there

don't receive fresh food and vegetables. This fellow is slowly going

broke. I would like some assurance from the minister that at least this

one particular guy, who is trying to make a living and providing a

service to that community and that part of the coast, will get some

preferred treatment on the Queen of Prince Rupert . I think that is the least that can be done for Mr. David Vink.

Some

time ago the ministry commissioned a so-called report to look at the

various problems of the vessels being operated on the coast and on the

lakes of British Columbia. Will the minister table that report? You've

had it in your possession now for a year and a half or so. I know that

members in this Legislature have asked for the tabling of that report

on previous occasions. Why won't you table it? What's wrong with it? Is

there something in there that we shouldn't see? It's paid for by public

moneys. In 1977 you were good enough to send me the terms of reference

for the committee, so we know what they were supposed to look at. In

fact it was easier to tell what they were not supposed to look at. The

only thing they weren't supposed to pay any attention to was complaints

by employees; other than that, they pretty well had wide-open terms of

reference to look at all aspects of inland ferries and saltwater

ferries operated by the Ministry of Highways. I wish the minister would

be good enough to tell us today that he's going to table that report.

Let's look at it. Let's see if they recommend putting tolls on those

inland ferries and how they intend to improve the transportation system

in these areas.

As well, I'd like the minister to consider

this. We know that on the route between Powell River and Comox there is

a vessel called Sechelt Queen ,

which operates quite efficiently. However, it is getting old and

apparently has to be replaced shortly. I would like to know if the

minister is considering building, or at least planning for, a new

vessel for that particular route. I hope you are planning something

along the lines of a vessel capable of carrying about 100 vehicles and

possibly, with some modifications, 130 vehicles. Not only that, but

once he had a plan, a vessel like that could be utilized on other

routes on the Gulf Islands and along the central coast and north coast

areas of this province. Would the minister tell me if such plans are

underway by the ministry for the construction of such vessels? I know

that there are some jumbo-size ferries now under construction; perhaps

he'd tell us about those too.

While we're discussing that

particular route from Powell River to Comox, there was an

order-in-council passed some time ago concerning the vessel on this

route, operated by the Ministry of Highways, which said that this route

was similar to routes 1 and 2 between Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay and

between Departure Bay and Horseshoe Bay, and that the same toll rate

should apply. If that is so, Mr. Minister, I'd like to know why you

will not honour resident commuter cards on that route. As you know,

people on theSun shine Coast and in Powell River have resident commuter

cards which are honoured by the B.C. Ferry Corporation on the various

routes from Powell River down through theSunshine Coast and across to Horseshoe Bay, but not on that particular route. I'd like to know why not.

hope, as well, that you will consider these proposals at least. I don't

see why people who are chronically ill, who have a doctor's

certificate, couldn't utilize the B.C. highways and the B.C. ferries

free of charge. I think that these vessels on the coast are our

highways; that's what they are.

I see no reason why youth

groups travelling between Powell River and Comox, if you will, or any

other part — Denman and Hornby to Vancouver Island — shouldn't be

allowed to travel free. Soccer teams, baseball teams, Guides and

Brownies, you name it. Why not? During the seven or eight months of the

year those vessels, through most hours, are only half-utilized anyway,

and it wouldn't cost the government a great dal of money. We do have a

lot of free ferries in British Columbia now. I don't see why we

couldn't have free service for the handicapped and the seniors on these

vessels.

One more quick item, Mr. Minister. What we have here is a proposed

airport at Bella Bella. I have correspondence here from John Morton,

the chairman of the regional district, who says in part: "We have

recently been advised by Jack Pearsall" — who was then the MP for the

area but was defeated — "that approval for an expenditure of

approximately $4.5 million was made over a year ago and that the

British Columbia government was requested to make a site decision." I

would like to know if that information is correct, if money was

allocated for a proposed airport at Bella Bella, $4.5 million, and if

it is correct that the provincial government has to make a site

decision. It was my understanding that it was a federal government

responsibility. But we'd like to know. In fact, I'm going to be up

there in a couple of days, so if you can answer while I'm here, that

would be great. With that I'll give the minister a chance to answer,

Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Well, the member for Mackenzie gave me a few questions here, and we

will try and clean them up. I'll go from the first, instead of the last

to the first. I haven't got all the answers but....

You

referred to overruns in Highways. Yes, that's right. That is public

knowledge. We had overruns, and we don't deny those. It was government

policy to create work and also to effect a highway catch-up program,

and that is why that happened.

Regarding the day-labour part

of it, yes, day labour was heavy, and day labour gives the local people

work, the ones who own machinery as well as the individuals. We didn't

reduce the contract work, I might say. We have let more contracts to

our major contractors in the last two or three years than were let in

the last five. They're all busy on road work for the first time in a

long time, and they also have had grading contracts, bridge contracts

and paving contracts. This has all gone, with day labour, to assist in

upgrading our highways system and building new ones that I remarked on

earlier.

Regarding the overruns, there was one difference

with this government and the prior government. We had overruns, but on

the global budget basis we balanced the budget. We didn't end up in the

red ink.

Regarding the Cariboo riding, I'm not a bit afraid to defend the work there. I'm amazed that you would pick on

[ Page 1047 ]

that,

Mr. Member, because parts of your riding were the beneficiaries of the

work done in the Cariboo riding. For the first time in the history of

this province we've got a decent road from Williams Lake, which is in

my riding, to Bella Coola, which is in your riding — Highway 20, a

distance of 300 miles. It was three years ago that it took 18 hours and

maybe you got from Bella Coola to Williams Lake. Now you make it in six

hours, I would remind you. I am amazed that you would pick on the

Cariboo expenditure.

I might tell you also, Mr. Chairman,

that the Cariboo riding has the largest inventory of road mileage in

the province of British Columbia by electoral districts, and why

shouldn't it have the largest expenditure, in view of that alone?

am amazed, Mr. Chairman, that he'd pick on that, because I know he

doesn't go to Bella Coola very often. But he should do and hear the

people talk about the transportation improvements in that community

that allow them to get out to civilization.

Regarding Mr. Sorko, yes, I'm proud to say he is a director of the B.C. Ferries Corporation from the Sunshine

Coast. I don't know what activity he had during the election campaign,

but I'm glad to hear he was active in the campaign — on the right side.

You

were talking about getting a supplementary vessel. The one thing you

didn't say was that you did get the supplementary vessel, so I think

your observations there weren't too much.

As I go along the

Coquihalla route, really, you got that up to $1 billion. I don't know

who's doing your arithmetic, sir, but....

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER:

No, that doesn't go through my riding. But there have been a lot of

figures bandied around about the estimated cost of the Coquihalla,

which is roughly 70 miles from Hope to Merritt. It goes through real

tough country. The first contract has been awarded, and on the basis of

that, it appears that we might.... There's inflation to be concerned

about and so on.

The government said in the throne speech of

1977 that we'd build the Coquihalla and it would take eight to ten

years to complete it. There's been no change in that strategy, but the

figures will certainly change from an inflation standpoint alone.

Still, we're not looking at more than $150 million as the gross cost of

that total highway. This is based partly on the one existing contract

that has been awarded in tough country, but there's a lot of tough

country to go through yet. But it is nothing like the $1 billion that

you mentioned. I think you had better go back to your computer or

whatever and find out how you're wrong there, Mr. Member.

Regarding

Highway 101 in your riding, there have apparently been a couple of

miles of road done there. The wo