1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3433 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Introduction of Bills.

Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 43). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 3433

Oral Questions.

Dumping of radioactive wastes. Mr. Mitchell –– 3433

Mr. Lauk –– 3434

Constitutional negotiations. Mr. Macdonald –– 3434

Mr. Barrett –– 3435

Committee of Supply Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm)

On vote 162: minister's office –– 3435

Mr. Barber

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Lorimer

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Lockstead

Appendix –– 3461

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Among the guests in our galleries today are four who are particularly

welcome as far as the Curtis family is concerned. They are relatives

from Merced, California. In the Speaker's gallery we have June and Tom

Boffman and their daughters Natasha and Kelly. They were here last year

for a very quick look at greater Victoria and they are back, I am happy

to say, for a longer stay this summer. Would the House welcome them.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I have two introductions that I am pleased to make today. First of all

I would like to ask all members of our House to welcome a member of

Parliament from Melbourne, Australia. Mr. Bruce Skeggs is a Member of

Parliament in Victoria, Australia, and is here with Mrs. Skeggs. I

would like all the members to welcome them heartily.

Every

year the very fine organization, the Canadian Council of Christians and

Jews in British Columbia, have an exchange program with the province of

Quebec where students from British Columbia and Quebec spend two weeks

in each others' home provinces. In the House today are two

representatives from that exchange program. We have our British

Columbia representative, Pat Boeker of Delta, who has just spent two

weeks with the Goulin family. Robert Goulin is here, the exchange

partner from Quebec, to spend two weeks with us. They are sitting in

the gallery today and we welcome them both.

MR. HALL:

I'd like the House to welcome visitors to the gallery today —

representatives of the B.C. Government Employees Union: Mr. Norm

Richards, Mr. John Fryer, Mr. John Eldridge, Ms. Dianne Wood and Mr.

S.J. Burton. I'd like the House to welcome those hard-working

government employees.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr.

Speaker, I have visiting with me today — and we have the pleasure of

having in the House directly behind me — some friends and constituents:

Ina Watson from New Westminster and Martha MacKenzie from my own

constituency of Surrey. Also with them is a family from Ireland, Fred

and Ina Logan and their daughters Katrina and Armanda. I would ask the

House to extend them a welcome.

MR. KEMPF: With us in

the gallery this afternoon from the district of Terrace is Mr. Ron

Burnett, alderman for the district; Mr. Loyd Scott; Mr. Jim Muir; and

Mr. Denis Marleau. I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

the gallery with us this afternoon is Mr. Sam Chow from that great city

of Prince George, and I would ask the House to make him welcome as well.

MR. MITCHELL:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to welcome one of my

constituents, the newly elected president of the lower island NDP,

Dennis David.

Introduction of Bills

PENSION (PUBLIC SERVICE)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill

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

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

Oral Questions

DUMPING OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

MR. MITCHELL:

Mr. Speaker, I have an oral question to the Minister of Environment.

What steps has the minister taken to determine the location and

environmental impact of radioactive waste dumped into the ocean by the

Defence Research Establishment and the University of British Columbia?

What is the location? Is it 3 miles, 12 miles or 200 miles out from the

coast?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, as the member

knows, the responsibility for radioactive wastes rests entirely in the

hands of the federal government, but I have had my staff inquire with

the federal Department of the Environment to determine what locations

and what subsequent follow-up.... I think that the matter is almost of

historic proportions, and I think it's now 15 or 18 years ago that this

happened. It has only recently come to the fore. I'm endeavouring to

get some answers back and bring them to the member.

MR. MITCHELL:

I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. We all know the lifespan

of the radioactive material, and it's not 18 years — that's just a drop

in the bucket. Can the minister assure the House that radioactive

wastes are not still being dumped into the water off the B.C. coast?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

No, Mr. Speaker, I can't give that assurance. That's the responsibility

of the federal government, and it's an area wherein they have

jurisdiction.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Do you have a question as well?

MR. HOWARD: It's no concern of yours.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

I suspect that the matter ceased some years ago, but I don't have a

confirmation on that. Perhaps the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) will

be able to give you the answer — he seems to be anxious to interrupt.

MR. MITCHELL:

I would like to bring to the attention of the minister that he does

represent British Columbia, and I think it's imperative that he fight

for the people of British Columbia and locate where the waste is being

dumped. Will he make that assurance to the House that he will locate it

and bring to the attention of the federal government that we don't want

any more radioactive waste dumped into our waters?

[ Page 3434 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure how the member expects that I would

personally locate the radioactive isotopes that were dumped some time

ago. As I said to the member earlier, we are making some inquiries with

the federal government. I am concerned, as I am sure all people are in

this province. The matter happened a great deal of time ago and has

only recently become public knowledge. Until such time as I get some

information back from Ottawa I am a little bit powerless to act on the

matter.

MR. LAUK: On a supplementary to the minister,

can the minister inform the House at what date he will receive the

information from the federal government to assure this House that our

coastline is safe from radioactivity?

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

MR. LAUK: Why not? Why has the minister responsible for the environment not received that assurance from the federal government?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I am at a complete loss to be able to answer that

question. I asked the federal government a question. I can hardly

dictate to the federal Minister of the Environment at what time he

replies to my inquiries. Perhaps you have some method of making Ottawa

respond to the ring of the phone or something; I haven't.

MR. LAUK:

The minister requested a method. You pick up the phone, you dial the

number and you demand the assurances of the federal minister. Has the

minister now decided to undertake to this House that he will do so

immediately with the federal minister and provide that information to

the Legislature?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I will get back to

the Legislature, as I told the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr.

Mitchell) earlier, at the earliest occasion on which I have this

information.

CONSTITUTIONAL NEGOTIATIONS

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier relating to the

constitutional talks that are now going on where the province of

British Columbia — we find occasionally from the newspapers — wants

fisheries, railways, harbours and various things; we don't know on what

terms. Instead of working from a hidden agenda and playing those cards

close to your own vest, when are you going to take the Legislature of

the province of British Columbia into your confidence with respect to

B.C.'s position, to add some strength to it — I'm not debating the

merits of these points — and when are you going to take the people into

your confidence, instead of carrying on closet constitutional

negotiations?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The government of British Columbia has taken the people

of British Columbia into what he says is our confidence, which we say is their

business. In fact, we are attempting to propose ways not only to strengthen

the country but to defend our province in areas where resource revenues or resources

could be attacked — sometimes with willing accomplices who have offered politically

offer was made by the leader of the New Democratic Party and supported by his

party. It has made it difficult for us, at times, to defend the heritage of

the people of this province when there are those who would assume power who

have not only been willing to give it away but have offered publicly on television

at energy conferences to give away the resource revenues and resources that

belong to the heritage of the people of British Columbia. We are not daunted

that there are those who would give away what we would preserve and protect.

We are fighting to protect and to build, both at the same time.

Our

position papers on the constitution were made public in 1978. Amended

positions have been added to that; any good series of ideas can be

improved. I'm pleased to see the other provinces now supporting

proposals that British Columbia put forward at that time when we stood

alone in our concern for representation by the regions in this country.

Some scoffed — some from the other side. Those other areas have been

made public. Just yesterday the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations

(Hon. Mr. Gardom) made public to all British Columbians, through the

media, at a press conference, British Columbia's position on the 12

issues being discussed by the ten provincial governments and the

federal government at this time.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm

not going to reply except to say that the Premier was guilty of a

deliberate twisted half truth when he talked about our being ready to

give away the resources. He knows it. You're not going to build a new

Canada by going around lying about things of that kind, Mr. Premier.

That's what you're doing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: My question to the Premier is: has he made any decision to bring to the Legislature these matters currently under discussion?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The proposals that British Columbia has put forth have been available

to this Legislature, and I've tried to encourage discussion of them in

the Legislature during my estimates not only this year but in other

years. Obviously they have not caught the interest of the official

opposition, because try as we might to have a discussion on a high

plane, it has been difficult to attract their attention to the problems

facing this country and the proposals that British Columbia has put

forth. There's been ample opportunity during those periods, not just

this year but in other years, for the new-found interest — for the

second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) to show his concern

about how this country can work, not only for the people of British

Columbia but for all Canadians.

Our interest is not

new-found, Mr. Speaker. The interest of this government has caught our

attention and our efforts for the last four and a half years. I had

hoped that during that period we would have had some support for those

who would also attempt to be government in this province, but we have

not had that support. And I think the record and public opportunities —

such as the Pépin-Robarts task force, and the presentations made there

— amply represent who's concerned about this country and this province,

and who has been willing to put their proposals before the people.

But I agree with the second member for Vancouver East

[ Page

3435 ]

that we need broader circulation of our proposals.

So I will take it as his suggestion, and this government will go on an

active campaign to inform every British Columbian by any means, whether

through the media or through town hall meetings, and to involve the

broad base of British Columbians in the discussions directly, because

obviously this government isn't getting any support from the New

Democratic Party of this province on these proposals.

MR. BARRETT:

I'm pleased that the Premier referred to his estimates again. Would the

Premier please inform us when he intends to answer questions 40 through

62, standing on the order paper all these weeks from his estimates,

still ignored, still unanswered by that Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to assist you in your task of calling

the Leader of the Opposition, once more, out of order on an improper

question. But let me say that the frivolous politicking that takes

place on that side will be dealt with in the political arena. The

serious questions of government will always be dealt with in this

Legislature.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a supplementary

question to the Premier. I note your remarks, Mr. Premier, that we're

not interested. The last conference I attended was at Queen's

University. I was also at the one at York University. I am fairly up to

date on these things and so are my colleagues. I regret that you

haven't decided to bring these matters to the Legislature to bring

strength to B.C.'s position and to have a good position on a

non-partisan basis and take politics out of this thing, as you've been

injecting it. I'm asking you whether you are willing to consider any

kind of bi-partisan consultation in respect to the renewal of

Confederation and the very important business that faces this nation of

Canada, and to include some of the opposition in these deliberations in

order to safeguard and protect the position of the people of the

province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The

second member for Vancouver East asks if we will develop bipartisan

proposals. No. We'll develop non-partisan proposals for the people of

British Columbia. The first injection of partisan politics that I've

heard in this debate has now been introduced by the second member for

Vancouver East, who says he wants some sort of partisanship in the

proposals for how this country can be run. But, Mr. Speaker, let me

assure you that the work we have done has not just involved Social

Crediters. It has involved British Columbians: those who have been

willing to donate their time and consult with people from all walks of

life and from the universities in developing British Columbia's

position. We didn't ask them whether they were Liberals or New

Democrats, as the second member for Vancouver East would suggest. We

said: "Help us to develop proposals." Those proposals were put forward

over two years ago. They were made available not only to the

conference, but were also shared with all Canadians.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that when the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) yelled

across "twiddle," he is saying what their party has said over and

over again these last two years when their concern was in evidence. We have

shared those proposals, but we have also shared their development with the British

Columbian and Canadian community. They were not developed in isolation. They

were not developed in a single partisan way, nor were they developed, as the

second member for Vancouver East said, as a matter for political, partisan trade-offs.

He wants bipartisan proposals for this country. I say that our proposals are,

and will continue to be non-partisan proposals, no matter what the New Democratic

Party says.

MR. MACDONALD:

On a point of order, I would like to make a correction in relation to

the Premier's remarks about what I said. I did not propose that this

should be a politically partisan thing. That was twisting my words, Mr.

Premier. I do urge this House to develop a British Columbia position on

a non-partisan basis and involve the people in those deliberations.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 162: minister's office, $165,465.

MR. BARBER:

The theme of yesterday's debate was the wilful neglect by Social Credit

in the whole field of conflict-of-interest law. I have a series of

questions to the Minister of Municipal Affairs in regard to the

Chilliwack situation. When was the minister first advised, by whom and

in what form, of the allegations made concerning bylaws, expropriation,

the wrongful payment for land, the overpayment for certain land as

appraised by the city appraiser and the allegation of a filing of a

false statement with the land registry office?

Perhaps the

minister didn't hear the questions. Apparently not. I will ask them

again. When was the minister first advised, by whom and in what form,

of the problems in the township of Chilliwack concerning the

allegations that land was expropriated which was not required, that far

more money was paid for that land than the city appraiser said it was

worth, that a false statement was allegedly filed with the land

registry office in regard to one key parcel of land, and — one further

question which I wish to add now — that the mayor of the municipality

wrongfully informed the person in advance of the availability of

certain lands which were going to be sold by the municipality?

questions to the minister are: when was he first made aware of these

several allegations, by whom was he made aware of them and in what form?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

This whole matter was certainly referred to the RCMP some time ago. I

think the request initially came from the municipality, that it be

investigated by them in order to answer some of those charges — founded

or unfounded, whichever they might be — that were being made.

should point out to the member, however, that sometimes in the process

of acquiring lands for public purposes, the price paid may be more than

what the assessed price happens to be or what the value of the land

would be on the open market at a given time. I point out to the member

that there is a good example in the community represented by me

[ Page 3436 ]

and

the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), where the NDP government

purchased large portions of land — the former Attorney-General would be

aware of that — in South Surrey for values which were greater in 1974

than they are even today. These things do happen. It may have been that

at the time the government of the day found that the lands were more

important to them than the price which had to be paid, and this is

certainly a consideration that must be looked at by the council or the

government of the day.

I will get you the dates, but we were

advised early on as to questions that were being raised in the

community. The inspector certainly did an investigative process at the

time, as was requested of him; but at the same time the RCMP were also

asked to enter, and when they do we leave it in their capable hands.

MR. BARBER:

I believe the minister has inadvertently misinformed the House. In

fact, the request to call the RCMP did not come from the township of

Chilliwack; it came from my own office. It was dated October 30, 1979.

It was the result of material that I received in my office October 24,

1979, and it was replied to in a favourable way by the then

Attorney-General, Mr. Gardom, on November 22, 1979. It was, in fact,

the request of the official opposition and not your government or that

township which saw the RCMP called.

My questions were: when,

by whom and in what form were you advised of the several allegations —

and I'll refer to others in a moment — which have been made concerning

the adventures of a few people in Chilliwack who have been engaged in,

to say the least, rather unusual bylaw rewriting and expropriation

procedures?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again, I too

received a copy of the letter which was referred to by the hon. first

member for Victoria. I received a copy of that letter and that letter

was apparently referred to the RCMP. At the time, I considered the

contents of the letter and felt that there was really little more than

allegations there — no substantive material in the letter — and at the

time I certainly did not feel that I could, on the basis of that

letter, approach the RCMP.

I wish to point out to the member

— because obviously he could well have more questions on similar topics

— that I start out with the premise that the people involved in

municipal government are basically honest. I don't go around asking for

police investigations on the basis of some allegation made by someone

who may find that because of some action by a municipal council he

didn't get all he was seeking or the municipal council beat him to a

particular project. I don't ask the RCMP to move in and start

investigating every municipally elected person. I have faith in

municipal people. However, when there's something brought to my

attention which is substantially substantive, then naturally I proceed.

"Substantially substantive" — that's a good term right there and you

might keep that in mind.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Certainly we'll get the dates. My staff will be getting that

information, and I will report it to the House as soon as it comes down

here.

MR. BARBER: It's perfectly clear that the case

made by the official opposition in regard to the wilful neglect of this

administration is confirmed by the minister's own comments. It was not

simply a letter which we received; it was also a well-publicized

investigation carried on by the Vancouver Sun ,

in which documents were referred to, statements were made and arguments

were put forward which appeared to meet the test of validity and the

test of proper inquiry as well. To the credit of the then

Attorney-General, Mr. Gardom, he agreed on November 22, 1979, to call

the RCMP. It is to the shame of this minister that he continued to

wilfully neglect an area where not simply one letter and one reporter,

but for months previous — as he should have known — people in local

government — who are, by and large, tremendously honest and honourable

— were raising with us, as I'm sure they were raising with you, the

same concerns, criticisms and questions.

Maybe the minister

doesn't answer his mail, attend these meetings or return these phone

calls, but we answer our mail, attend those meetings and return those

phone calls, and we were aware for months prior to the RCMP being

called in that something was going on out there, that questions of an

important nature were being raised. They were most certainly not being

raised by one solitary crank who wrote a letter. They were being raised

by responsible people in responsible positions who have subsequently,

like ourselves, been interviewed by the RCMP and have given to the RCMP

such evidence as they had, which they think, appropriately, should be

brought to bear on the case. Where was the minister during that whole

time? Apparently he was content to remain asleep at that switch and not

make any inquiries, regardless of all the information which was

becoming privately available through lots of honourable, honest people

in local government, who were also concerned with the activities of, it

would appear, only one or two persons in that district.

I've

a few other questions. When was the minister first made aware that

Chilliwack council rezoned part of an alderman's property at

Meadowbrook as commercial-residential for the purposes of development

and allowed thereby, while he was an alderman, the sale of $2.8 million

worth of land and a building to a public educational institute? Did the

minister consider the possibility that that might constitute conflict

of interest? When was the minister aware that the same alderman, he

himself being the chairman of the zoning bylaw committee, saw the

rezoning of his property on Hocking Avenue, thus allowing a sale of

$125,000 worth of land to an iron fabricating plant? Did it occur to

the minister to inquire whether or not, just maybe, that too might be a

conflict of interest? When was the minister made aware that the same

alderman managed to persuade council to meet the totally unusual

request of a developer for rezoning — totally outside the ambit of the

ordinary procedures of council, I am advised — to sell land, and make a

considerable profit at it, to a company called Canadian Tire? When was

the minister made aware that, over the objections stated and known of

the planner of that municipality, the same alderman managed to obtain

relaxed zoning restrictions in the CS-1 — which is the commercial zone

in that municipality — in which, lo and behold, the same alderman owns

a number of properties? Did it occur to the minister to inquire whether

or not just maybe that might constitute a conflict of interest on the

part of that individual?

When did the minister first learn that the same alderman ordered an expensive addition to provincial government

[ Page 3437 ]

roadwork?

He managed to persuade the Ministry of Transportation and Highways of

the apparent need for same in a turning lane being built in front of

his own property and, by the way, property owned by another alderman on

the same council who appears to be one of his friends.

Was

the minister at any point advised that all of these decisions had been

made, that all of those bylaws had been passed and that all of those

rules had been imposed, which appear to suggest, to say the least, the

possibility of a conflict of interest on the part of that alderman? Now

the minister will get up and say: "I make the presumption of innocence.

As far as I am concerned, everyone in local government is honest."

Wonderful; I agree with him. Now forget the silly rhetoric that does

not reply to the serious question and instead give a serious reply.

When were you advised of these charges, this information and these

matters of public record? What did you do about it, if anything?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, the member again said "allegations," and "certainly there

is the possibility," and so forth. He is making reference to an elected

person in the municipality of Chilliwack. I did not come in here with a

file today to throw mud at anyone who has been subject to allegations.

The matter is under investigation by the RCMP. Certainly if the RCMP

can't properly look into the subject before us, then no one else can. I

certainly did not come in here with a file to throw mud or to make it

appear as if someone is guilty before they have been so judged.

MR. BARBER:

Before they can be found guilty and judged guilty they have to be

charged. Before there is a charge there has to be evidence. To make all

of that happen there has to be an authority who cares enough to call

for an inquiry that is serious and comprehensive. What's clear again is

the wilful neglect of this minister who ignores all of the information

provided privately, who chose to do nothing about a letter sent to his

personal attention, and who ignored, as well, the results of an

investigative report by the Vancouver Sun .

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I can take a lot of rhetoric and a

lot of abuse coming across the floor, whether it's directed at me or

someone in local government elsewhere. That's fine, but I would ask the

member to withdraw "wilful neglect."

MR. CHAIRMAN:

That is most unparliamentary, hon. member. The Chair will ask the first

member for Victoria to withdraw the term "wilful neglect" used against

another hon. member of this House.

MR. BARBER: The

Chair was asleep yesterday, I suspect. I used the term 20 times if I

used it once. I've used it earlier today. I am not imputing a false

motive; I am describing behaviour. The behaviour is that of neglect —

clear, patent, simple neglect. There is nothing unparliamentary about

that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you have imputed

"wilful" neglect. That does impute a false motive against an hon.

member. I would ask, in proper parliamentary tradition, that you

withdraw the term "wilful neglect."

MR. BARBER: It

was wilful neglect. It was incompetent neglect. It was unnecessary

neglect. If the language is unparliamentary, I withdraw the language.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, will the member withdraw?

MR. BARBER:

Of course. Now I will describe the behaviour. I withdraw the term

"wilful neglect.'' I describe, instead, a pattern — a clear, distinct,

obvious and self-evident pattern by this minister's answers this

afternoon and all day yesterday. This government, for its own political

reasons, refuses to take seriously the whole problem of conflict of

interest and refuses to act when evidence is drawn to its attention.

the official opposition had not asked the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Williams) to call the RCMP, would the police have ever been called? We

suspect not, because if it was up to that incompetent minister.

unwilling to be serious about the problem of conflict of interest, the

Attorney-General would never have heard a thing about it. Fortunately

the official opposition at least cares about the problem and is

concerned enough to remove the solitary one or two rotten apples from

the honest barrel of persons in local government.

The

minister's neglect is a matter of public record in the case of

Chilliwack. He knew and he did not act. He was advised and he did

nothing. He heard the material and he chose to achieve precisely zero

to protect the public interest of the people in Chilliwack. That the

minister is an incompetent is a matter of public record. Look what he

did when he was Minister of Human Resources. Today he admits....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, please, could I have your attention for a moment? Perhaps

I just might cite the sixteenth edition of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice

and read the following to all hon. members: "Good temper and moderation

are the characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary

language is never more desirable than when a member is canvassing the

opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate." The Chair is asked to

promptly interfere where "abusive and insulting language of a nature

likely to create disorder" is used. The Chair is also asked to

interfere when there is an "accusation of misrepresentation." Those are

found on pages 458 and 459 of Sir Erskine May's sixteenth edition. If

all members would be reminded that parliamentary language is a courtesy

and feature of this House, then debate might proceed smoothly.

MR. BARBER:

Ordinarily I never raise my voice in this place, but today it makes me

damned angry to realize that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has been

in the hands of someone who deliberately refused to act — that language

is not unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman — when he was presented with a

body of evidence that clearly persuaded the RCMP and the

Attorney-General to act. I wonder why it wasn't enough to persuade him

to act. If the RCMP and the Attorney-General found sufficient evidence

to inquire, what more does it take to persuade the Minister of

Municipal Affairs to do his sworn duty, which is to uphold the

requirements of the Municipal Act and to diligently and aggressively

inquire into any serious charge that the act has been breached?

What

has he done? Well, he's currently looking through his notes to find a

record of anything he did, in order to defend his indefensible position.

[ Page 3438 ]

The

fact remains that he knew and we knew for months, prior to October of

last year, what appeared to be going on in Chilliwack. We were aware of

those allegations and their source, and we were aware of the apparent

conflict of interest on the part of a then developer alderman, who is

no longer an alderman, who seemed to be able to obtain from that

township a series of decisions which appeared to be tremendously

profitable for him and his developer pals.

I will not

mention the fact that the alderman in question was the fiscal agent for

the Social Credit MLA for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder). That would

be unseemly. I will not observe to the House the connections between

that alderman, those developers and the Social Credit MLA. If I did,

the minister might ask me to withdraw.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, no. I give a guy credit for not being stupid enough to be connected with you.

MR. BARBER:

You get that position, do you? You understand that point? Good. Why

didn't you understand the rest of the points? The RCMP did. The

Attorney-General did. But you did not, Mr. Minister.

Now let

me continue. It's clearly established from this debate that the

minister in fact ordered no investigation of any serious sort, did not

support the request of the Attorney-General to call the RCMP, and

presumably has done nothing whatever since to find out whether or not

the public interest has been served in Chilliwack.

So let me ask another body of questions. This is to do with Langley. Perhaps the minister will change files.

what point was the minister advised of the possibility of breaches of

the Municipal Act on the part of certain persons involved in the

administration of the city of Langley, not to be confused with the

township of Langley? At what point was the minister made aware that

allegations of a serious order, apparently substantiated by persons of

serious reputation, had been made in order to favour a company called

GL Construction, president George Levesque, in that particular

municipality?

At what point was the minister made aware, and

by whom and in what form, that the RCMP, once again to their credit,

having also received the same information from the same apparently

legitimate sources, were persuaded of their own initiative to call in

the commercial crime

section and to begin yet another investigation

into apparently serious and apparently founded allegations of conflict

of interest and apparent breaches of the Municipal Act? At what point

was the minister advised that there was sufficient evidence to persuade

the RCMP, once again, to enter into this particular situation, and to

pursue a criminal investigation through the commercial crime

section

with a view to the possibility that the law had been breached? At what

point was the minister advised, and by whom and in what form...?

Is the minister listening?

When

did you learn that the RCMP, Mr. Minister — the Royal Canadian Mounted

Police — had evidently received sufficient information to cause them to

launch an inquiry and at the moment, in fact, to continue with that

inquiry, into a number of very serious allegations made by persons

concerned with good government in Langley, as I trust the minister is

also concerned with good government in Langley?

At what

point did he receive the published statement of a realtor whose licence

and reputation is on the line by virtue of the charges he has made and

the information he has obtained about peculiar dealings in the city of

Langley — a realtor who has a great deal to lose by going public, but

who nonetheless went public anyway with information which he may have

been, at that time, uniquely privy to, and for which he felt

sufficiently responsible that he would draw it to the attention of the

government, the official opposition and — I'm informed — the RCMP? At

what point did the minister receive that information, from whom did he

receive it, in what form was it and what did he do with that

information once he was made privy to the apparently serious and

well-documented charges that have recently been made public and are

currently the subject of an RCMP inquiry?

MR. MUSSALLEM:

The first member for Victoria, in his debate in the last two days, has

been striking at the very roots of the justice system of this country.

Unfounded charges and counter-charges, without basis in fact, based on

supposition and innuendo, prevail in this House. He is attacking

government and municipal officials, all and sundry, which it is his

right to do, but it shows very poor faith in the business climate of

British Columbia. We have hundreds of thousands of land transactions

here every year. Certainly one or two, a dozen, 17 or 100 may be

suspect — not suspect in fact but suspect in imagination. A great many

times when the facts are out they are not as they were supposed to be.

am amazed that the member for Victoria plays so fast and loose with the

names of public officials, crying very loud and long that there are 17

investigations going on by the RCMP at this time. That's supposed to be

a big number. What is wrong with that number? If the RCMP thinks there

is something wrong it is their duty to investigate, and as for the fact

that there are 17, more power to the justice system of this province.

They suspect; there's a possibility and they're going in there.

But

where he strikes at the roots of the justice system is when he suggests

that everyone should be charged immediately and carelessly. According

to our system of law a person must be guilty beyond a shadow of doubt.

I know the socialists would change that. I know that under a socialist

system there's one boss; I know that's true. That is not the case among

you socialists here. No, you believe in the democratic system that we

have, but that is the road on which you embark. That is the socialist

system. I'm not saying it's the system of your party; you haven't got

that power yet nor can you have it under the British North America Act,

but that is the socialist system. I do not declare you as part of that,

but I say that is the system — one individual. Thank goodness that in

our system of government, protected by our acts and laws, no one is

found guilty unless they are judged guilty.

I could bring

out today many scandals which would appear to be scandals on the part

of the NDP, but I think they're better forgotten because I do not have

facts to substantiate them. I read the press; I hear from people, but I

don't bring these out like the member for Victoria. But I'm going to

bring out something here that's substantiated with facts. I do so not

with pleasure, but because I must. You'll say to me: "Why dig this all

up? The NDP have not been in office now for four years." But I must do

it; it's only a short time, and wrongdoing is wrongdoing, whether it

was four years ago or today. I brought this up in the House before and

I was amazed at the silence from that side. It died because no one took

it up, but I bring it up again.

[ Page 3439 ]

MR. BARBER: Maybe that's because it wasn't real.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

The hon. member may laugh. That's a great way to disarm a speaker — and

snickering. But when he hears the substance of this charge let us not

hear any more laughs and snickering. When I bring to you the fact that

a certain adviser to the then Minister of Housing, Mr. Nicolson, an

adviser who was vice-president of Community Builders, made a profit of

$3 million on a piece of land at Pitt Meadows — $3 million, not

$300,000 — would you think that is substantial? Would you consider

that...?

MR. BARBER: Gordon Gibson knows that question.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Oh, it doesn't matter. You'll notice, Mr. Chairman, that again the

socialist system can't do wrong. Let me tell you that Community

Builders, the vice-president of which is Mr. Al Khoeli, adviser to Mr.

Nicolson, Minister of Housing during the NDP government regime, owned

property in Pitt Meadows — about 60 acres — in which they had invested

less than $200,000. During 1974 Community Builders processed a

development plan through council under a land-use contract even to the

level of public hearing. Community Builders at that time had a binding

contract with the provincial government. Listen to this now; I want you

to hear this; this is important. Al Khoeli, vice-president of that

company and adviser to Mr. Nicolson, had a binding agreement with the

government that if he chose not to go ahead with it — after doing all

this through the public hearing, through land-use contract — they had

to buy the property from him. Now if that isn't a conflict of interest,

tell me what it is.

HON. MR. FRASER: I didn't catch all that. Would you say all that over again?

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Yes, I think I should, because it's important, because it's a flagrant

conflict of interest. Here is a government that is so simon-pure,

charging everybody loose and sundry, putting a cloud over almost every

public official in British Columbia, putting a cloud over most

municipalities on the lower mainland — that they were fast and loose in

dealing with land. Of course, there must be some land transactions in

which hundreds of thousands.... But that's where the police come in.

But here we have a government, an NDP government, that is involved with

land dealing, that said in effect to Mr. all Khoeli: "If you decide not

to go ahead with this, don't worry, we'll buy it from you at a big, fat

profit." Land they had invested less than $200,000 in they sold to the

government not for $1 million, not for $2 million, but for $3.6 million

— the adviser to Mr. Lorne Nicolson, the then Minister of Housing.

that a conflict of interest? No, of course not. That is a socialist

non-conflict of interest. But I'm telling you, it’s regrettable that

such things can take place. There were 60 acres involved. The

government subsequently bought those 60 acres for that sum: $3.6

million. They cost Mr. Al Khoeli, adviser to Mr. Nicolson and

vice-president of Community Builders, $200,000. Was there ever a charge

laid? No, there was no charge laid.

I'll tell you more. I'll

get the newspapers of the day. I could tell you about deals in Mission;

I could deal you about deals in Coquitlam. But do I tell you? No,

because they serve no purpose except to put a cloud over public

officials in this country.

I'm telling you this, Mr.

Chairman. That party should be ashamed, because I think we in British

Columbia have the finest public officials anywhere in Canada, or for

that matter in North America — the finest, honourable people. For them

to cast a cloud — the second day of cloud-mongering — over officials of

this department, over municipal councils, and to continue to do so, I

think, is shameful. Is there nothing more constructive for the

minister's estimates? Certainly, if you want to throw little clouds

around, do it. But get it over with; don't continue day after day, hour

after hour. Five times you've spoken on this subject: dark work, dark

deeds in a dark corner in the back room.

I don't believe

there is any such thing. But I believe that in a society such as ours,

there is always something that can go wrong. Nothing is perfect, except

that NDP; they think they're perfect. I don’t criticize them for what

they think, but socialism has a peculiar taint to it: "Everybody else

is wrong but us."

Mr. Chairman, listen to this. When any

individual who is an adviser to the NDP government, any individual who

is adviser to the Minister of Housing, can have a contract with that

minister which says,"If I don't develop my land, you'll buy it from me,

Mr. Minister," how can he lose? I can bring the contracts and table

them on this table — long, well written, legal contracts — if you ask

for it. Then tell me what you would answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think we should have them.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I can get them and I will get them. If you want me to, I will.

But

we must get this; this is important. When this man stands in his place

— a man whom I would like to have respect for — and castigates and

lambastes all public officials one after the other, sing-songs back and

forth, starts over again, plays his violin up and down.... We have

discovered something, we the puritans of British Columbia, we the ones

that do no wrong. We know that we're right and we know that every

public official.... We don't know which public officials are crooks,

but we know most of them are." That's what he's saying. Now if he can

say that in this House and get away with it, I tell you, Mr. Chairman,

it's an utter disgrace, and I've had enough of it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I believe I heard a very unparliamentary term. Will the member withdraw it?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Tell me the word, Mr. Chairman; I just don't remember it. If anything I said was unparliamentary, I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, is was a reference to another hon. member.

MR. MUSSALLEM: If anything I said was unparliamentary, I withdraw it immediately.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

But I'm telling you that it's hard to maintain one's cool under the

attack that they have been making on this ministry and on the public

officials of this province. It's hard to maintain one's cool, Mr.

Chairman, and if I have said anything unparliamentary, I withdraw it.

[ Page 3440 ]

But

I say again, it is an utter disgrace that an adviser to the minister

can make a profit of $3 million by the turn of a hand, by an iron-bound

contract.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was the minister?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Nicolson, the Minister of Housing in the NDP government. It's the same one.

I'm

telling you, Mr. Chairman, I'll go over it again. Is it necessary to do

so? I am tired of seeing our public officials lambasted. I'm calling on

that member to stop that line of attack; I'm calling on him to get on

to something constructive. There is lots in these estimates to be

discussed. But this line of attack that everybody is crooked, that the

public officials are not doing their duty, it's high time that was

stopped.

It's disgusting that any member would stand in this

House and make such attacks. Public officials have no way of replying;

municipalities have no place on this floor. He wants more police

investigations. He says there are 17 and there should be more. I am

telling you that a sad day has befallen British Columbia. With the

hundreds of thousands of land deals going on every year, there must be

some mistakes done. The courts are there. Thank God for a justice

system that does not allow the kind of thing he suggested. There is one

thing the justice system does demand: that any individual that is

charged is proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Would he have it

any other way? Would he want the judge to listen to him and say: "Well,

the first member for Victoria said you were a crook, sir, and I find

you a crook and I hereby sentence you forthwith"? Is that the way you

want the law? That is what he is saying. I say to you that that is

wrong, Mr. Chairman.

He knows what is wrong. He knows all

these things. He is a soothsayer with a crystal ball. Those are all the

facts he's got. If there is anything wrong, I would tell the minister.

The minister, I believe, would be the first to bring it to the light of

day. But you can't bring anything to the light of day from innuendos

and suspicion. You have to have hard facts. I have hard facts here.

What do you want to say about that? That is what I call an

unconscionable profit — $3 million on an investment of $200,000.

Disgusting! That is not unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman, but I stand in

my place and say thank God we have a system of government such that

although they've placed innuendos and placed a cloud over officials,

the system of government demands that a person shall be proven guilty.

just had it a while ago in a drug case where the government spent $14

million defending people who were obviously, but not obviously enough,

crooks. It was defending them because they had no money — to prove

their guilt or innocence. That is our system of government. They were

charged, but we say they are guilty. Everyone that knows about it says:

"Oh, they are guilty. Of course they are guilty. They are in the drug

trade." But the justice system does not say that. It says: "You prove

them guilty, Mr. RCMP. Prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt or we will

turn them loose. We don't care what it costs you." That is the way it

should be. The justice system is right. Fortunately we have a justice

system that will stand against them, but we have no system that will

remove the cloud from over the heads of our public officials.

The

Hon. member has a way of laughing on a most serious matter. I am a

little disgusted with him that he would do this on a charge of this

nature. I am surprised that instead of looking at this matter seriously

— and it is very serious — he would continue with the process that he

obviously intends to do. I call on him in honour now to stop this

stupid line of questioning and get on with the business of the House.

MR. BARBER:

Is that the best the new Socred research office can do? Twelve million

dollars to defend three defendants in a drug trial? Do you really

believe that? Is that what your research office told you happened? I

like you personally, but the quality of your research is abysmal.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Never mind the quality.

MR. BARBER: Never mind the quality?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Victoria has the floor on vote 162.

MR. BARBER:

Regardless of the inept remarks of the member for Dewdney, who does not

understand the role of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the

interpretation of the Municipal Act, the legal requirements of the

inspector of municipalities to examine the possibilities that the

Municipal Act has been breached, and regardless of all the other

utterly incompetent and illogical and totally meandering, goofy

comments from the esteemed member for Dewdney....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I find "inept," "goofy," and many other items quite unparliamentary.

MR. BARBER:

I withdraw them all. Regardless of the immensely persuasive arguments

of the member for Dewdney, the question still remains. What did the

Minister of Municipal Affairs know and when did he learn it, in regard

to the now published allegations — published as recently as June 4,

1980, in the Vancouver Sun

— naming all these names, referring to all these documents and now,

apparently, one of the reasons why the RCMP has been persuaded to

investigate the seemingly serious allegations made about abuse of the

law, about conflict of interest, about the possibility of malfeasance?

Let

me say it for the fifth time. The New Democratic Party believes that

persons in local government in British Columbia are, by and large,

immensely honest, honourable, good and fair. It is therefore on behalf

of all those honest people that we ask the minister and the party

famous for Lettergate, thousand-dollar bills, Gracie's finger and all

the rest of it to tell us how serious that administration has been in

dealing with the seemingly legitimate interests and concerns of the

Attorney-General, the RCMP, and realtors who put their names to

telegrams, and thus risk their reputations if they should be proven

wrong, because they are so persuaded that something has gone wrong in

this particular municipality. None of these people would publish any of

that material under their own names if they did not believe it was

correct and worthy of investigation. No charge will ever be laid if it

is proven to the satisfaction of the RCMP and the Crown attorney that

there is no merit to it. If any member of this House wants to stake his

seat on the outcome of charges that may or may not be laid in

Chilliwack or Langley, let him do so. But in the meantime what we ask

is whether or not this minister was advised prior to the start of the

RCMP investiga-

[ Page

3441 ]

tion

into these charges circulating around Langley. If so, when was he

advised? What was the content of that advice? What did he do about it?

is simply not good enough or responsible enough or, to say the least,

competent enough to simply assume that the police will of their own

accord always act in these instances. We tried to demonstrate yesterday

that there are areas of conflict of interest that cannot be and are not

being described in the Criminal Code. We tried to demonstrate also that

the current provisions of the Public Officials and Employees Disclosure

Act as well do not deal with that whole grey area of conflict of

interest. We further tried to demonstrate that the provisions of the

Municipal Act regarding conflict of interest are grossly inadequate to

deal with the job. Having attempted to demonstrate those three things,

we now ask the minister what he did when, I presume, he received the

same information we received from the same sources who signed their

names, who are realtors and business people in that community, and who

publicly have gone on record as saying that this must be investigated,

because by their standards and according to the tests and measures

they've made of that information, something is wrong that may be a

breach of the law, provincial or federal. That's what we're asking.

When did he find it out? Who told him? What was he told? What action

did he take to follow up these apparently legitimate inquiries? They

were sufficiently legitimate that the RCMP have now seen fit to do

their duty and are inquiring into the matter.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Frankly, when we're dealing with so many items in such an important

budget in government, I can't understand that we have to continually

spend all our time talking about the honesty or dishonesty or the

allegations that have been made about locally elected people. Again I

want to repeat this because I think it's important. I am even terribly

disappointed in the critic for the opposition, that somehow he must

follow this typically socialist attitude of: "You don't trust anybody."

Frankly, I don't hold to that philosophy at all. I believe that people

in local government are basically honest.

MR. BARBER: We agree. Now what did you do when you received the evidence?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I do not run away at every turn and call for the police to come down

upon a council or on a member who serves on a municipal council. We're

continually hearing from the socialists that somehow people are not

honest, except they who are the holier-than-thou group. They think that

because they are socialists they are honest. There are more

non-socialists in British Columbia than there are socialists. Is he

suggesting that they are not honest? I get fed up with this old

socialist crap line that is continually thrown out here and everywhere.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, the Chair finds that word unparliamentary. Will the member withdraw the word?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I withdraw the word.

Mr. Chairman, again we give the member some explanation of the process. Certainly

as the Ministry of Municipal Affairs we regularly receive letters from people

in the community or from members who are seeking municipal office that say:

"I'm standing for municipal office because all those guys who are there

now are perhaps not doing it as well as I might do it, or possibly they're

doing something that isn't quite as honest as I feel it ought to be, although

I have no evidence. It's just a feeling I have; that's why I stand for

office." We get letters from these people saying that there's something

wrong with this alderman or with the actions of a councillor in this particular

instance, or ''There's a waterline going down a street, and we know

that Charlie Smith's mother has a property on that street someplace. Should

the waterline go by that property, it will benefit Charlie Smith's mother.

And when Charlie Smith's mother passes away, Charlie will inherit the

property, and therefore there's a conflict of interest. " We get this

regularly, Mr. Member. We do get this sort of thing.

could — and if I were a socialist I probably would — run off at every

such letter and say: "RCMP, get in there and have an investigation.

Clamp down on that bunch. There's something wrong. They're dishonest."

If I were a socialist I'd probably have to have a police force a lot

bigger than what we have now. I could do that: I could call for an

investigation and I could call for the RCMP to come down following the

receipt of every letter. Fortunately, Mr. Member, that is not the

process in British Columbia, and heaven forbid it should ever be. We

still live in a beautiful province. I guess the reason I run for office

and why I'm standing here today is because I want to keep this province

beautiful. I don't want ever to have my children or their children

faced with the attitude that has been thrown at me for the last six

hours by that socialist first member for Victoria. I don't want that

sort of thing to prevail in beautiful British Columbia.

MR. LEA: I bet you don't.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

No, definitely not. That's why I'm standing here today, and I'll stand

in this place again and again if it means that this way we keep this

province sane, free and sensible.

Again, following up on the

process, we do get these letters and very often we'll ask the inspector

of municipalities to investigate the matter. The inspector has a lot of

competent people within the ministry, and he will select two or three

of these competent people. They in turn will go to that municipal

council, interview the people involved with whatever allegations, speak

to local people or whomever they should speak to, and gather all the

bylaws, information, and minutes of the meetings. They'll have all of

that material, and if following their review of the material it still

appears as if it's little more than a whole lot of charges with no real

substantive evidence of wrongdoing — perhaps a matter of judgment or

possibly a matter of opinion, but no substantive indication of

wrongdoing — then certainly they will report this to me.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

If,

on the other hand, an investigation by the RCMP is required, then any

member in that community, or certainly the inspector, could bring it to

the attention of the Attorney-General's ministry, which in turn could

alert the RCMP and require that an investigation be made. Very often —

fortunately, it hasn't happened too often, in our province — the RCMP

could, even during the process of an investigation, decide that they

wished to become involved themselves. That could cause a bit of an

awkward situation for us in that

[ Page 3442 ]

particular

instance, because, as was the case in Surrey when a former mayor was

accused of wrongdoing and investigations had been called for, an

investigation was commenced by my ministry, and while the investigation

was in process it was discovered that the RCMP was also becoming

involved and doing its own investigation, and it did so most

effectively. But you cannot continue an effective RCMP investigation if

suddenly some member in the opposition, a member in government or even

a member of the ministry staff gets up and says: "We've had this

investigation. Here's all the material." What does that really do to

the people who might come forth and provide all the necessary material

and evidence for the RCMP investigation?

The responsible

thing for us to do, then, is simply to advise the Attorney-General's

ministry and then, through our ministry, not do things that would make

it more difficult for the RCMP to do the thorough job that we have come

to expect from our respected RCMP force.

I think the RCMP

can do a marvellous job. I'm very pleased if they're there to receive

complaints and to follow through on them, and they do. I've very often

seen the RCMP involved in situations where perhaps one might question

why they are, but they will investigate if they're asked to do so.

In the case of Langley, we were advised very early on....

MR. BARBER: When?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Very early on.

MR. BARBER: This year? Last year?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Very early on. Immediately after the matter was brought forth we were

informed of it. Certainly I've had considerable correspondence from

some community people. Mr. Parish, whose name was mentioned here, was

certainly one of those, and we followed through forthwith. We did our

job responsibly, as we'll continue to do it. Through a debate in the

House, where we have all of the protections — where we can say anything

we wish and never be taken to task, never be made to answer in a court

of law.... I refuse to use this House, my position or anything else to

somehow, in one way or another, place guilt — be it by association or

simply innuendo — upon any member of that Langley city council. If the

RCMP can find the necessary evidence which would allow it to go to a

court of law, and if that member, a member, or whatever was then found

guilty, I would ask that he be dealt with as the law should deal with

such people. Until that evidence is there I have to assume that those

people are innocent. I feel a little awkward right now that those

people on that particular municipal council are somehow now.... For the

record again, I apologize that somehow there's some shadow being placed

upon these people, who are good community people, family people who've

served on that council for a good while. I refuse to participate in

that sort of innuendo, slur and slander.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for North Vancouver—Capilano asks leave for an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. REE: I'd like the House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Nip Harris from

North Vancouver who are in the gallery this afternoon. They are visiting Victoria

and the sunny weather. Would you please welcome them.

MS. BROWN: I, too, would like to ask the House for leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, seated in our gallery this afternoon is a young graduate

doctor from the University of British Columbia who is just visiting us,

Dr. Perry. I wonder if the House would join with me in bidding him

welcome and wishing him lots of good fortune as he sets out on the

rocky road of medical practice.

MR. LORIMER: Unlike

the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) — who I am sorry has left — I'm

neither angry about this debate nor am I exercised by it. I want to

assure the House of this before I proceed.

I want, first of

all, to say how pleased I am to see some of my co-workers in the

municipal field of the province in the back row there, and I want to

wish them well. I realize that the chores in the municipal field are

not up front, but in very arduous and very lengthy hours spent by those

dedicated people who work in the department.

I'm sorry to

see that the minister had no more luck than I did in dealing with

Treasury Board and getting more staff. I am sorry the Premier is out

because I would have put in a word for the minister. That is one area

in which there has to be a great amount of expertise exercised, and a

shortage of staff makes things much more difficult.

The

approvals and so on of bylaws and what not may well have shortcuts that

can be taken in that area. That might allow for less work for that

particular department. I think some of that work is probably not

necessary. Maybe that's one way of trying to cut down on staff.

don't intend to deal with the conflict-of-interest questions. My

colleague has done this very effectively, except for one or two things.

The minister made some statements yesterday which I would like to

correct. He said that the New Democratic Party government did nothing

with reference to the conflict-of-interest problems facing this

province. I would point out that the disclosure bill was passed during

that period, although it didn't resolve the problems of conflict of

interest, as we see today. It was a step to curb some of the problems.

There

was also the White commission, which made certain recommendations. It's

very true that no action was taken on the recommendations apart from

the fact that a committee was struck within the department to look into

the conflict-of-interest matters and to recommend legislation to add to

the act to give the Minister of Municipal Affairs the ability to take

remedial action. That area needs more strengthening.

The

study was carried out, but the final reports were not returned before

the election. However, I would say that it was very apparent to me and

to the government that what was needed was legislative change, and very

difficult legislative changes are required. I'm sure that if we had

still been in power there would have been legislation dealing with

conflict of interest years ago.

He made one other reference

to the terrible

section dealing with allowing municipalities to carry

out commercial ventures and so on, and to incorporate corporations for

this purpose.

In my opinion that was good legislation then and it is

[ Page

3443 ]

now. If there are abuses of this legislation then

action should very well be taken. The abuses of this section, I would

suggest, have been very few, and cases of abuse are well known. But

there are many cities and municipalities throughout the province that

are taking advantage of this bill. I would recommend to the minister —

he's suggested that he's going to change this piece of legislation —

that he not throw out the baby with the bath water. He can straighten

it out — that's fine. I believe the legislation is still a valid piece

of legislation and is very valuable to a great number of communities in

this province.

The complaints on this legislation, by and

large, are from the promoters who want to take advantage of the

purchase of properties. The municipalities are now doing it in their

own name and are able to obtain lands for their own purposes at a much

more reasonable rate than going through developers. I suggest to the

minister that that be looked at with caution.

I intend to

spend a little time on the question of transit. I wish to discuss the

government's dismal record and failure in this field. To do so it is

necessary to give a thumb-nail sketch of the history of transit in this

province. As most of us know who are old enough to know, the B.C.

Electric Company operated the transit systems in the larger centres of

this province. Other areas were looked after by either private carriers

or the municipalities themselves.

During the heyday of the

B.C. Electric operations there were some 700 vehicles in their fleets

in this province. When you consider the population in the late forties,

the transit system in this province and certainly in the cities of

Victoria and Vancouver was as good or better than almost any community

in North America.

In the 1950s it was felt by B.C. Electric,

and later by B.C. Hydro in the sixties, that the rail systems and so on

were no longer required. They weren't concerned at that time about the

possible disruption of the oil supplies and the lack of need of the

electric vehicle. The inter-urbans became solely freight lines. Some

trolley buses were acquired and the rails of the city streets were

removed.

It was not only in this province that transit

declined. Transit declined throughout North America due to the fact

that after the war there were more and more automobiles purchased and

it was felt at that time that the need to carry on that height of a

transit system was not required. That, of course, was a very expensive

mistake.

The decline carried on during the sixties, up until

the early seventies. The number of vehicles in the fleets in 1972 was

between 300 and 350. As a result of the decline in transit, a number of

the early and able planners in the transit field in B.C. Hydro departed

from there to areas where transit was still alive. As a result, the

expertise in the transit field in this province was not at a very high

level. As a matter of fact, the person put in part of transit by B.C.

Hydro was an expert in the gas field. He was in the gas division of

B.C. Hydro and was moved over into the transit area, basically for the

sole purpose of seeing that the system was reduced in services and

costs. The decline carried on. The morale of the people there became

very low. It was really only due to the hard work of the lower echelon

of the transit systems and the drivers that the system remained quite

good in comparison with other areas. The equipment was getting old but

the buses were basically running on time and serving the cities of

Vancouver and Victoria.

The equipment in the Hydro fleet was

getting older, as was mentioned, and it was inadequate. The cleaning

bays were inadequate and the service was reduced. The only thing that

increased during that period was the fares. It was apparent to many,

including the New Democratic Party government, that the only solution

in the long term for the mass movement of people in an urban centre was

by the use of the transit systems. As a result, the Bureau of Transit

Services was established. The Bureau of Transit Services consisted of

about 12 people, including everybody. That group looked after the

marketing and planning in the whole province of British Columbia.

Now

we look at what is there. We have the staff at the Ministry of

Municipal Affairs looking into the planning and operation of transit.

We have the Urban Transit Authority with a large staff looking into

planning and marketing. We have the Capital Regional District and the

Greater Vancouver Regional District, all with staff aimed at the

transit area. I would give a rough guess that we probably have close to

100 people looking after the needs, development and planning of transit

in this province. It is top-heavy with those who are trying to do a job

in planning, but the Urban Transit Authority is faced with a government

that is committed to the automobile, with little desire to spend money

on transit. Bridges and freeways are much more the answer to the

movement of people as far as this government is concerned.

During

the three years of the New Democratic Party government the transit

stocks were increased — they increased to around 800 vehicles — the

SeaBus was developed, negotiations for a commuter train service from

Haney to Vancouver were in progress with the CPR, and negotiations with

Volvo of Sweden for the building of Volvo vehicles under licence in

Vancouver were well underway. The Dominion Bridge property on Boundary

was purchased for the purpose of the construction of these vehicles.

Those were in the halcyon days of transit in this province. Since that

time, anyone who uses a transit system knows that the decline has set

in and transit has hit the skids. The catalogue of vehicles has been

reduced by at least 100 in the last five years; old age has taken care

of others. No dedication or commitment to transit is shown by this

minister or his government.

In my opinion, the Urban Transit

Authority was created as an agency to take the blame for the

shortcomings and inactivity of this government. The minister, who often

makes announcements — some true, some false, some fanciful — stated in

February. I believe, that a number of vehicles were being ordered by

the Urban Transit Authority. He said that for the first time in ten

years trolley coaches were ordered. This, of course, was not true.

Trolley coaches were bought, I think in 1974, and trolley coaches were

on tender at the time of the election of 1975, but those tenders were

cancelled by the then Minister of Municipal Affairs,

understand that there was a possibility and probability that 56

vehicles would be purchased through the Urban Transit Authority. but my

information is that no order has been placed. If I'm incorrect in my

understanding, I hope the minister will table a copy of the order in

this House. The announcements were made some four months ago and still

no orders have been placed. The Urban Transit Authority, I understand,

is looking into the possibility of purchasing 150 trolley vehicles.

That's a very good move, and I hope it goes ahead. I'm also advised

that this is a very iffy proposition. No orders have been placed as

yet, and whether or not orders will be placed is somewhat doubtful.

Maybe the minister could explain that. He's had a number of

announcements about

[ Page 3444 ]

these

things, but nothing at all has been produced. Even if the orders were

made today there would be no vehicles on the street for two years. It

would be 1982 before those vehicles were delivered.

This is

a great history of accomplishment: five years of government and fewer

buses on the street; buses sold, more buses being taken off the routes

because of old age — a very, very sad situation in this province. The

province was moving forward in transit, moving forward for three years

at a rapid rate. It was the envy of all the cities in North America who

came up to study the transit programs in Vancouver. People from Los

Angeles, senators from California and others came to see what was going

on in the transit field in this province. During that period of three

years probably an average of 180 vehicles were purchased each year.

Since that time, under the five years of Social Credit, many vehicles

have been sold, and probably an average of 15 vehicles a year have been

purchased; 15 vehicles as against 180. Not only have they not improved

transit, but they have almost given it a death blow. It'll take any

government considerable years just to catch up to the situation that

existed in 1975-76. This minister and this administration do a lot of

talking about a monorail and about light rapid transit, and while he is

talking — if you will pardon the expression — transit is going down the

tube.

There was a report made by the U.S. Department of

Transportation, published in November 1976. It's called "Increase in

Transit Ridership: the Experience of Seven Cities." This deals with the

period from 1970 to 1975 inclusive. One of the cities chosen to be

reported on because of its transit activity was Vancouver. The other

cities were all in the United States. They evaluated their respective

percentage increases in ridership on transit vehicles between 1971 and

1975. It showed that in Vancouver for those years there was an increase

of 57 percent in the ridership of transit vehicles. That's a very high

increase. The annual ridership in 1971 in the city of Vancouver was

87.6 million. In 1975 it was 137 million.

In answer to a

question on the order paper, the minister was kind enough to give his

reply dealing with ridership. Ridership in 1979 was 95,108,000, which

is a decline of.... The number in 1976 was 96 million, as against the

figures for 1975 in this report of 137 million. Whether or not these

figures are based on the same criteria I'm not absolutely certain,

because there seems to be a substantial decline there. But taking the

figure as given by the minister for 1976, the number of passengers

carried in the Greater Vancouver Regional District was 96 million, and

in 1979 there were 95 million. That is a decline in those four years of

a million passengers.

When you consider the rapid increase

in population in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, these figures

are self-evident as to what has happened in transit in the years since

Social Credit became the government. So we haven't caught up to our

passenger service as of 1976 — and in 1975 it was even greater. The

reason for this is, of course, that service was cut and a rate increase

was put into effect, which naturally reduced the ridership of the

transit system.

The other area of transit that we deal with

is the buses that operate on the ferry service. There are not enough

MCIs to look after the movement of passengers who want to take the

ferries from Vancouver to Nanaimo or Swartz Bay. As a result, it is

necessary to hire private vehicles of one sort or another to carry the

passengers on that service. The vehicles that could have looked after

this service have been sold. A number of them have been sold to U.S.

competitors, and to private companies who are now carrying out the

service which should be carried out by Pacific Coach Lines.

number of tourist services were sold by this minister's predecessor.

Those tourist services should have been kept. It's the only area in the

transit field that makes money and helps to finance the costs of an

urban transit system.

Another area which should be looked at

is the question of the express services. That's where the money is made

for the company, rather than on the passengers. It would seem to me to

be money well spent to advertise so that people know there is a

first-class express service carried by these vehicles. Certainly the

express isn't at full capacity and there's room there, in my opinion,

to look into the advertising in order to help finance other services in

the transit field.

I wanted to spend some time on the

program that we had set up for the manufacturing, under licence, of the

Volvo vehicle in the area of Boundary Road. The advantages of this

project were twofold — or more. One of the advantages, of course, was

the fact that it would create secondary industry and create a number of

jobs for a number of people. One advantage of a bus manufacturing plant

is the fact that a number of the component parts can be manufactured in

other communities within the province. This would allow a regular

payroll for the construction of these vehicles. As an example, it might

be possible to manufacture the seats for the vehicles in Ashcroft. This

would give Ashcroft a steady payroll for the community. This could be

of great benefit in the smaller communities.

It wasn't

suggested that there would be any great saving in price. However, there

would be a vehicle here which would be able to produce buses and would

know ahead of time to produce the buses in order to have a steady flow

of buses coming in. In other words, it would avoid the two-year wait

for deliveries and so on.

Also, Volvo was interested in

having this plant produce vehicles for export to the United States. It

would have been a plant that supplied the Volvo vehicles throughout

North America. It was a great program and I was very sorry to see it

cut out by this minister's predecessor. The property and buildings are

still there and I would recommend to the minister that he reconsider

the idea of manufacturing vehicles on site within British Columbia.

There

are three recommendations I'd like to put forward to the minister. The

first recommendation is the immediate start of a light rail system from

Vancouver to Surrey using the Central Park system and the Pattullo

Bridge. I think from the time of the start of the construction until

it's open for service it could well be up to five years. I think it's

time to start it now. It was time to start it five years ago, but it

should be started now.

Consideration could well be given to

the use of lanes from the area of Cedar Cottage to the area roughly on

the Main Street alignment, to downtown Vancouver. Consideration should

be given to the use of lanes and the blocking of streets at that lane

intersection when the vehicles are passing through. I think it's the

most economic way of constructing that particular line.

The

second recommendation I make to the minister is that he should build up

the bus and trolley fleets in order to create a proper grid system to

feed the rail lines. It would probably require about 1,000 vehicles for

this purpose, to have feeders to feed the rapid rail system.

The third matter that I would like to recommend at this

[ Page 3445 ]

time

is the commencing of a commuter service on the CPR tracks from

Vancouver to Haney and later to Mission. The federal government

supplied vehicles for this purpose to both Toronto and Montreal and I'm

sure they will supply vehicles free of charge to British Columbia as

well. Negotiations were well on their way with the CPR in 1975 and they

are quite prepared to cooperate with the government — or at least they

were at that time — to proceed with this particular system. This

system, of course, is the cheapest of all in getting people in to and

out of Vancouver during rush periods. At that time they were prepared

to put in two trains in the morning and two going the other direction

in the afternoon. The number of vehicles that would be removed from the

highways in that area would be very extreme, to say the least.

You'd

find that if these proposals were carried out more bridges, freeways

and roads in the urban centres of our province would not be required.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member raised

section 19(4) of the Municipal Act

with respect to municipalities getting into the business. I should

point out to the member that back in 1976 we did, in fact, introduce a

change which would require the approval of the inspector of

municipalities before they could proceed with such a venture. So

certainly that is an improvement, I grant you, and we're looking at it.

With

respect to transit, I think we can be very proud of what is taking

place — and certainly with respect to light rapid transit particularly.

I think there are great things in store, and I'm very optimistic about

the future and the very near future.

We certainly are aware,

as I'm sure the hon. member with his experience in the ministry should

also be aware, that you do not go out and buy X number of buses

annually; it is a cyclical thing. I admit that certainly during 1974

and 1975 there were a large number of vehicles purchased, and again

we've recently approved a similar large purchase of vehicles. In

January of this year we approved the acquisition of 30-foot diesels —

6; 35-foot diesels — 16; 40-foot diesels — 34; and 40-foot trolleys —

220, for a total of 278 vehicles. I'm just advised now that the diesel

buses will begin to be delivered this fall. So it's moving along very

well, and I think we can be proud of the system.

In changing

times such as we find now, where there is a greater demand or there is

a greater appreciation developing for transit, it's hard to meet all of

those expectations that are out there. I think we're all aware as well

that especially in the last several years, because of the energy

crunch, there has been a growing awareness of the need for transit in

the fast urban-growth areas. We have opened up because we developed a

very favourable financing formula for municipalities. There has been a

tremendous acceptance of the program and we've taken on and provided

transit to a very large number of smaller communities that previously

didn't have this service at all.

We are very close to making

some firm decisions with respect to light rapid transit in the two

metropolitan areas. Of course, initially you must make a decision on

the greater Vancouver area, where the pressure is greatest. I have

arranged for meetings with the GVRD as they've requested. I'm meeting

all of the time limits they've set forth and I think we can probably

satisfy those regional and local people who get all of the pressure all

of the time because they're very close to the source. They are people

who perhaps only a few years ago gave little thought to a bus going by,

even if it only had a couple of passengers, and are suddenly very

conscious and want the buses on a regular basis whether they use them

or not. You know, there is that expectation, and it's a growing

expectation. I'm not saying it's wrong; I think it's good. I think we

can move and should move very quickly in developing an A1 transit

system, and we will.

MR. LORIMER: Well, I'm pleased

to hear the minister announce that he is going to have delivery of the

vehicles this fall and that there are others that are going to be

ordered. As mentioned earlier, my advice has been that there have been

no orders made up to this time. Maybe the minister could confirm this

and table a copy of the orders that were made with reference to the

buses that are to be delivered in the fall. I'm in complete agreement

with the minister when he says that the costs in transit are quite

extensive. They are very, very expensive. In considering the costs in

transit, you must consider the costs of the alternatives. In my

opinion, the cost of the alternatives far outweigh the costs of any

transit system, not only the cost of the material in building highways

and building bridges but the social cost of the destruction of

neighbourhoods. These all end up as dollar bills in the long run and it

also represents a number of social problems that a transit system may

well avoid.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 162 pass? On vote 162, the hon. first member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: It won’t pass for some time yet, Mr. Chairman.

The

government proposes to bring in a planning act which will have a

significant impact on the ability, or lack of it, of local government —

either regional or municipal — to do its business. When Ontario

introduced a similar act some time ago, they did so in a very wise way.

They introduced it initially as a White Paper. they circulated the

White Paper to local government and to the general public; they

circulated it to people in neighbourhood groups and people in

developers' groups. For a year the White Paper, instituting a planning

act, was given to the people of Ontario for their consideration. I

wonder if the minister will accept the proposal from the official

opposition that when the planning act is introduced this year, it will

be introduced for first reading only, and may be debated for a

significant period of time by all those persons concerned with local

government around the province.

The minister may tell us

that he has been consulting with UBCM, and we know he has. He may tell

us as well that he's been consulting with developers, specifically

HUDAC, and we know he has. We have been indirectly privy to some of

that material. The minister may tell us that drafts have been

circulated. We know; we have seen some of them. But the minister, I

hope, will tell us most importantly that he is prepared, when the final

draft comes down, to simply proceed to first reading only and to do

what the government of Ontario so wisely did a few years ago and allow

that bill to be seen, used and debated as a White Paper. Then it came

back a year later and as the result of the consideration, reflection

and criticism, was in its second-year form far more persuasive, apt and

useful to local government and to this Legislature than it would have

been had it all been pushed through in one

[ Page 3446 ]

sitting.

We make that as a positive proposal to government, one made to the

government of Ontario and accepted, to the credit of that government;

the which White Paper formula was adopted to the considerable success

of the bill itself. I ask the minister if he will accept this proposal

from the official opposition here. If so, he will certainly have our

unanimous support for that particular process.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Certainly it has been our belief that we should provide the widest

coverage to a piece of legislation that will affect all British

Columbians. There have been a good number of requests already from

regional and municipal people, on the basis of their also being

involved in the process and having the opportunity of reviewing

legislation. As I've written to them, I think their suggestion is

worthy of consideration, and I appreciate that comment.

MR. BARBER:

The official opposition would be happy to give credit where it is due,

when the planning act comes down and the minister informs us that he

proposes not to proceed with it at this session except in the form of a

White Paper, and thereby tables a bill and proceeds to first reading

only. That would give that commitment. We would welcome it and we would

give you credit for it, because that would be a sensible way to proceed

with this bill. We only regret that the government has declined to take

the opposition into the process of drafting the bill. There is no

reason why you couldn't. There is no reason why our critics couldn't be

invited to your office to examine the drafts of the bill. There is no

reason why the municipal affairs and housing committee of this

Legislature could not also be invited to share with the government in

the responsibility for the draft of it.

It is a bit of an

insult that developers in HUDAC have more access to this government's

legislative program than do members of the Legislature itself. It is a

bit of an insult that developers in their own organization have more

access to the legislative process in this bill than do properly elected

and delegated persons who sit on the floor of this House. One of the

ways to remedy that insult is to guarantee that the bill will be simply

tabled this session and then studied in a worthwhile and intelligent

way by all persons interested in the next year. Hoping, however, that

that is what the minister has hinted.... Does he nod his head? He

doesn't nod his head, he smiles. Maybe that is what it can be taken to

mean. Then we look forward to that.

I would like to change

the subject to the question of the Whistler resort act. I have the

bylaws of the Whistler Resort Association. Unannounced, they were

approved by the minister and by the current Premier on July 3 of this

year. Unannounced, some curious features appear in the bylaws of the

Resort Municipality of Whistler Act and in the Whistler Resort

Association itself. I have a number of questions about them. I wonder

if the minister has that material at hand.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No.

MR. BARBER: Shall I wait until you get it? I can change the subject.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Proceed with it and we'll know what to get.

MR. BARBER: Well, it might be easier if you followed through with me,

page by page. That would probably be the quickest way to do it. I have some

queries about the bylaws, and if they're not at hand I am happy to change

the subject for a minute while you go and get the bylaws. They were order-in-council

1450, approved July 3.

want to talk about transit in my own riding for a minute. I want to

join, as strongly as I can, with those in the Capital Regional

District, with Mayor Tindall of Victoria, with former mayor Mike Young

of Victoria, and with all the others, including most especially my

colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), who ask and

implore and insist that the E&N Railway be used as the heart of the

first light-rail rapid transit system in greater Victoria.

Four

years ago and again two years ago, I stood up and made the same

proposal. None of us can claim authorship; it's been around for years.

Nonetheless, the proposal remains simply this: leasing the right-of-way

and the rolling equipment from the CPR, which is the parent owner of

the E&N Railway, to create, initially in the western sector, a

commuter service in the morning and evening here in greater Victoria.

It is a very simple proposition which would see one or two

park-and-ride locations in Sooke, Colwood, Langford and Metchosin so

that commuters can drive their cars there, because they can't get there

any other way. A park-and-ride connection with the E&N Railway

would bring them as rapidly as possible into downtown Victoria to a new

terminal which the city, as you know, is proposing for several

different locations.

Currently the location of the terminal

on Esquimalt Road is adequate for the purpose with — at the moment,

that terminal still being where it is — a feeder bus taking people from

the current E&N terminal, across the bridge, down Johnson Street

and into the heart of town. That system of two or three trains in the

morning would be matched, of course, by two or three trains in the

evening that would return the commuters to the same park-and-ride

locations in Colwood, Langford, Sooke and Metchosin. It is,

fortunately, not necessary for us to build new track in order to

exploit the rail potential of the Western Community in greater

Victoria. My colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, Mr. Mitchell, has

argued many times at the CRD and other places that it is a happy event

that we don't need to spend another nickel to extend rail another foot

in order to create here and use here the first LRT system in greater

Victoria.

It's a tragic fact that up until 1926 we had

operating railways on the Saanich Peninsula. In fact at one time, prior

to the First World War, we had three operating railways taking

commuters from Sidney, Brentwood and the present Lochside Drive area,

well north of Mt. Douglas, into the heart of Victoria. Stupidly, people

allowed those three railways to be abandoned. What would we give today

to have even one of them available for light rapid transit on the

Saanich Peninsula? We'd give millions to buy the right-of-way, and we

would give millions more to build the rail, but we can't do either

because, unfortunately, those options are now foreclosed. The

rights-of-way no longer consistently exist on any of those stretches.

The last right-of-way in any shape at all is the CNR right-of-way, and

it basically exists at the moment only from the comer of McKenzie and

Quadra, at the site of the old winery.

It might be useful to

consider the possibility of an experimental LRT run — again, with

park-and-ride — from Quadra and McKenzie to downtown. The problem with

that, of course, is the way in which the CNR currently traverses the

[ Page 3447 ]

Gorge

waterway, just north of British Columbia Forest Products, at Gorge and

Jutland. So it may well be that for practical reasons it wouldn't be

possible to pursue it except with a feeder bus, and the cost of that

may be too much.

Nonetheless, today I ask the minister's

opinion of the likelihood that we could see introduced as the skeleton

of an LRT system in Victoria a morning-and-evening-only commuter system

— to start it off rationally, prudently and cautiously, to test the

market, to make sure that there are riders from the Colwood, Langford,

Sooke and Metchosin district to greater Victoria. It seems to us that

that's the cheapest possible way to do it.

Let me conclude

by restating it. To accept this proposal means that you don't have to

build another foot of rail — it already exists; it means the

possibility of leasing track or running rights from the CPR, E&N

and Via Rail — the current managers of the system; it means obtaining

by lease — not necessarily by purchase; you don't have to waste all

that money on buying new capital stock — running equipment for a

morning and evening commuter service in and out. It does mean the

assembly of land or the lease of land for park-and-ride purposes at the

Western Community end; that's the only initial capital cost necessary.

Clearly, without park-and-ride for the train service in the Western

Community, it likely will not succeed. The concomitant bus service in

the Western Community is so deficient at the moment, the distances so

great and the operating losses so heavy, that to do it any other way

likely could not be justified. However, park-and-ride, tieing people to

the E&N system, seems to make a lot of sense, and it is well within

the economic purview of a successful operation.

I would

observe as well that per capita it may well prove far cheaper to

institute rail service in greater Victoria than in greater Vancouver.

Again, the reason is that, happily, we're able to exploit existing rail

service and existing rail facilities in the Western Community.

Unfortunately for the people of Vancouver, they're going to have to

build a heck of a lot of it at, of course, enormous expense. That's not

to say we don't support the expense; of course we do. We propose that

some of the money come from the ludicrous Annacis Island fund, but

that's a separate issue.

The particular proposal I make to

the minister, and would welcome his opinion on, is the proposal made by

many of us over a long period of time, Does he see merit in the

possibility of using the E&N, with park-and-ride on a morning and

evening commuter service to start it out, as the heart of LRT, at least

in the western community of the Capital Regional District?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the interest which has been

expressed by many people in Victoria with regard to the establishment

of light rail and the opportunities that exist. We have the existing

rights-of-way. I agree with the hon. member when he says that we're

very fortunate in Victoria to have those rights-of-way available to us

now. Certainly the ownership or the use of them is a matter of

negotiation — some we're aware of but we don't foresee difficulty.

However,

one of the problems is that in order for light rail to be reasonably

competitive, you require a ridership of approximately 9,000 per hour.

When you consider that the whole population of Colwood-Langford is

approximately 30,000, including every man, woman and child, travelling

or otherwise, then I think it's easy to understand that it would not,

on the basis of numbers, be economic at this time. If however,

economies aside, we found that there was considerable social or other

benefit to the people now, we could proceed or certainly look to

proceeding in any case.

Again, I think the member outlined

it very well — there are now some problems in the system. In order for

the people to use such a system, we would have to establish

park-and-ride. Some people would have to take their cars — the type of

development in the area is fairly sparse — from their homes to a

park-and-ride or to the train, then travel to Esquimalt and take a bus

from there to downtown Victoria, and from there walk or take a taxi to

wherever they're going. So I don't believe even getting the people

there in short order on that basis fits the picture right now. We've

had meetings With all of those concerned in Victoria as well. regarding

the establishment of an integrated transit centre. We realize there's a

need to consider the future needs, and to assure that when we do see

the establishment of a transit centre it will provide for light rail,

buses and all else. I think that's about all the information I can

provide you with right now.

MR. MUSSALLEM: With

respect to light rail transit, it's imperative that the minister give

consideration to utilizing the CPR system from Mission to Vancouver to

institute and establish the viability of light rail transit for the

lower mainland. There are many schemes being suggested and many ideas

being put forth, but all of these require extensive money, millions of

dollars on rights-of-way and systems to be provided to make them

operational,

whereas the CPR tracks are in place where they could not

have been designed better for the purpose intended. Had we wished to go

out and design a rail system to serve the lower mainland and the north

side of the Fraser River it couldn't be in a better place.

Rather

than experiment in various areas I think it's essential that the

government know whether rapid light rail transit will work or not. I

made a speech in this House a little while ago on the same subject, but

I again appeal to the minister that he give immediate consideration to

this very vital aspect and establish an experiment. It's been suggested

by the first member for Victoria not to purchase, but to lease and try

a system. Because sometime we've got to find out whether or not it will

work. It's all very well to put up elaborate systems, but the people

must use those systems.

The day is approaching rapidly when

transit will be a very great part of our lives. We must know which

works better — buses or rail. I don't thing there's any question that

rail is the best system, because rail is economical. You can haul more

people for the same cost,

whereas every time a bus gets filled it has

to be replaced with another bus driver and another bus. It's easy to

add cars onto a rail system. The Fraser Valley is growing rapidly, and

in the foreseeable future in the area from Mission to Vancouver we'll

have a million people. This system would be ready for this project.

Regardless of that, we know the fixed number of people, we know the

number of people that commute, and we'll be able to find out in that

way whether the light rail system will be utilized by the public or

not. I appeal to the minister not to forget, but to take this as a

priority and use these rail lines which are ideally suited for light

rail transit between Mission and Vancouver.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yesterday morning we had a meeting with representatives of all of those communi-

[ Page 3448 ]

ties

in the Dewdney-Alouette Regional District and the Central Fraser Valley

Regional District. When I say all representatives, actually there were

representatives there on behalf of each of those regional districts. We

had the mayor from Hope, a representative from Chilliwack and the mayor

from Mission. The mayor from Maple Ridge unfortunately didn't make it;

he had trouble with his car on the way. We also had representatives

from Langley, city and district, to discuss transit for the valley. The

whole question of light rail or the use of perhaps a commuter train,

along the north side of the Fraser especially, was discussed. I've

asked the people that were there to go back to their respective

councils and regional districts to discuss it further and to bring back

any suggestions, recommendations or questions regarding that to the

ministry. I might mention to the hon. member for Dewdney that his name

came up several times — honourably, of course. They're aware of your

dedication and commitment to providing good transit in those areas.

MR. BARBER: And to providing good chocolates for the members of the opposition, George. That's a private joke, Mr. Chairman.

The

government, I think, would be well advised not to simply look at the

cost of leasing equipment or the cost of leasing rail, and compute on

that basis the necessary ridership to justify, per head, all of those

costs. There are social costs, and there are other forms of tax burden

that have to be examined as well. The minister may not be aware of it,

but the Department of National Defence runs its own rapid transit

service from one side of Esquimalt harbour to the other. I'm aware of

it because my father works there. He's been a tool-maker at the

dockyard since 1946. I've seen and I've been on what's called the Blue

Boat Service. That's the service that takes employees of the dockyard

in the morning from the western side of Esquimalt Harbour to their

shops and in the afternoon takes them back from the shops to the other

side of the harbour. Why does the Department of National Defence do

this through the system of small boats? They are painted blue, and it's

called the "blue-boat system. " They do it simply because the highway

system is grossly inadequate and they find it cheaper to run boats back

and forth across Esquimalt Harbour than to justify the expense of using

the highway system in the absence of a transit system. When the

Department of National Defence finds it necessary to run its own

transit system on the base because the public transit system through

highways and buses is so inadequate, then you have to ask as well what

the additional costs are. I don't know that it's good enough simply to

say that in order to lease this equipment and that track for these

purposes — morning and evening commuter runs on the E&N — it will

cost, therefore, these dollars and you have to have 9,000 commuters to

justify it.

The minister should also inquire into the cost

of building and widening the Trans-Canada Highway from the Thetis Lake

overpass down to Town and Country, for instance. There was a tremendous

cost involved in widening the highway, and I must congratulate the

minister. As a highway widening project it was done very well. It was

done extremely well and the Minister of Highways deserves a lot of

credit for that. Recently shrubbery and trees have been added, and it

looks good. I congratulate the government for that. But if you've tried

to take that road yourself at commuter hours in the morning and

afternoon, you will discover what was predicted three years ago. As

soon as those highways are built they fill up, and as soon as the

bridges are built they fill up. That's how it works with automobile

transit. It's well known to American engineers in this continent.

Similarly,

apart from the blue-boat service and the widening of the Trans-Canada

Highway, the only other road that exists and is used in any reasonable

way is the Old Island Highway, which some people refer to as Esquimalt

Road. Those are the only two commuter links by auto that are available

to the people of the Western Community. The Old Island Highway, for

reasons of geography and geology both, cannot be widened at many

points. It would cost too much. You'd have to blast into mountainsides.

It's just impossible, especially at the Colwood end. So in a lot of

ways for a lot of reasons that road cannot be widened. The Trans-Canada

has been widened at vast expense and still we have problems upon

problems faced by commuters in the morning from the Western Community.

when the minister calculates the cost per head and thereby has to

justify or cannot justify the public investment in light rapid transit

service from Esquimalt, he also surely, I would hope, would take into

account all of the other social costs of doing what we continue to do,

which is to use a highway system that has probably reached the point of

no return.

I would say for the third and final time that if

the Department of National Defence is reduced to running a rapid

transit service on water for its own employees because the current

on-land system is so inadequate, then maybe there's a further case

which thereby can be made for significant investment in light rapid

transit on rail. However, enough of that for the moment.

Has

the minister got the Whistler bylaws at hand? On July 3 of this year,

unannounced, these bylaws became law. There are a number of features of

it which inspire questions. I refer to page 10 of the bylaws

themselves,

part 6(l)(b). This is in the

section entitled "Votes of

Members. " The minister will recall a major debate in this House two

years ago about the Whistler Resort Association and the entitlement of

persons and corporations to vote.

section 6 (l) (

b) reads:

"Notwithstanding anything in these bylaws to the contrary, no member of

the resort association shall be entitled to vote at a general or

extraordinary general meeting if an assessment levied against him

pursuant to these bylaws is in arrears."

I wonder if the

minister might tell us precisely what that means. I take it that if an

assessment levied against a commercial, retail or a hotel enterprise,

as described in other parts of the bylaws, is in arrears, the man

simply is not entitled to vote until he pays up. What I want to know is

what "in arrears" means. Does the guy have a day, month, 90 days or

what to pay, and if there is a dispute about the assessment, is he

automatically disfranchised because of the dispute or is there a

provision somewhere here — because I can't find it — that would allow

him continuingly to be able to vote regardless of how long it takes to

settle the question of arrears and a proper assessment? That's not

spoken about in this set of bylaws, or if it is, I just couldn't find

it. I read it two times and I read it as well in our research office.

Could the minister tell us what "in arrears" means, what length of time

is anticipated there, what grace period, if any, will be offered, and

what procedure there is for settling a dispute about a just or unjust

claim for payment? Because that doesn't appear in the bylaws.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, "arrears" means just exactly what it says. They have their annual meetings at which they determine how they might

[ Page

3449 ]

allocate

their capital resources for their forthcoming program. Obviously if a

person has not paid the dues which they have previously agreed at

another annual meeting to pay, then they're in no position to

participate now in allocating the funds for a future year when they

have not paid their dues for the previous year. That is in fairness to

the majority of the members of this organization. There is no set

procedure. There is no definition for arrears, but it is common sense.

MR. BARBER:

It may be common sense to the minister, because he knows what was in

the mind of the legislative drafter. It is not necessarily common sense

to us, because we haven't been told that. I take it from the minister's

suggestion that a person has a year to pay up and they are only

disentitled if....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It could be a year or it may not be a year.

MR. BARBER:

But it is important to know, if there is a grace period, what it is.

The minister has said, really quite clearly, that if they haven't paid

over the previous year then they are not, at that annual general

meeting, entitled to vote. Therefore there is a grace period of one

year. Is that correct?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That is

basically correct. Certainly they have their annual meetings, at which

time these decisions are made. The dues are determined then. They have

a vote on the amount of it and it is expected that payment be provided

in the normal course of business procedures. Certainly one might say a

year but it probably wouldn't be quite a year.

MR. BARBER: I gather there is a grace period, in effect, of a year.

Can

the minister tell us now what procedure exists in the bylaws — I can't

find it — for the amiable settlement of a dispute about a charge? For

instance, I think of it in this way. There are some people at Whistler

— according to the plans I have seen — who propose to build what would

be conjointly a residential, retail and hotel facility. In the bylaws,

the association here has the power to institute three separate

assessments for those three separate purposes. That presumes three

discrete functions on the part of the entrepreneur. However, it may be

that a given building might incorporate all three functions. It may

therefore be that there will be a dispute about a legitimate

assessment. I cannot find in these bylaws any case made which allows

for the possibility, which is real and apparent, that someone may build

a building that doesn't fit in the current assessment base of the

Whistler Resort Association. If that is the case — there are all sorts

of wonderful buildings that can be built that have several different

purposes and not just the single purposes described in the bylaws —

what procedure is there for the amiable and fair settlement of a

dispute about the assessment level? I can't find it in the bylaws.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Because the procedure is not specifically in the

bylaws, as the member properly points out, it is a question of negotiation at

the meeting and if certainly then there is a dispute.... It must be remembered

again that these are people joined together in a community. It is not likely

that a majority of them would willingly or knowingly or wantingly impose an

unfair burden on any one of their number. However, as again the member points

out, it could conceivably occur, especially in an area where one might have

to determine as to whether that belongs with commercial or residential or whatever.

In such cases it would have to be a matter of common law and such a dispute

would be settled by the courts.

MR. BARBER:

I don't find in the bylaws any specific reference to any court, but I

presume what the minister is saying is that if the association is not

able by its own authority to settle disputes, then they presumably will

not be impeded by these bylaws in referring the dispute to the courts.

Is that correct? The minister says that is correct.

I hope,

as well. that there are not unnecessary disputes about the assessments.

but in any new field of enterprise like Whistler, where all sorts of

people come into the field, some of whom may never have been in the

business before and are naive, it may well be that there will be

disputes. I hope they don't end up in the courts, but it may be as well

that additional bylaws could help remedy that situation by providing

pre-court options for the settlement of disputes. For instance, I would

suggest that it might be possible that the bylaws could include a

provision for an impartial referee and one advocate from each side,

sitting as a three-person tribunal to examine and recommend these

disputes to the whole of the association. It may be that some system

like that would save a heck of a lot of money in court costs, a heck of

an unnecessary burden on the court system, and indeed come up with a

decision at least equally fair.

I want to talk as well about

section 6(4), which appears on page 11. This is a curious section. You

don't often see it in the bylaws of societies and I'm not quite certain

why it's in. It reads:

"A member of unsound mind entitled to attend and vote, in

respect of whom an order has made by any court having jurisdiction, may vote,

whether on a show of hands or on a poll by his committee, curator bonis or other

person in the nature of a committee or curator bonis appointed by that court,

and any such committee, curator bonis or other person may appoint a proxy holder."

wonder if the minister can tell us why this

section is necessary. The

Mental Health Act in fact — at least I thought so — makes all necessary

reference to this question of an incompetent person still being able to

have exercised for her or him voting and other rights. I wonder if the

minister could tell us why it is particularly necessary here. Is there

some problem with the air at Whistler that people presume something is

going to happen to them? I haven't seen this previously in any

comparable legislation. The Mental Health Act already provides for

these things. I wonder why it is necessary to provide for it here as

well. I think the

section is simply redundant.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I must agree with the member that perhaps this

section is not

completely necessary, although it's not unusual to find this in the

bylaws of an association or society. It's not committee, it's comité.

It's the appointee of the court, and it's comité.

MR. BARBER:

The word I have here is "committee." Perhaps I have an erroneous copy,

but it's the one your own Mr. Whelen sent to me. I presume it's

correct. I think Mr. Whelen simply gave me a Xerox of the actual orders.

[ Page 3450 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Okay, it's not. I'll correct it myself. I hope that doesn't change the lawful standing of the word.

Let

me refer now, if I may, to page 14. This falls within

section 7,

entitled "Directors." The structure of the Whistler Resort Association,

as we find it in the bylaws, allows the Whistler land company to

appoint one director; it allows the Whistler operator, which is the

operator of the principal ski facility at Whistler, to appoint one

director; and it allows the Blackcomb operator to appoint one director.

There

is a curious provision here which I don't understand. I don't

necessarily object to it; it's just that I wonder how it was arrived

at. As far as I can tell, the figure 10 percent in regard to

assessments levied against it for two consecutive years has been

established as the minimum requirement below which, if the assessment

should fall, the companies in question would lose their entitlement to

a director's position. I wonder if the minister could tell us why that

particular structure was chosen? If it is the case that the government

chooses to allow the land company.... The land company is wholly owned

by the municipality of Whistler and is therefore a public enterprise

and, I'm sure, a commendable one. Let's hear it for civic socialism.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER:

Oh, the minister doesn't agree. Well, he's done it anyway. Whether or

not he agrees with it, civic socialism has succeeded in Whistler.

it's also the intention of the government to allow the private

operators at Whistler and Blackcomb who run the ski facilities to have

one director's position, why, then, should that principle be varied on

the basis of falling below the apparent floor of a 10 percent

assessment in two consecutive years? I don't understand why that notion

has been introduced, because it appears quite inconsistent with the

other principle introduced elsewhere in the bylaws. That's what I'm

asking.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 162 pass?

MR. BARBER:

Not so quick, Mr. Chairman. The minister clearly is in consultation and

should be given a moment. I'm sure Don has the answer; I'd like the

answer too.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: The answer is yes. Yes to what?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The intent in the drafting of these bylaws, of

course, was to provide fair representation to all of the people involved in

the whole of the Whistler community. The three developers mentioned here are

obviously large developers who have a considerable investment at stake in the

success of that community and who obviously are substantial contributors towards

the success of that community. For that reason they have each been given the

opportunity for representation. That strengthens the community; it strengthens

the board and it gives them a fair voice according to the investment they've

made in the Whistler community. However, if their investment drops below 10

percent — and I suppose that's a bit of an arbitrary figure; it could similarly

have been 5 or 15 — they should not then have this standing which gives them

the directorship that they've been granted otherwise. In other words, they

would be at that time no different than each of those who are represented on

the board.

MR. BARBER:

The minister uses the word "investment." Is he referring to the capital

investment of the developers? Is that the investment the minister is

referring to?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's the amount of assessment or their dues based on that assessment.

MR. BARBER:

Thank you. The minister didn't use the word "assessment" once; he used

the word "investment." Now the assessment is not related at all to the

capital investment of the three corporations. It's a totally separate

issue. So that's why I still don't quite understand the minister's

answer. I appreciate that he was inadvertently using the wrong word,

and he meant to say "assessment" instead of "investment" — fair enough.

The word "assessment" here relates, does it not, to the decision taken

either quarterly or annually by the members of the Whistler Resort

Association as to who shall pay for what under the terms of the

functions outlined in the bylaws?

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

MR. BAR