1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st 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)

MONDAY, MAY 31, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2161 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Insert with Mincome cheques. Mr Levi –– 2161

Ferry layoffs. Mr. Wallace –– 2162

Northeast coal development. Mr. Gibson –– 2163

Point of order

Clarification of question period procedure. Mr. Lea –– 2164

Mr. Speaker –– 2164

Mr. Lea –– 2164

Mr. King –– 2164

Motion

Adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of public importance.

Mr. Wallace –– 2164

Mr. Speaker –– 2165

Routine proceedings

British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act (Bill 23) Second reading.

Mr. Barnes –– 2165

Mr. Gibson –– 2168

Mr. Bawlf –– 2170

Mr. Lauk –– 2173

Mr. Barber –– 2177

Mrs. Jordan –– 2180

Mr. Cocke –– 2184

Mr. Stupich –– 2185

Mr. Lea –– 2187

Mr. Wallace –– 2190

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 2193

Division of second reading –– 2194

Constitution Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 15) Second reading.

Mr. King –– 2194

Speaker's ruling

Adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of public importance.

Mr. Speaker –– 2195

Mr. King –– 2196

Mr. Speaker –– 2196

MONDAY, MAY 31, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today

we have a group of students from Woodlands Junior Secondary of Nanaimo,

with their teacher, Mrs. Lynn. In asking the House to join me in

welcoming them, I think the House should be reminded that there hasn't

been a school bus moving in Nanaimo for about two months now, so it's a

real accomplishment for them to get here. I ask you to welcome them.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, with us in the gallery

this afternoon is a Mr. Gordon Berdan, clerk administrator of the

village of Granisle from that great constituency of Omineca, and I

would like to ask the House to welcome them.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, seated in

the gallery today is an old friend, a Social Credit supporter and

well-known Canadian yachtsman. I would like to have the members of the

assembly greet Mr. Dick Duggan of North Vancouver.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today

are Mayor and Mrs. Birmingham from Ruskin, Florida. They are here in a

fine gesture of friendship to one of our local municipalities. The

mayor and his wife came up to take

part in Ruskin Days. Ruskin is part

of the municipality of Maple Ridge. They came here very kindly at their

own expense and have been participating the whole past week in

celebrating a community event. I think it is a splendid effort and I

would like you to recognize Mayor Birmingham and Mrs. Birmingham who

are seated in the gallery. Perhaps they will stand.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to mention that there are this afternoon in the gallery, as there

have been for several afternoons, three members of the Pacific Life

Community. I would like the House to welcome them.

Oral questions.

INSERT WITH MINCOME CHEQUES

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): A question to the Premier,

Mr. Speaker: did the Premier approve an insert that went into the

cheques for Mincome people that were sent out on May 19? The insert

stated as follows:

"My dear friend,

"We are pleased to announce GAIN — the Guaranteed

Available Income For Need Act —

an Act which includes all the benefits

of the old Mincome programme but extends them to more people who need

help.

"We very much care about the aging, the handicapped,

deserted mothers with children. That's why we have taken the best of

Mincome — added to it and made it better. For instance, the same

policies and benefits for those now in receipt of Mincome will continue

— no one will lose their present Mincome benefits, but more people will

enjoy them.

"We hope that this letter will answer deliberate

attempts to represent the GAIN programme as the abolition of Mincome.

This is not the case."

Signed by the Minister of Human Resources, William Vander Zalm.

Did the Premier approve that insert?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in response, as the member knows, there was a misleading headline in the Victoria Times

that said: "Mincome Cancelled" and there were various stories

surrounding the introduction of the GAIN programme. It was discussed

because of the phone calls where people thought the whole programme was

being abandoned. It was authorized that an explanation would be sent

out to the recipients of government benefits.

MR. LEVI: The statement, Mr. Speaker, through you to the

Premier, states: "For instance, the same policies and benefits for

those now in receipt of Mincome will continue."

Does the Premier know that the same benefits do not exist? There are

benefits for people over the age of 65. I ask you if you approved this.

This is a misleading statement. There are different benefits for

different people. Mincome has, in fact, been wiped out, Mr. Premier.

There are two separate....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Would you state your question and not in the form of a statement?

MR. LEVI: The question is: is the Premier aware that there

are now at least two categories of people receiving what used to be

called Mincome? Those over 65 had the quarterly cost of living passed

on. Those aged 60 to 64 and the handicapped do not. It says in the

statement here, "For instance, the same policies and benefits for those

now receiving Mincome will continue."

Interjections.

[ Page 2162 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LEVI: Now is that the Premier's version of things continuing?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a matter for the hon. member to rise in

his place and make statements which are argumentative, particularly

when they're made to the Premier and not the minister who is in charge

of that particular department.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd just respond by saying

that the government felt it was necessary. The minister (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm) asked me if such an explanation of the GAIN programme

should not go out, because it appeared that there was a lot of concern.

I authorized the minister, as a responsible minister, to reassure all

of the people who are in receipt of government assistance that such

assistance wasn't being arbitrarily cut off for all British Columbians,

and that was done.

I might also point out, Mr. Speaker, that this question is subject

to a bill that is presently before the Legislature in the form of the

GAIN legislation, which is a very progressive reform with greater

benefits for the people of B.C.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Premier. I might point out it's

my error. I didn't recall a bill before the Legislature but, in fact,

there is a bill before the Legislature which would make the question

out of order.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, we're dealing with the accuracy of a

piece of material sent out under the Minister of Human Resources. It

has nothing to do with GAIN legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: It is a matter of opinion, I would think, Mr. Member.

MR. LEVI: Is the Premier divorcing himself from the lack of

accuracy in this statement? Because that's what you're doing. You're

telling the people out there one thing and you've done something else

to them.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'll defer to the member.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): To the Premier, Mr.

Speaker. Does the Premier condone the expenditure of public funds to

put out what is substantially political propaganda to Mincome

recipients as exemplified by the...?

MR. SPEAKER: There again, that is not a question you're asking.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, it is a legitimate question and in

order, and I expect an answer from the hon. Premier. Does he condone

the expenditure of public funds for Social Credit political propaganda?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, before the Premier answers, I would

point out that the question is argumentative, that it does not require

a reply.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this statement is false, that it was political propaganda....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Now you are becoming more argumentative, Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker can interpret it as he will. I contend

that the question is in order. Does the Premier condone the expenditure

of public funds for Social Credit propaganda?

MR. SPEAKER: I contend it is argumentative.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Speaker, I assure the member that

the type of propaganda that was going out with hundreds of thousands of

dollars spent on Land magazine and others by the former government has been stopped.

I would tell the hon. member that where there is on the part of

anyone...either willingly or unwillingly, to make the recipients of

government aid pawns in a political game, the government feels it's

important to reassure these people that they're not being denied

benefits. Those who would make these people a pawn in their political

game are doing no service for the people of the province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The first member for Vancouver Centre on a supplemental question.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, it is clear and undenied by the

Premier — I put this as a prefix to the question — that a false

statement has been made in this statement to the public. Does the

Premier condone the expenditure of public funds to tell the people

false statements?

FERRY LAYOFFS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): To the Minister

[ Page 2163 ]

of Transport and Communications, Mr. Speaker, with

regard to the serious labour-management dispute on the B.C. Ferries

system and the fact that the recent layoff notices for 400 employees

have further inflamed the situation: can the minister confirm that 190

of the 400 original layoff notices have already been rescinded?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): No, I cannot, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Oak Bay on a supplementary question.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have documentation which....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Allow the hon. member to state his supplementary question.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question would be

that I have documentation — names, addresses and telephone numbers — of

those persons whose layoff notices have been rescinded. I can table

these with the House.

I wonder if the minister is aware of the fact that despite

assurances by management that seniority would be recognized, senior

personnel with up to 16 years of service are being offered positions

even lower than those at which they joined the service. For example, a

senior steward is now being offered a job as a male cleaner. Is the

minister aware that these are the circumstances under which ferry

employees are being offered re-employment?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, specifically I am not aware of

those special circumstances which the hon. member mentions. There is a

very large number of individuals who are affected by these changes. I

would ask him if he would kindly table the information he has. The

primary issue is overtime and the allocation, hopefully, of that

overtime to others so that they can be re-employed or their employment

continued. Until that issue is resolved, it would be very unwise of me

to make any comment relative to who will be laid off and who will not.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, very much

related to the urgency of the situation. Is the minister then aware

that the ferry employees have made it very plain that they are indeed

willing to renegotiate and rediscuss the whole question of overtime and

that all they have asked for is a moratorium while a third party could

intervene in the dispute to look at the renegotiation of overtime,

which they are willing to consider?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the management position as I

understand it is that they are willing and indeed anxious to discuss

this question of overtime.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Mackenzie on a supplementary on the same issue.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Can the minister confirm that

in the original 420 payoffs, 40 out of the 65 oilers were included and

that management subsequently had to rescind 30 of those layoffs in

order to operate the fleet properly, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, at this point I am neither able

to confirm or deny that statement. I doubt very much whether those

figures are correct.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: One further short supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

In the light of this chaos, then, will the minister accept a moratorium

regarding layoffs until the end of tourist season, as suggested?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the answer, very simply put, is

no. We have three new vessels coming on which, as the hon. member

knows, have no dining rooms. I doubt if he is suggesting that we should

continue to employ those who have been employed in dining rooms in that

service on those respective vessels that don't have the facilities.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): A supplementary to

the Minister of Transport and Communications. As I understood the

minister, he gave an indication that if the overtime problem, which is

contained in the collective agreement, I understand, was resolved, very

many of those who are proposed to be laid off would be re-employed. Is

that a correct statement of the intent of the minister?

HON. MR. DAVIS: It has been stated on a number of occasions

that were the overtime issue to be resolved and straight time worked by

all employees there would be more jobs to go around and hence fewer

layoffs.

NORTHEAST COAL DEVELOPMENT

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a

question to the Minister of Economic Development, who made a very major

announcement over the weekend in stating that the provincial government

would probably provide the infrastructure for northeast coal

development. In view of the hundreds of millions of dollars of public

funds required for this, will the minister be doing a cost-benefit

study before a decision to go ahead is

[ Page 2164 ]

made on that project?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): In answer to the member's question: the whole purpose of our studies is to determine the cost-benefit ratio.

MR. GIBSON: Supplementary then, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister undertake to make these studies public in due course?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, as I've stated, it will be

some time before the studies are complete. We hope to have the studies

completed sometime this fall, and when the studies are complete, it

will be public knowledge. I'm not saying all the details of the study,

but we'll certainly advise you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Supplementary to the same minister, Mr. Speaker. In

view of the fact that Bermuda Resources has shown a lack of faith in

the current government of British Columbia and has pulled out of the

Sukunka coal development, is the minister indicating by his

announcement over the weekend that the public sector will develop this

coal resource at Sukunka?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, as I have stated publicly, I

have no doubt that the Sukunka project will go ahead. It was delayed

some three and a half years and probably would have gone ahead had it

not been for the delaying tactics of the past administration.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of

order that I've raised a number of times before after question period.

Again, a question by a member of the opposition was ruled out of order

because it was the Chair's opinion that the question was argumentative.

In other words, you are saying that opposition cannot be argumentative

towards the Crown. I would like to have something straight, Mr.

Speaker. Do you see your job as that of protecting the Crown from Her

Majesty's Loyal Opposition? Do you see that as your authority, Mr.

Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: In order to make it once and for all

understandable to the member for Prince Rupert, who seems to be having

a great deal of trouble understanding anything that surrounds the

question period, I'll make it abundantly clear, Hon. Member.

First of all, when putting a question a member must confine himself

to the narrowest limits. In making a question, observations which might

lead to debate cannot be regarded in coming within the proper limits of

a question. The purpose of a question is to obtain information, not to

supply it to the House.

Then there's a whole list of criteria that I continually look at in

trying to determine if a question is in order, out of order or

improper. "And in conclusion," it says, "the Speaker, in common with

his duties of supervision over the proceedings of the House, may rule

out any question which violates the privileges of parliament in the

same way as he deals with irregularities in motions and amendments. He

may make an alteration to the question or refer it back to the member

for correction."

So there are a number of alternatives which can be involved,

including ruling a question out because it's irregular or improper

within the rules that we have in Beauchesne ,

4th edition. Or it may be that I'll request the member to rephrase the

question so it does become a question. This is the rule that I go by

and this is the duty and the obligation of the Chair, Mr. Member.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that there is a

very onerous duty upon yourself and your office, and that is that you

must not only be fair, but appear to be fair. And quite honestly, you

do not appear to be fair to me.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, on this problem of the Chair giving

rulings, I would draw the Speaker's attention to standing order 9,

which reads: "Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and shall

decide questions of order, subject to an appeal to the House without

debate. In explaining a point of order or practice, he shall state the

standing order or authority applicable to the case."

I just wanted to suggest to the Chair that it might be helpful in

terms of making judgments if the Speaker would so refer to the

applicable rule at the time the judgment is made.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 35, I ask

leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House to discuss a

definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the imminent strike

on the B.C. ferry system. And according to standing rule 35, I'll state

the matter briefly.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member. Proceed.

[ Page 2165 ]

MR. WALLACE: Negotiations for a new contract between the

employees of B.C. Ferries and management have proceeded for many months

and an impasse situation has been reached in which the union has taken

a strike vote and given 72-hours notice of the strike, as announced on

Saturday last.

Efforts late last week to have an industrial inquiry commission or a

special mediator appointed were not productive, and hence within 24

hours all British Columbia ferry service between Vancouver Island and

the mainland will be discontinued or, at the least, seriously

disrupted. This will have a very serious economic impact on Vancouver

Island, particularly since the tourist season has already begun. Since

there is no evidence of last-minute settlement of the dispute through

the usual channels, it would be incumbent upon the Legislature to hold

a special debate and seek initiatives to prevent the serious breakdown

in transportation services from occurring.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. — member forward the statement and the motion to the desk, please?

Hon. Member, the matter which you raise under standing order 35 is

one on which I do not wish to give an immediate decision or make a

decision lightly. It would be a matter of grave concern, I'm sure, to

all of British Columbia if the ferry service were to shut down.

However, there is procedure also involved within our present statutes

which reserves to the Minister of Labour certain corrective measures

which he in turn can take if he so desires, but rather than reflect on

that, or to in any way prejudice your right to proceed with such a

motion, if it is in fact found to be in order, I'm going to reserve

decision until I've had time to study the matter a little more

thoroughly.

There's ample precedent within our own House by previous Speakers

that this has been done on matters which must be looked at very

closely. On occasion it's a clear decision which the Chair can make

quickly and immediately on the basis of the evidence that's presented.

Other times it is not that clear or definable immediately, and for that

reason I defer the decision. I'll look into the matter and report back

to the House just as soon as possible.

Orders of the day.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move that we proceed to public bills and orders, with leave.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on Bill 23.

BRITISH COLUMBIA

BUILDINGS CORPORATION ACT

(continued)

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): I would like to

congratulate the government on recognizing some of the socialists'

approaches to better services to the community and exercising the

option of creating a Crown corporation to provide a more equitable and

practical approach to the use of facilities, offices and other public

works. They have seen fit to do this in this bill. However, I think

that it's certainly a matter of curiosity when you consider their

arguments in the past respecting Crown corporations and their role,

particularly by the hon. Premier, who on occasion has indicated a

distrust for too much power in the hands of the public, feeling that

Crown corporations should be used only under very, very dire

circumstances and that the best way to handle the public's business and

affairs is by allowing the public to carry on as many of these

activities as possible.

Here we have a proposal that the Department of Public Works

ultimately be dissolved and that we have a Crown corporation to carry

on those activities. That, I think, is in effect what you're saying in

part, Mr. Minister. You're suggesting that perhaps this corporation

should have the ability to administer through its own funding programme

a programme of acquiring land and buildings and other necessary

facilities, really by hook or crook in order to carry on the people's

business.

It's a very far-reaching approach, really — Bill 23. It's one that

encompasses many of the things that the previous administration

attempted to do. Now, of course, I suppose it's not seen as a socialist

measure at all, but one of good management and fiscal responsibility by

the free-enterprisers. They are going to demonstrate to the people of

British Columbia that the best way, really, to handle their affairs is

through a new Crown corporation — one of the last things that this

government likes to do is bring in m ore public control. It's a very

interesting proposition.

While I'm certainly in favour of good socialist programmes — and I

think this one certainly in

part is socialist, although it has some

very sneaky clauses in it — I can tell you right now that I am pleased

that the government is at least thinking in the right direction. They

are at least thinking that perhaps there is some merit in putting such

essential services, essential requirements as office space and certain

public utilities and works that are required under a separate operation

in order that better cost accounting can be achieved and perhaps more

efficiently be accounted for at the end of each fiscal year, and also

to give a true reflection of actual costs for such services.

The points I think we're going to have to be

[ Page 2166 ]

cautious of are the ways in which the Crown

corporation will be established. First of all, I will say that I recall

sitting on this side of the House when I was in the opposition, and the

opposition of the day was accusing the prior government of stacking the

boards of such Crown corporations with politicians, and actually having

a political control over what should be an independent Crown

corporation operating on sound management and free of political

influence. This corporation will have the same options open to it,

being permitted to exercise the use of public servants or political

representatives members of the cabinet.

I was hoping that the government would want to demonstrate its good

intentions and its confidence in the private sector as much as possible

by removing itself entirely from this Crown corporation, having no

influences in the policies and really demonstrating its sincerity that

it would be able to manage on its own, pretty much along the idea it

has indicated as wanting to do with ICBC.

I don't think that will be the case. I'm also afraid that the new

manager of the Crown corporation will perhaps be selected not by an

open competition with all interested aspirants having an opportunity to

apply for this important public function, but quite likely we'll find

that someone who has demonstrated their support for the government in

power today will have first crack and perhaps the only crack at that

most important position.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Say it isn't so!

MR. BARNES: I'm hoping, however, that when the Minister of

Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) stands to discuss this bill, he will

dissolve any trepidation and fears that I have about this bill as being

nothing more than a smokescreen for the government to perhaps destroy

some of the benefits that the public servants may, in fact, be enjoying.

Let me ask also, when the minister stands on this bill, that he

assures the House there will be some protection for the new staff that

will be hired to work within the new corporation, that these people

will not lose their benefits, that the Labour Code will apply and that

the succession rights they enjoy presently as employees will not in any

way be curtailed. These are just the kinds of assurances that I hope

will exist, and I hope that there will be no attempt on the part of the

government to downgrade any staff.

You know, when one considers some of the moves that have been made

by the government of late, there is cause to be a little bit frightened

about any moves that this government may make and any kind of

legislation that may come in, because it has proven itself to be pretty

tricky in the past. Of course, the most recent situation is this

smokescreen that it used with the B.C. Ferries people who have been

told that on the seniority basis those remaining would be permitted to

move into other jobs.

Of course, they make it quite clear that they will have to be jobs

of equal standard and that they will not be able to be promoted. Of

course, there aren't enough jobs to take care of anywhere near the

number of people whose jobs are at stake, so, in effect, they are going

to be fired. But it looks good on the surface.

We are just concerned that this new Crown corporation is not really

set out as an attempt to improve public services and to become more

efficient. I am personally wondering if, when the minister stands, he

will assure us that this is not just one more way of going into a

deficit-financing situation to avoid having to deal with the real costs

of providing the spaces for the various departments at the end of the

next fiscal year.

While they argued profusely when we were discussing the budget about

the situation in which the previous administration left the financial

affairs of the province — by certain expenditures that they claim

should have been paid off and which they proceeded to pay off for us by

cleaning up the number of Crown corporation debts, et cetera — I am

hoping that now they will be prepared to exercise the same approach in

clearing up the debts of the new B.C. Buildings Corp. Instead of

allowing it to float some $200 million deficit in order to hide their

final picture come the end of the next fiscal year.

I am sure that you have nothing ulterior in mind be creating this

deficit-financing operation. But we'll be watching to ensure that you

carry on the same practices that you suggested we should have been

carrying on, and which you have demonstrated by balancing your books at

the end of the last fiscal year by paying off a number of debts with

Crown corporations. Really, I suppose I am wrong in suggesting that you

are interested in deficit financing in order to take advantage of any

latitude you may need from time to time respecting financial cost.

You know, a bill such as this raises a lot of interesting

possibilities, Mr. Speaker. One of the parts of it is: why is there

such a need for the government to spell out in this bill the

expropriation powers? It indicates that by one means or the other it

can expropriate land as required in order to carry on its activities,

when in fact those powers apparently already exist under other

provincial legislation. We can recall having been criticized for having

such powers in the past in legislation we attempted to bring in as

government. I would agree that you want to be very careful about any

kind of expropriation, and I would like the minister to give us an

example of where such need would be necessary — some examples of why it

would be necessary to expropriate

[ Page 2167 ]

in order to provide buildings, office space or any other kind of accommodating facilities for the new corporation.

Speaking to the principle of the bill primarily, and not getting

into some of the details which I am sure the minister will want to

elucidate on respecting succession of employee rights and protection

under this Act, I would like the minister to assure us what their

policy will be on the problems of construction: if there will be any

major plans for what you might call in-house construction, and if this

new corporation will attempt to do most of its own construction of new

buildings, et cetera, or whether it is merely going to open all job

opportunities and all construction projects to the public sector.

I would like to know how it intends to deal with the question of

employee representation and tenure under the terms of employment. I am

also curious to hear the minister comment on why it elected to

specifically include the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Public

Services Medical Plan Act and the Public Service Group Insurance Act

under the terms of employment, but specifically eliminated the Public

Service Act itself.

Could it be that this is part of your policy to maintain the idea

that there should be an increase in the public service because of your

plan of attrition to eliminate the public servants and to create new

categories? If so, I would hope that the minister would remark on this

and indicate that it is not his desire to unemploy people, and that

what the government has done in the past in not necessarily the

philosophy of the Department of Public Works.

We know what the philosophy has been in other departments such as

Communications and the Department of Human Resources and, I think to a

lesser degree, some of the other departments in contributing heavily to

unemployment rather than maintaining any kind of continuity in job

security. So I would just like for the minister to assure the House

that this new Crown corporation is going to be an instrument to

facilitate good public work, to facilitate the proper administration of

all facilities and to ensure that costs will be more properly placed

upon the users. Of course, as I said before, the previous

administration recognized the importance of this. Had it, perhaps, been

able to have more time, it would have certainly been taking the lead in

this similar kind of approach to dealing with the facilities that are

being considered in this bill.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to conclude at this time and save most

of my remarks for the committee stage of this bill, in which we will be asking

some rather pointed questions about the powers of the board and the powers of

the manager of the corporation, because there are a number of things that are

not spelled out. We don't know too much about how the personnel

section

will work — the full complement of staff that will be involved and so forth

— and what kind of power the board will be exercising. Because it seems to have

exclusive powers on appointments.

You speak a lot about appointments in the bill and not about

competitions. I'm not sure if this means that the only people who will

be permitted to participate at any level of influence will be friends

of the government. So I would want some assurance when you stand that

you will point out that this will be a truly independent corporation,

one that will not have to suffer from political interference.

While I will leave most of these remarks for the committee stage, I

am really at a loss to ascertain just what the government's position is

respecting Crown corporations because of some of your very staunch

stands on the creation of Crown corporations and the dangers of having

the government participate in too much of the public sector. You've

been very adamant about Crown corporations being in danger of

proliferating in the province. You wanted to get rid of as many as you

could, to put it back into the hands of the public. Yet on the other

hand, when it serves your political purposes, you seem to be all in

favour of Crown corporations.

I'm just wondering what your motive is. I don't believe that you are

doing anybody a favour — knowing your past. I think you have some

political ambitions in mind in bringing in this corporation. I would

like for you to stand before the House and come clean and tell us

exactly why you're interested at this particular time in a Crown

corporation when we know that you haven't been all that enthusiastic in

the past, and certainly never enthusiastic when we were involved in

creating the things like Ocean Falls or the Princess Marguerite

programmes. You were saying: "Oh no, no, no. Those things are no good.

We've got to get rid of them. They're dangerous." Then you turn around

and create one yourselves. And so I'm saying, well now,

philosophically, we know they're in disagreement. Yet at the same time,

you're creating one. So I think that we have cause to want to know a

little more about what your motives are.

I'm sure that you will be pleased to come and justify your position

and your reasoning, and you'll want to dispel any fears that we have

that the boards and the manager — the general manager of the Crown

corporation — and the cabinet appointees to that board will not be in

any way trying to influence the good operations of this new Crown

corporation.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

All I would like to suggest is that you convince us that you are

recognizing that there is some merit in the public being in charge of

certain of its facilities and services and that this in no way would

weaken the value to the community, and that maybe you are

[ Page 2168 ]

beginning to soften a little bit on your stand that

everything has to be set out to public competition, and that you're

recognizing there are certain essential things that the public should

assume some responsibility for, and that you also are recognizing that

it is no disgrace, really, for people to work for the government in the

public service, and that you are not going to be in opposition to

people having gainful employment within these legitimate areas of

community service, despite some of your rather reactionary responses to

people being taken care of within their own government facility. I

would just like for you to be honest, Mr. Minister, when you stand and

assure us that you recognize that as time goes on we will have to

become more and more responsible as a government for more and more

facilities.

To use the expressions of capitalists all over the world, it's quite

normal that large numbers of people will not be able to compete

successfully, and in time governments will not be able to compete

successfully. Perhaps this is why you have recognized the need for an

expropriation

section within your Act, knowing that there comes a time

when competition no longer is valid and we just simply have to take it.

This is what you're really saying when you suggest that by one means or

the other we will have to have the land to carry on the people's

business, and we all recognize that.

We recognize that perhaps you would want to extend this a bit

further and, in fact, acquire all of the land in the province for the

people. I know that this is a little way down the road, but at least

you are interested and considering the idea of expropriation. I hope

it's for the good of the people. You know, it's a rather far-fetched

thing for free enterprisers to be talking about expropriating anything,

but anyway you've got it in this section, and I think you're going to

want to explain that to the House when you get an opportunity to stand.

I would just conclude then by congratulating you, Mr. Minister, and

the government on recognizing, in a very small way, the value of the

public participating and, in fact, managing more and more its own

programmes in order to facilitate good services to its people. With

that, I hope that you will be inspired to indicate your good intentions

when you take the floor.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): This bill has two

obvious aspects of this Crown corporation. One, I think, is as an

accounting device. One is as a management device. There's perhaps a

third aspect: as a political device. It's a little early to tell, but I

think the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) was

being very kind to the government in expressing the hope that the

corporation would be free of politics, because I don't think that's

very likely, Mr. Speaker. I've been looking through the legislation and

I see that there's no provision as to how hiring and firing are to be

implemented; indeed, it's specifically removed from the purview of the

Public Service Act. So that naturally leaves the door pretty wide open

for patronage right there.

I see no provision in the bill as to how materials and bids and

tenders of all kinds are to be handled. That, too, would seem to give a

great deal of latitude for circumvention of the safeguards for the

expenditure of public funds that have been built up over the years.

If the government's really sincere about keeping politics out of

this corporation, there's an easy way for them to prove it, Mr.

Speaker. All they have to do is put a member of the opposition on the

board. I would strongly commend that to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want the job?

MR. GIBSON: No, I assure you, I don't want the job, Hon. Member. I don't want the job.

But a member of the opposition on the board, I think, could do a

great job for the government in making it abundantly transparent that

there were good checks and balances and that politics really was being

kept away from this corporation that should manage the buildings in the

public interest.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): The minister's transparent, isn't that enough?

MR. GIBSON: He's a little thin sometimes. I don't know that he's transparent.

Now getting on to the accounting aspects of this device, as I call

it, this corporation, it certainly shows, Mr. Speaker, where the

government really stands on deficit financing. The government, in spite

of all their protestations throughout the budget debate, when they

criticized the opposition for saying, "Why don't you do a little bit of

borrowing on capital expenditures so we don't need to have this utterly

unnecessary 2 per cent increase in the sales tax?" — the government

said, "Oh, no, that would be deficit financing, and we don't agree with

deficit financing."

The real title of this bill, Mr. Speaker, should be "An Act to

Authorize Deficit Financing for Capital Expenditures," because that's

exactly what it is. There's $200 million to start with, and, of course,

we're going to see year after year an escalation in the borrowing

limits of this Crown corporation. Then the government will be able to

pretend a little bit more, as it did this year, that they aren't really

spending that much, that they aren't taking that much more out of the

economy. But, Mr. Speaker, here's an extra $200 million that ought to

be added to the expenditures of this government under the budget

[ Page 2169 ]

that they claim was only 5.4 per cent increase but

we all know is really 16 per cent increase, and now here's another

couple of hundred million dollars that we weren't told about at budget

time.

Now what happens....

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): You don't really believe that.

MR. GIBSON: I really believe that, Mr. Member. You know that too. In your heart of hearts, when you go to bed at night...

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: ...and just before you go to sleep....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: That member may, from time to time, just before he says his prayers, Mr. Speaker...

AN HON. MEMBER: And pulls the coffin lid over himself. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: ...may, from time to time, be tormented about the

things the government did during the day. He knows in his heart of

hearts that this is a bill to authorize deficit financing.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as a management device...I'm a little worried

about the minister. I'm concerned as to his stature in cabinet. After

so many years of working to enter the executive council, and I

congratulate him on being there now they're taking his department away,

Mr. Speaker — just like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not a Liberal.

MR. GIBSON: Is DPW going to be wound up, Mr. Speaker...

MR. LAUK: receivership.

MR. GIBSON: ...the noble Department of Public Works that for

so many years has served as a focus for such marvellous debates,

particularly in the evening, in this chamber? (Laughter.) Is that to

disappear?

I am seriously worried about the minister. (Laughter.) Is this

department going to be wound up, because as you know, Mr. Speaker,

there is a provision in this bill...?

MR. LAUK: Is the minister going to be wound up?

MR. GIBSON: Or the minister is going to be wound down?

There is a provision in this bill that the interest of the Crown in

any land or building can be transferred to this new corporation. You

should be concerned, Mr. Speaker, personally, as should every member in

this chamber. Will the minister guarantee that the title to the

legislative buildings, at least, won't be transferred to this Crown

corporation?

MR. LAUK: Can he give that undertaking?

MR. GIBSON: Can he give that undertaking when he speaks in

second reading — and, of course, well beyond that? Because we want to

know exactly how this new child of the government is going to grow.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: The real concern, Mr. Speaker, is to the

magnitude of the corporation we are being asked to create today. Is it

simply something that is going to spend $200 million of our money over

the next two or three years and have some buildings and rent them out,

or is it going to subsume under its wing the entire functions of the

Department of Public Works? Because I submit that this legislation

allows exactly that to happen. If that does happen, what happens to

legislative control of the expenditures that are now going on in the

Department of Public Works?

The public accounts committee, presumably, will still have access,

but over a year after the fact of the expenditures. The whole intent of

the estimates debate in this House has been so that we can discuss

expenditures before the fact rather than after the fact. Is the

government not, by this bill, in effect removing the estimates of the

Department of Public Works — removing them from the purview of this

Legislature and therefore the right of any kind of timely comment?

Will the minister undertake to table in the Legislature the precise

spending plans of this corporation for the year to come, or will we be

limited to simply looking at the annual report, and therefore giving up

our function of offering some advice on how the future should unfold?

I spoke about the potential of patronage in employment. While, of

course, we will study this in detail at committee stage, in

section 6

it mentions specifically that the Public Service Act does not apply to

officers and employees of the corporation. I would very much like the

minister, when he closes second reading, Mr. Speaker, to tell us why it

was necessary to insert that provision. I do not believe it to have

been necessary. These people will be public servants in every meaning

of the word; they will- be performing the same kind of work as

employees of the Department of Public Works are currently engaged in.

What is going to happen to the existing Public Works employees? Will the minister tell us about

[ Page 2170 ]

that? As buildings are transferred, will the public

servants working within those buildings be laid off or will they be

transferred to the new corporation? If they are transferred to the new

corporation, will their duties be substantially the same? Will their

protection in terms of security and in terms of freedom from arbitrary

dismissal be continued? Will the minister give us a guarantee of that?

I just think it is terribly important.

The hon. second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), in his

excellent canvass of this situation, raised the question of

expropriation. I'd like the minister to tell us a little about that too.

The provisions of the Department of Highways and Public Works Act —

as it says in the bill here; but as far as I read them they are two

separate Acts — respecting expropriation apply. Now I'd like some

explanation as to exactly how they apply. I have read through those

Acts, and it refers there to either the minister or the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council doing things with respect to

expropriations. Is this expropriation power still to be reserved to the

minister, or can it now be exercised simply by the corporation? If

simply by the corporation, may the general manager of the corporation,

whatever his title is, exercise expropriation on his own hook, or must

it be subject to a resolution of the board of directors? Even if it

were the second, a resolution of the board of directors? I would say

that that is insufficient.

It seems to me that expropriation is a matter of such import and

such potential infringement on the liberties of citizens that it should

be restricted to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or even this House

as to the exercise of that very considerable authority. The wording is

far too vague to give me any comfort in that regard. I would ask the

minister to clarify it before he sits down.

I will have other things to say at committee stage, but before

deciding on how things are going at second reading, I would very much

like the minister's answers to those questions of principle.

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): I rise to speak in support of this

very excellent bill. I may say that I find it excellent in all

respects. However, I wish to dwell on several key points in the bill.

First, it enables separate funding for the space which is required to

allow government programmes to be carried out adequately.

The significance of this in a broad, economic sense in this province

is very considerable. Through its former processes of building,

government through the Department of Public Works has been dependent

exclusively upon revenues current in the government general fund. As a

result, the province, at times of an economic downturn when

construction and related employment is faltering, finds itself short of

funds in some instances. As a consequence it is unable to proceed with

the level of building programme which would reflect the requirements of

government, perhaps, over the long run, and as a result is unable to

provide some continuity in terms of economic stimulus in the

construction industry. I think that by providing separate funding, by

providing funding through borrowing if necessary, this corporation....

Interjection.

MR. BAWLF: I'll come to that. Mr. Speaker, I'll come to that in a moment.

We find that the former director of ICBC, Mr. Speaker, is about to

tell us about debt. He seems to be an expert on setting up corporations

to incur debts. I'm sure he'll be able to stand up and tell us a great

deal on that score. Perhaps he can enlighten us as to the $181 million

that he and his colleagues ran the ICBC into debt.

Mr. Speaker, returning to this. So the importance to the economy as a whole

of this bill is very considerable: the ability to borrow and maintain a continuous

programme of building as a stimulus for the construction economy, for employment

in this province, without reference to the cyclical problems of economic stability

and the related revenues to government through its general funds.

The second point, Mr. Speaker, that is very significant here is that

this programme, this corporation, will essentially require

responsibility on the part of the departments who are using space made

available through this corporation in that they will be required to

budget for their needs to, in effect, rent space from the corporation.

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano, said that the thing that concerned him was that

perhaps this programme, this corporation, would mean that expenditures

related to building accommodation would not be dealt with before this

House. This was of concern to him.

I suggest to you that the accountability that will result from this

bill will, in fact, be considerably superior for the simple reason that

instead of a catch-all building programme in a catch-all department, as

we have had historically through the Department of Public Works, we

will have a programme which is related directly to individual

departments. Individual departments will be required to account for the

expenditures they incur on behalf of government for building

accommodation.

To give you an example of how significant this could be, I recall

that in my former occupation as a recycler of old buildings....

MR. LAUK: Land developer.

MR. BAWLF: Not as a land developer, Mr. Speaker, as a recycler of old buildings, because I've

[ Page 2171 ]

never developed a piece of land in my life.

In any event, I recall working on one building known as the Belmont

Building and receiving a commitment from the Minister of Public Works

(Mr. Hartley) at the time in writing, a letter saying — and this is out

of the blue, I might say — to my company: "Well, we're prepared to

lease all the space in your building. Consider this a commitment."

There was no reference to rental, no reference to rental rate, no

reference to occupancy dates — anything. It was a commitment without

any details being tied down.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Produce the letter.

MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, the point of this is simply that the

question of administration of rentals, because the pressure has been

placed on that department — and that department has had to act under a

great deal of pressure at times, particularly in the last three years —

has not been well disciplined. By forcing each department to account

directly for its needs we can surely improve on the accountability.

I might say also that the department on whose behalf the minister of

the time was acting was the Department of Human Resources. That

department when they moved into that building had previously occupied

approximately one-third of the floor space, and within six months of

moving into that building, which had tripled their floor space, they

had managed to triple their employment, their employees, in that

building.

It was an interesting progression to observe and I think one that

suggests, again, that we would be better off in government here, and

better off as a province, to have a department in a situation like that

account directly for the cost of such expansion rather than kicking

them into that catch-all building fund.

Mr. Speaker, then we go on. The corporation is established outside

of consolidated revenue funds and, as such, is required to account for

the revenues that are held and utilized by it. Again it's

accountability, which is the question raised by the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson). As he himself admits, the corporation

would then come under the purview of the public accounts committee. As

we have been in recent days questioning the senior executives of

various Crown corporations, and will continue to do so, so it would be

the case with this corporation. There's no doubt that its

accountability would be dealt with in a normal manner.

The overall objective of this corporation is to give flexibility in

buying and selling land and buildings, with the primary objective of

obtaining the best and most satisfactory space arrangements for the

public service, and with that I include the question of cost. To this

end, the Act allows the corporation to enter into joint undertakings

with others, which will simplify the process of working with the

regional boards and municipalities and with other persons in joint

developments which are considered in the best interests of the public.

It's at this point, Mr. Speaker, that the second member — I believe

it was the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) — is way off

base. He's talking about this corporation and congratulating the

government on this bill in terms of taking over more from the private

sector, taking a more direct interest in provision of services by

removing some of those responsibilities from the private sector. But

the way I read this bill, Mr. Speaker, is somewhat different from that.

I see this bill as providing the opportunity for government to harness

competitive enterprise in producing the least costly accommodation for

government.

It's particularly important at this point in time to realize that

the best and most satisfactory space arrangements for departments of

government don't necessarily become available through government

building directly. We've seen the record of government building, Mr.

Speaker. I just would take us through a couple of examples there to

illustrate my point. I would say also that there will continue to be a

number of instances in which the best accommodation can only be

provided directly through government building.

One of those would be an instance such as the Vancouver court house,

which contains many amenities which would not otherwise be provided.

But I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it nevertheless provides a good

example with the Vancouver courthouse, where the cost of providing

adequate accommodation has got completely out of line. I've related to

this House in some detail the experience under the former government

when a programme for the development of a Vancouver courthouse was

interfered with by the then Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) and by the

then Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Mr. R.A. Williams)

Interjection.

MR. BAWLF: Well, Mr. Speaker, the former Attorney-General

takes exception to my remarks, but it's a fact of record before the

public accounts committee of this provincial government, stated by the

Deputy Minister of Public Works, that he and his office and the former

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources interfered with that

project and that the result of this kind of tampering, Mr. Speaker, was

that the cost escalated very considerably...

MR. LAUK: That's not correct. He didn't say that

[ Page 2172 ]

in public accounts.

MR. BAWLF: ...the result being some $15 million in increased

costs for a reduction in space. I'm not speaking of the amenities; I'm

talking about the direct building space which was to be used directly

by the government. This, Mr. Speaker, has resulted in a cost for that

building — I'm speaking of floor space directly used by the government

— of $120 a square foot. Now $120 a square foot is by any reasonable

measure more than double the cost of a building produced by the private

sector.

MR. LAUK: Oh, that's simplistic nonsense.

MR. BAWLF: That is one example where the private sector on a

proposal-call basis might perhaps have done better. The courthouse

programme and especially the kind with the amenities involved as

proposed for Vancouver may indeed be best provided by government. But

there are many other examples.

In Victoria we have several buildings under construction which were

undertaken by the previous government where the costs per square foot

are running $60, $70 and more per square foot, which is well in excess

of what the private sector could produce comparable space for. In those

circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that this bill provides a

very reasonable alternative. This bill provides that a corporation can

enter into extensive negotiations and programmes to harness the private

sector to produce space more economically.

The average rental per square foot of space leased by the provincial

government in the city of Victoria today is under $4.50 a square foot.

Yet the buildings which they're building, if they were to be amortized

at a reasonable rate reflecting the cost, would have to rent well in

excess of $10 a square foot, Mr. Speaker. Now that suggests to me that

the private sector — and I think this is born out by the federal policy

in this regard — can produce space a great deal cheaper than

governments can. The federal policy that I mentioned is precisely this:

that they do not attempt to build any but the most key buildings in the

delivery of government services themselves; they prepare a proposal

call and they put that out to the private sector; they create the same

number of jobs; they provide the same stimulus...

MR. LAUK: Are you discussing the federal government?

MR. BAWLF: ....and the result is a great saving to the taxpayers.

MR. LAUK: Are you saying the federal government does this?

MR. BAWLF: I am indeed.

Mr. Speaker, just moving on to another point, the question of

payment of property taxes. In the city of Victoria in the last three

years we have seen holdings by the provincial government expanded by,

roughly double, by the value of land and improvements. Now I am not

going to attempt at this point to criticize or analyse with regard to

that situation. It is apparent to me that a great deal of this space is

sitting vacant and apparently with no plans for improvement or for

utilization by the government. In that regard, I think the situation

speaks for itself.

What concerns me is that in that time that the government expanded

its holdings in this city, there was no adjustment made to the payment

of property taxes, and the property taxes are paid as a grant in lieu

of taxes equal to 15 mills. Now this is an arrangement that goes back

years and years when the mill rate, relatively speaking, was much lower

and the 15 mill granted in lieu of taxes was not unreasonable,

particularly in light of the fact that in 20 years in this city, prior

to the NDP government, there was very little expansion in property

holdings in the city. In fact, it could be counted as a fractional

situation. Now what has happened since, under the NDP government, is

that the government of the day used that tax saving as a lever to help

them speculate in the acquisition of land for some vague future purpose.

That grant in lieu of taxes has now fallen to less than one-third of

the basic levy in the city. In effect, that previous government passed

on to the property taxpayers of this city, my constituency, Victoria, a

tremendous burden in the delivery of provincial government services

throughout the province. The taxpayers of this constituency, and some

others in the province, I might say, which have had a disproportionate

share of the provincial government presence, have had to subsidize the

rest of the taxpayers of the province inordinately — a burden which is

all the more significant, again as I related to this House before, in

the fact that a very high proportion of our property taxpayers in this

community are senior citizens on fixed incomes who watched their taxes

rise tremendously. As a matter of fact, last year if the provincial

government of the day, in recognizing the burden they were imposing,

had chosen to pay full property taxes, Mr. Speaker, it would have saved

the taxpayers of the city of Victoria between 4 and 5 mills. Now this

bill provides that the corporation may pay full property taxes, and I

look forward to the implementation of that as a reality, and I feel

confident that it will be a reality under this bill. It is a very long

overdue adjustment.

This bill also provides that the corporation may receive a transfer

from the Crown of control of any land or buildings which are deemed

appropriate. It's obvious to me that in order to pursue these

objectives to their

[ Page 2173 ]

logical conclusion, we really must see most of the

provincial accommodation, particularly the buildings and perhaps much

of the land, transferred to this corporation so the total resource can

be managed in an integrated way. In this city this is particularly

evident as a need because we have, as I have already said, a tremendous

number of holdings of provincial ownership, and I might say that

perhaps this concept should extend to leasing as well. Buildings and

property which are leased by the provincial government — provincial

Crown at the moment — should be transferred to that corporation —

again, so the corporation can manage in the most effective and

efficient possible way these resources.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on to a number of other points which are

certainly most encouraging to me, having witnessed the functioning of

the Public Works department in recent years. But I simply say that

there's no question that this bill will greatly improve the delivery of

provincial accommodation. It will greatly improve the accountability of

departments for their spending in this regard and for their commitment

of government spending in this regard, and it will certainly provide a

useful stimulus in the construction economy of the province as we

witness the effects of a downturn in the economy, and in particular —

as always — construction is the whipping-boy. Construction economy

takes the biggest beating in any downturn.

So I feel that on all counts, Mr. Speaker, this is a most progressive bill, and I'd be most pleased to support it.

MR. G.V. LAUK: In all fairness, it's interesting to listen to

the first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) whose speeches are becoming

famous now as being a veritable cornucopia of misinformation and

contradictory statements.

AN HON. MEMBER: Corny what?

MR. LAUK: It's the horn of plenty. A horn of plenty, Mr. Speaker.

He gives as an example the federal government and how their

procedures enable them to only build public buildings that are

absolutely necessary. Where was he when the Bryce report came down?

Where was he when the condemnation of the federal government for the

massive expenditures which are done through this system have brought us

to our knees federally? Brought us to our knees! Where whole buildings

have been established for almost fictitious departments, an elaborate

exponential growth of civil servants — and he raises that as an

example. Very interesting.

He says on the one hand that the public sector is too costly a

mechanism to use to build public edifices. On the other hand he says

that the private sector is at a lower cost. We do better by contracting

with the private sector. Yet he says that this bill, which is a threat

to the private sector being involved to the construction of public

edifices, is the way we can reduce costs.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's time you read the bill.

MR. LAUK: What a fuzzy thinker, Mr. Speaker. I think because

of his conduct, because of his speeches being contradictory,

misinformed, because of his fuzzy thinking he's a prime candidate for

the front benches. He's a prime candidate for the cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that what you'd like?

MR. LAUK: To be consistent with this Chicken Little parade, going through the province with misinformation...

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: ...such as the use of public funds with Social

Credit right-wing coalition propaganda in making false statements about

Mincome to the public...and, oh, this is appropriate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And now to the principle of the bill, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: We need a responsible opposition.

MR. LAUK: You know, Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted indeed that

there is at least a slight stirring of the sleepy minister over there,

with respect to Public Works. It's been nigh unto five months now that

our minister over in the corner — the minister from the Cariboo — has

been dozing off from time to time.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've been asleep for three and a half years.

MR. LAUK: In the spirit of good sportsmanship that has

characterized this government since it's taken office, he commissioned

an investigation of the Block 51-61-71 complex in the city of Vancouver

of one Dr. Gordon Shrum in the spirit of cooperation and so on which

has characterized this government, one of vindictiveness and revenge.

He commissioned Dr. Shrum to report back on the tremendous bollocks

that was represented by this complex that originated so many years ago.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The report came down, and what did Dr. Gordon Shrum, one of the most distinguished

[ Page 2174 ]

British Columbians, say about the design of the NDP

administration, about this fantastic new complex which will bring

amenities to the downtown centre of the city of Vancouver?

AN HON. MEMBER: "Sell that one."

MR. LAUK: He said "The concept and design is magnificent" —

$275 a day to Dr. Shrum to tell us the concept and the design is

"magnificent."

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Highways remind me of the coyote and the roadrunner...

AN HON. MEMBER: That's "coyote."

MR. LAUK: ...the coyote, or as they would say in Quebec, "monsieur le coyote."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. LAUK: It seems the Minister of Public Works designed a

great attack on the previous administration and it backfired. It

backfired in his face, just like the coyote and the roadrunner.

The only thing that Dr. Shrum said about the complex that may even

be interpreted as a criticism — and I suggest that he had to justify

his existence some way, so he threw in a comment — was: "Well, cost

control is a little out of hand and we need a project manager."

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Well, the NDP administration used the same cost

project manager as the previous administration used for the same

project — Concordia. The Concordia people. They told us prior to the

election in 1972 that the so-called Bennett Tower, the monument to a

man's ego, rather than costing, as was announced, $55 million, would

cost in excess of $120 million. They told us that before they even

moved dirt on the site, before they even moved materials on the site

and did their demolition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like the Columbia River.

MR. LAUK: We knew that. Concordia was in place. The Shrum

report, Mr. Speaker, is a complete vindication of the NDP's approach

with respect to that tremendous project in the centre of the city of

Vancouver — not a 55-storey white elephant, a tribute to the ego of a

previous premier, but an open complex, a complex that will serve

government services' needs — amenities for the people of the city and

open space that will serve the people of the city of Vancouver, not the

ego of a Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: No concern for public funds.

MR. LAUK: Now we can see, Mr. Speaker, that this bill.... I'm

not going to go so far as to say it's a good bill. I'm going to go so

far only as to say that it will probably be a good bill if it's

employed properly and worked properly by the people in power. But what

is the evidence of that? Is this a bill — as many people suspect it is

— that is designed to hoodwink the public? Is it a bill designed merely

to get in the back door what this government is too afraid to get in

through the front door? Is it a bill that will enable this government,

on massive capital expenditures, to create a deficit such as the one

they created with the Columbia River Treaty...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on now!

MR. LAUK: ...and yet not have it add up as a public debt? Is

this the kind of hoodwinking that is going on, Mr. Speaker? A lot of

people more uncharitable than myself are suggesting so. They're

suggesting just that: a back-door method of deficit financing in this

province of hundreds of millions of dollars.

When the minister introduced the bill in the House, the press asked

him: "Why don't you borrow or use consolidated revenue funds and go

into deficit more honestly?" The minister did not have a proper answer.

He said: "Oh well, the bill will take care of this on the one hand, and

on the other hand, six of one and half a dozen," and so on. But he

never answered the question directly, which raises a cloud over this

bill. This bill has been taken to be a hoodwinking of the public

insofar as deficit financing is concerned.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Are you against this bill, Gary?

MR. LAUK: I'm against the use of this bill for that purpose.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: All the moneys, if you read the bill carefully....

Obviously the ministers of the Crown, particularly those with legal

backgrounds, such as the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Hair),

the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Gardom), haven't read the bill. You know why, Mr. Speaker?

Because there are sections of the bill that are so sloppily and

shabbily drafted that they are illegal.

[ Page 2175 ]

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Wash your mouth out with soap!

MR. LAUK: They're totally illegal on the face of them, and

maybe the Consumer Services minister who is notoriously, constantly and

continuously underemployed, can look at page 2,

section 4 (3), and it

will occupy his time while I'm speaking. When he's finished that

assignment I'll have another one — as soon as he's completed it.

Do you know that if this government were honest with the public, it

would say that this is a way of deficit financing public projects and

that's all it's for? Because if they suggest anything else it leaves

the opposition to look for other reasons and motivations for this bill,

and they are even more shocking, Mr. Speaker. If the reason is not

deficit financing, what are the real reasons? Could it be that the

provisions for expropriation in

section 4(3) are a wholesale attack on

private property in this province? What on earth do they need those

expropriation provisions for except to make a Crown corporation much

more competitive than private industry — or I should say less

competitive, giving them a monopolistic situation?

It's fine for the first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) to say what

a fine bill it is. I'm sure he's envious. Consider if Fort Victoria

Holdings had the same powers of expropriation as are given to this new

corporation. Consider how non-competitive he would be and how

uncompetitive his competitors would be with him. It would be a

tremendous advantage, indeed, Mr. Speaker.

If this bill is not for deficit purposes — deficit financing — is it

a way to attack private land throughout this province? Is it a way not

to pay a fair and reasonable price for land to be used for public

works? Is that what this bill is designed for, bringing in

expropriation powers that are not needed in normal circumstances? If

the government says it's not for deficit financing, it must be for

that. What are we to believe now, after a year or so of this right-wing

coalition campaigning on the right to private property throughout this

province?

They are bringing in Bill 16, with powers of search and seizure that

have not been seen in this province in its history, and are now

bringing in this bill with expropriation powers that will leave private

ownership of property under a cloud. If deficit financing isn't the

real reason, is that the real reason?

What about the public service? In this bill we see that the public

service could easily be supplanted. He is the Minister of both Highways

and Public Works, both maximum hirers of employees, both with a large

number in their establishment. Is this bill a sinister way to supplant

the public service, if it's not a bill that is for deficit financing of

public works?

A corporation, Mr. Speaker, is only a structure; it's only a shell;

it's a tool. The questions that the opposition must ask, and I hope the

back bench asks of this government, are: why do they need the tool? Why

do they need the structure? They say it's not for deficit financing,

for which we would say, "Well, fine." They say no. If it's not for

deficit financing, is it to expropriate private land without proper

compensation? Is it to supplant the public service, to avoid the

difficulties with the public service? Am I being too cynical with a

government that would bring in the powers of search and seizure like it

has under Bill 16, that has shown a remarkable disrespect for private

civil liberties and private ownership of land? Are we going to suggest

those reasons? I would think that if it's not a deficit financing bill,

those must be the reasons. There can't be any others; a tool is a tool.

If a man is going out into his back yard with a shovel and he says

he's not going to do any gardening, you begin to draw some other

conclusions about his motivations for going out in the back yard with a

shovel. I don't like to draw an analogy. What is the purpose of this

tool, this Crown corporation, if it's not for deficit financing? I say

again: with the powers given to it for expropriation, it raises very

serious doubts about the integrity of the private ownership of land.

Secondly, it attacks the public service in both the Highways

department and in the Public Works department. That could be rendered

under the control of this Crown corporation which would render the

government total control over the construction industry in this

province. It is a deliberate and concerted attack, I say to you, Mr.

Speaker, without further explanation, on the construction industry in

this province, on the trade union movement within that construction

industry and on the public service sector itself.

Again, it's an excessive, vindictive, revengeful reaction by a

right-wing coalition that is becoming more and more apparent as the

days and nights roll on — and as the people become more and more

regretful about having voted for them on December 11.

AN HON. MEMBER: Regretful for what?

MR. LAUK: What is their history with respect to the public

service? They promised arm's-length relationships with the Crown

corporations in this province, and in five months they have not only

not had arm's-length relationships but they seized further political

control over the BCR, the BCDC and Hydro, where they appointed a former

cabinet minister of their former party....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will relate this to Bill 23?

[ Page 2176 ]

MR. LAUK: I'm asking, Mr. Speaker, how this Crown corporation

is to be staffed. What is its board of directors going to be? Is it

going to be another series of political appointments and hacks? Is the

minister (Hon. Mr. Fraser) going to be chairman of the board? Is he

going to be the tsar of construction within the province — this

minister from the Cariboo who has had dreams of power for some years?

Is he going to be the tsar of construction in this province? Has our

sleepy little dormouse come out of his teapot to become the real threat

to private industry?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: What are the answers to these questions? You don't

just table a bill in the House and say: "Oh well, it's a handy little

mechanism." A mechanism for what? We say deficit financing; they say

no. We say: "Is it an attack on the public service?" They are silent.

We say: "Is it to more easily obtain private land from private people?"

They're silent.

It's very worrisome, Mr. Speaker — very worrisome indeed that this

government which spoke.... It reminds me of Machiavelli's "The Prince."

He said: "When you're going to win, talk of peace." That's what

happened during the campaign. They talked of peace: protect private

property; protect the public sector. There was an advertisement by the

new Premier — leader of the opposition then — saying: "There are ugly

rumours about getting rid of the civil service. Don't believe them. We

believe in helping you. We love you. We want you to be secure in your

positions and your jobs. We're not going to bring out the hatchet and

the guillotine."

When you want war, Mr. Speaker, talk peace. Am I too cynical?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. LAUK: Am I thinking that this Premier, when he was

campaigning for office, did not mean what he said? Did he want war

while he was talking peace? Is this an attack on private property? Is

this an attack on the public service?

MR. KERSTER: When were you so concerned about private property?

MR. LAUK: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that both of those

propositions must be true. They denied the only possible one that could

have any validity, and that is deficit financing for public works. They

denied that. They have seen this bill as a tool to attack private

property and the public service — a sinister Act, a most cynical Act on

their part. And it's one that is deceptive, because at the first stage

we thought that they were the protectors of those rights, and they have

turned out to be the reverse.

What better advantage could there be for a government so cynical as

to use political patronage to keep themselves in the power as the use

of this kind of a corporation? We have seen the dangerous control over

the BCDC taken by the Minister of revolting development — rather,

Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . He is now the chairman of

the board of the development corporation of British Columbia. What a

pork barrel that can be for him! I am not suggesting he will take undue

advantage of his position, but the public must see that there is not

undue advantage being taken, that there is no political patronage, that

there be an arm's-length relationship between Crown corporations and

the government.

What is going to happen with this even larger pork barrel of the

British Columbia Buildings Corp., a pork barrel that has never been

seen before in this province or anywhere in Canada — lining the pockets

of the friends of government; patronage in contracts; patronage in

hiring; no protections afforded to the Legislature, or to the public,

that fairness and standards of fairness will be applied? What about the

park barrel, Mr. Speaker?

Is that the third possibility for the use of this harmless little

mechanism, this tool, this corporation? If it is not to be used for

deficit financing, is it to be used for expropriation of private

property? Is it to be used to attack the public service, to get rid of

the public service in Highways and Public Works, or is it to be used as

a pork barrel to pay off political friends and campaign donors? These

possibilities arise; they arise because of the strange silence and the

fuzzy explanation given by the minister. Or does he know? Let's have a

fifth possibility.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Does he know why the bill is being introduced? Has

anyone explained it to him yet? That is another possibility that we

can't disregard out of hand.

We have expropriation of private property, attack on the public

service, a pork barrel or the fact that the minister may not know why

he has introduced the bill. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if he

doesn't know why, I betcha his colleagues do! And I'll betcha that the

other reason, not deficit financing, is the real reason behind this

bill. I'll betcha it's an attack on the public service. I'll betcha

it's the way to cover up how they are going to go back on election

promises to protect the private rights and property rights of people,

to protect the integrity and security of the Public Service Commission,

the employees of the public service and their sacred promise — or is it

Socred promise? — that they would not have Crown corporations used as

political pork barrels and

[ Page 2177 ]

give-away to the friends of government.

All of these questions arise; they are very disturbing. How can we

say we can trust you? How can we answer their question that by

implication is: trust us, we're honest folk — when they said they

wouldn't raise taxes, that they wouldn't do a hatchet job on the civil

service, that they couldn't kill Mincome? How can we trust them now

when they bring in this innocent Crown corporation when its obvious

powers will be to expropriate private property without proper

compensation, attack the public service in their integrity and security

and be used as a pork barrel? How can we trust them, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't even believe that yourself.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): I'll tell you, whatever they've got in mind, they wouldn't tell you.

MR. LAUK: How can we trust them?

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't even believe that yourself.

MR. LAUK: What makes me think it is a possibility the

minister may not know why the bill is introduced is that subsection

(4)3 states that the provisions of the Department of Highways and

Public Works Act will apply with respect to expropriation. I looked

that up and there is no such Act. There is no such Act! What sloppy

drafting indeed, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON: Intentional.

MR. LAUK: Intentional? I'm not so sure. I think it's sloppy

drafting. They couldn't help themselves in their eagerness to get this

corporation on the table in this Legislature, get it passed and carry

out their real motivations, their real goals.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I will be most interested in hearing the currency

of debate on this question. I am sure that the opposition will have

something to say in committee stage.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, there are seven

principal problems with this bill. I would propose, if I may, to review

each of them briefly. As my colleague from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk)

has just pointed out,

section 4(3) refers in italics, as a single

title, to the "Department of Highways and Public Works Act." I repeat:

there is no such Act. Who drafted this one, Mr. Speaker? Who drafted it

so badly that they referred to a piece of legislation that doesn't even

exist? In case anyone should be anticipating it, we note that nowhere

on the orders of the day has a Department of Highways and Public

Works Act made its appearance. There is no apparent proposal by the

government at this moment, Mr. Speaker, to introduce such

an Act.

So the first of the seven major problems with this bill is that they

refer to a piece of legislation which doesn't even exist. This is a

highly unparliamentary practice, to say the least, Mr. Speaker.

The second major problem with this is the problem that the people of

British Columbia have generally in understanding the coalition

government. I think it's been amply demonstrated that the coalition has

no consistent economic policy, as has been determined and verified by

the course of Bill 16. This bill is, of course, the so-called

Anti-Inflation Measures Act. We've pointed out repeatedly how

provisions in that bill contradict arguments that they themselves made

during their campaign. We have pointed out that the facts of life

surrounding the Anti-inflation Board contradict the promises they've

made of performance for the Anti-Inflation Measures Act if and when

it's enacted in the province of British Columbia.

The worst problem about this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that the bill

makes a liar out of the Premier. The bill makes a liar out of the

Minister of Finance. This is a deficit-finance bill. There are no two

ways about it; there is no other way to interpret it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! May I just question you for a moment,

please? You're not suggesting for one moment that any member of the

cabinet is a liar.

MR. BARBER: No, the bill itself, Mr. Speaker, makes a liar of

the Premier and of the Minister of Finance, and if you'll give me a

moment....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You're treading desperately close. I would suggest that you perhaps select a better phraseology.

MR. BARBER: Well, just as accurately, Mr. Speaker, if I may

put it, this bill contradicts fundamentally the political argument made

by the Premier and the Minister of Finance against deficit financing.

As my colleague for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) will shortly

demonstrate, the Minister of Finance in his own budget speech made a

fundamental commitment that the province shall pay its own way and that

there shall be no deficit financing. This bill, the British Columbia

Buildings Corporation Act, clearly provides for deficit-finance

construction of major public buildings in the province of British

Columbia. In that sense, Mr. Speaker, to use the more careful of the

two frames of language, this bill does in fact contradict completely

the political position of this coalition government.

It is a deficit-finance bill. This year it will be $200 million, next year $300 million or $400 million

[ Page 2178 ]

perhaps. This is a deficit-finance bill; you are

putting us into debt. You know it and we know it. You are not proposing

to finance public buildings out of consolidated or current revenue, Mr.

Speaker. The government is not proposing to do that. The government is

saying we shall take $200 million this year from consolidated revenue

and we shall, on the basis of that, capitalize various projects.

Sections 10 and 11 provide for that capitalization, they provide for

loans, they provide for bonds.

This is a deficit-finance bill, Mr. Speaker, and it contradicts

basically, fundamentally and embarrassingly the political position of

that coalition. The coalition said during the campaign and has said

since that they do not believe in deficit financing. The coalition has

said that they believe we should pay our own way in every enterprise

and then they turn around and have the nerve — and are not even ashamed

of it — to introduce a bill which will send us this year $200 million

into debt. This year $200 million worth of indebtedness, in the name of

the British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act, will be created by this

coalition government, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. MAIR: Is that the left-wing coalition or the right-wing coalition?

MR. BARBER: I should hope that they're just a little bit

embarrassed. I should hope that the people of British Columbia are more

than just a little bit shocked to see how this coalition has once again

gone back on one of its own campaign promises. We are being put into

debt, Mr. Speaker. This is a deficit-finance bill and no one who has

read it can conclude anything else.

There is a third problem with this. It has also been raised earlier

and I wish to state my personal concern about it. This bill is a threat

to private property. In

section 4(3), we do see a reference to powers

of expropriation. This is, Mr. Speaker, to say the least, bizarre. What

on earth is a British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act doing claiming

the power of expropriation? If this is just an ordinary little company

set out to secure certain advantages in the construction of public

buildings, what on earth do they need the powers of expropriation for?

Whose land do they intend to expropriate?

This bill is potentially one of the most dangerous assaults on

private property we've seen yet from this coalition government. I

believe personally, Mr. Speaker, that a person's home is a safeguard of

liberty. I believe that and I support it. I want to know why this bill

gives that coalition the power to take those persons' individual homes.

Who needs that power? Who has asked for it? Who has demanded it? Who

shall use it?

Why does a British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act require the

power of expropriate? It is already provided for in other legislation.

It is available, if required in emergencies, through other legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this is a mysterious and potentially dangerous piece of

legislation. Why do they need a power of expropriation? Again, it may

be another of the fundamental ailments of any coalition that we should

see such a piece of contradiction plainly and clearly within a bill

like this. That's the third major problem with this bill, Mr. Speaker.

It gives the corporation a power of expropriation that an ordinary

corporation should not require, and that a responsible government

should use, if it uses it at all, most carefully and most delicately.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Fourthly, Mr. Speaker, there is a very serious political problem in

that the coalition has once again contradicted itself. This coalition,

when in opposition, fought a campaign for three and a half years on the

position that politicians should not serve on the boards of

corporations or Crown agencies.

Mr. Speaker, let it be noted in Hansard

that the government and the back bench of the government did not oppose

that statement. Let me repeat it if they didn't hear it. This coalition

for three and a half years in opposition and during an election

campaign made repeatedly the statement that they believed that elected

officials should not control the works and the enterprises of public

agencies, bodies and corporations.

Hansard may record a silence. There was no opposition to that.

Mr. Speaker, examine

section 2. Here they are appointing politicians

to the board of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. BARBER: They are doing it in

section 2(1). I appreciate,

Mr. Speaker, that this may be slightly out of order. We are supposed to

speak to the principle and not to the sections of the bill. "There is

hereby established a corporation to be known as the 'British Columbia

Buildings Corporation' consisting of five directors appointed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in Council, who must be either (

a) members of the

executive council or (

b) members of the public service." They have

paved the way to appoint politicians to the board of the B.C. Buildings

Corporation Act.

The coalition is contradicting itself again. For three and a half

years they told us that they didn't want politicians appointed to the

board of any corporation and now, in the first new corporation they've

introduced in this House, they are appointing members of the executive

council. They are appointing politicians. This is a hopeless

[ Page 2179 ]

inconsistency; it is a contradiction.

What is the coalition up to, Mr. Speaker? Did they just say those

things in opposition in order to get into power? Now that they are in

power, have they forgotten everything they said in opposition? What is

the position of the coalition, Mr. Speaker? Do they intend to support

the principle that politicians should be on these boards, or do they

not support that principle? When they were in opposition they did not.

Now that they are in government, they do.

Section 2(1)(

a) permits them

to do precisely that.

I have another concern. It is the fifth one I wish to raise today. I

am concerned about the job security of the public servants presently

employed in that half of the minister's estimates responsible for

public works. There are, by my count, Mr. Speaker, 655 employees in the

public works part of the minister's department involved in maintenance

activities and another 96 involved in administrative activities, for a

total of 751 personnel. This is my count from the estimates. It may be

wrong by one or two, but I expect that it is basically correct. Mr.

Speaker,

section 4(2)(

b) allows the corporation to "construct and

maintain buildings." It is fairly clear, I believe, that this bill

jeopardizes the job security of some 750 public servants, 655 of whom

are presently involved in maintaining public buildings in British

Columbia and another 96 of whom are responsible for the administration

thereof. There are 751 jobs at stake, because, as has been pointed out

earlier by my colleague for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) and by the

Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson),

section 6(4) says: "The Public Service Act

does not apply to the officers and employees of the corporation." There

is no guarantee of security. There is no guarantee of tenure. There is

no guarantee anywhere in this bill that anything but the wholesale

firing of 750 civil servants might just occur, that you'll wipe them

all out, that you'll get rid of every one of them, that you'll attack

every one of them personally. This bill makes no provision whatever for

the job security of 750 civil servants.

I want to hear, Mr. Speaker, from the minister that he guarantees

the civil servants of British Columbia and, in particular, those in my

own riding in Victoria, that their jobs are not at stake. I want to

hear from the minister that once again, this bill has not made a

speaker of falsehoods out of the Premier. The Premier, during the

election, campaigned on the fact that civil servants' jobs were not in

jeopardy. He said that false and malicious rumours would have it that

Social Credit would endanger the jobs of civil servants. Sure enough,

we see in this bill that there is no guarantee, no provision and no

security whatever for the continuance in employment of some 750 civil

servants. I want to hear, Mr. Speaker, about those 750. I want a

guarantee from that minister that those jobs are secure, that this is

not an attack on the public service and that I am not going to be

hearing from 750 of my constituents and their families telling us that

they are now out of work because the coalition has created a

corporation that chose not to employ them.

The evidence for this position is serious and it is secure, Mr.

Speaker. This bill clearly states that the Public Service Act does not

apply. We also want to know why that Act doesn't apply. It, too, is one

of the guarantees that patronage in the public service shall not occur.

It is one of the fundamental guarantees that no politician on either

side of the House can tamper with appointments to the civil service. I

want to know, Mr. Speaker, why specifically this Act says that the

Public Service Act shall not apply — and because it doesn't apply, I

want to know why. To those benefit does it not apply? Whose interests

are served when that guarantee of impartiality is abolished? Whose

interests are served when 7 5 0 jobs are threatened by a bill like this?

I want to speak about another matter that concerns me very seriously

in this bill, Mr. Speaker. Once again we see, by omission, that the

coalition government has made no arrangement whatever for tenders for

contracts or for other legal devices that allow a fair and free

opportunity on the open market for private enterprise to compete when

buildings go for tender. I want to understand why this bill contains no

provisions at all for adequate, for proper, for accountable, or even

for legal arrangements to go to tender. It doesn't appear in the bill;

it is nowhere there. Not a word. What are their plans? What do they

intend? And whose interests are being served by the fact that this bill

fails to make any provision whatever for public tender, for public bids

and for publicly secured contracts? Whose interests are being served

there, Mr. Speaker?

This bill has the potential for some of the worst patronage and the

worst pork-barrel politics this province has ever seen. If they don't

intend to operate it that way, Mr. Speaker, I urge them to bring in an

amendment, and let it ensure that bids and tenders on their contracts

shall be advertised, shall be handled, and shall be accountable

publicly. At the moment there is no such provision. The omission of it

is one of the most dangerous facets of this bill.

Finally, I wish, if I may, to report on

section 13. My colleague and

friend, the first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf), has quite properly

and repeatedly made the argument that the Government of British

Columbia doesn't pay its fair share of property taxes in Victoria. I

was pleased to see the reference, during his address, to

section 13 —

until I read it more closely.

section 13 does not compel this

corporation to spend a penny on municipal taxes. It does not compel or

obligate this corporation to spend a nickel on property taxes. It

compels them to do nothing.

section 13 reads: "Subject to the approval

[ Page 2180 ]

of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" — and that's

the first hesitation — "the corporation may in any year pay to a

municipality in which it has property a grant not exceeding...." et

cetera, et cetera.

First of all, it is subject to political approval, Mr. Speaker. It

is not an ironclad guarantee in this legislation that the B.C.

Buildings Corp. will pay its way. In fact, it's only a guarantee that

they can find a way out if they want to take it. It is no guarantee at

all.

Secondly, they hedge it again. Not once but twice in this clause

they find a way out. They tell us that the corporation may pay its own

way. It doesn't say "will"; it doesn't say "shall"; it doesn't say

"shall be obligated to." It merely says the corporation may pay in any

year.

These are two very large loopholes, Mr. Speaker, any number of

clever politicians could sneak their way through. So I join in the call

of my colleague from Victoria for an amendment — I'm sure he will

agree; perhaps he will second it — to alter

section 13 to remove the

arbitrary and exclusionary powers of the political body, that of the

executive council, and to ensure that the law itself, and not the

politicians, guarantees payment. If this coalition supports that

principle, they must amend that section. If they do not, they're going

to be most embarrassed in the Victoria riding next time round.

I wish that

section amended, Mr. Speaker, to remove the right or the

privilege of politicians to make discretionary decisions from year to

year, and instead build into the law itself the guarantee of payment.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I want a guarantee that the corporation will

in any year — and not "may" in any year, as we see in the legislation

at hand....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, could I interrupt you for just a

moment, please? I've allowed a fair amount of latitude in the debate on

principle in which you've repeatedly referred to sections of the bill

specifically. The type of debate you are engaging in should be reserved

for the discussion of the bill which takes place in committee stage

when we discuss in detail the provisions of all of the respective

sections of any piece of legislation. While I don't intend to curb your

debate as long as you refer to the principle of the bill in general

terms, you must reserve the specific matters under consideration by

section for that debate.

MR. BARBER: I appreciate your observation, Mr. Speaker. There

does come a point, though, and I say this with respect, that

fundamental flaws in the legislation itself imperil the success of the

principle.

I am concerned about the principle. It does seem, on the surface of

it, a worthwhile, a proper, an accountable instrument for the creation

and construction of public buildings in British Columbia. That

principle interests me, and unless debate could persuade me otherwise,

I expect I will vote for it. What I am concerned about, though, Mr.

Speaker, is the way in which the legislation itself imperils and

endangers the principle which the bill introduces. This is a very

serious problem, and I expect that many members of the Legislature on

both sides will have to — perforce by the nature of the bill itself —

refer to various of its parts. I expect as well that further on we will

be able to get a little more detail about each of them.

So I will conclude now, Mr. Speaker, if I may, by repeating briefly

and succinctly the seven principal flaws that I find in this

legislation.

It first of all refers to a Highways and Public Works Act which exists nowhere in the annals of this Legislature.

It secondly is clearly a deficit-finance bill, and that contradicts one of the promises of the coalition.

Thirdly, it offers powers of expropriation that one would not

ordinarily need, and we must only ask: in whose interest are those

powers of expropriation being served?

Fourthly, there is no guarantee whatever of job security for the 750 civil servants who are going to be affected by this bill.

Fifthly, it is open to the worst kind of patronage because there is

no provision whatever for public bills, tenders and other concerns.

Sixthly, it makes no reference whatever to an obligation on the part

of the corporation to pay its fair share of property taxes in the city

of Victoria and in other jurisdictions where the province has holdings.

Finally, and seventhly, we see appointed to the board of the

corporation itself, politicians — another promise that's fallen apart

in the first six months of office, Mr. Speaker.

Those are some fairly substantial objections, and I hope very much to hear from the Minister of Public Works about them.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, that's a hard

act to follow — in fact, I am convinced in my own mind that I don't

want to follow it. I find, as a member of this Legislature, that it's a

tragedy that one so young, so new and so fresh should be so

indoctrinated by the cynicism of his colleagues as to be so suspicious,

vindictive and cynical.

This member talks about his embarrassment of politicians making

discretionary decisions, his embarrassment that civil servants might

have to change their positions...his embarrassment, his embarrassment.

He's so embarrassed it's a wonder he can stand up and talk about being

embarrassed. Where was his embarrassment over the last three years?

Where was his embarrassment when deputy

[ Page 2181 ]

minister after deputy minister, professional civil

servants who had served this province for years on a non-partisan

basis, were side-shifted?

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Name two!

MRS. JORDAN: I don't need to name them; we all know them.

Where was his embarrassment and his concern for the small insurance

operators of this province who were put out of business by his own

government creation, ICBC?

He talks about accountability. Did that government ever put ICBC

under Consumer Services legislation, as they put every other company in

this province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: No way, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member please return to the principle of the bill?

MRS. JORDAN: I'm right there, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The bill is the British Columbia Building Corporation Act.

MRS. JORDAN: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, and that member need not be

embarrassed any more, because the British Columbia Building Corp. will

be subject to the scrutiny of the auditor-general, a subject that I

won't go into discussion about right now because it is a bill on the

order paper. There was no auditor-general under the NDP.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for North Okanagan has the floor.

MRS. JORDAN: Has there been a time that this party has even

suggested that politicians don't have a role to play in terms of

government activity? The member said how inconsistent. I would ask the

second member for Victoria where his consistency is in relation to a

former member of his party who just spoke. One wants an NDP member on

the board of directors; the second member for Victoria doesn't want any

politicians on the board of directors. His former colleague spoke — he

wants not only politicians on the board, but he wants one of his own

party on the board. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, in relating this to

the development of this corporation: where is the consistency on the

part of the NDP?

Mr. Speaker, what we do see consistently from that side of the House

is suspicion — suspicion and suspicion. The former member who spoke,

the former Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Mr.

Lauk), the second member for Vancouver Centre, talks consistently, and

with a paranoid nature, of suspicion of this company and suspicion of

this bill, although he supported it. We can only conclude that that

member doesn't trust himself because he doesn't trust other people, and

he doesn't trust other people because he doesn't trust himself. That's

why he has to steal his own files, and then lets that sort of an

attitude reflect itself in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, this is an imaginative and innovative bill. It's been

examined by other governments before it's even passed this Legislature.

While we heard many comments on the federal government approach to

public hearings, it should be of interest to this Legislature to know

that the federal government itself is very interested in this

legislation and is studying it very carefully with a view to adopting

it.

Mr. Speaker, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) obviously

doesn't know his history, because the history of the Public Works

department in this province is one of which we should all be proud, and

those same people will be incorporated in this new department.

One just has to go around the province of British Columbia to see

some of the most imaginative as well as cost-responsible buildings in

the public sector, designed frequently by our own architects within the

Public Works department, that you can find anywhere in the world and

certainly in Canada.

Our Public Works department has been a leader in Canada and has been

a model because they have had a philosophy which will carry through and

be expanded in this new corporation. The government has a

responsibility not only to be innovative, not only to be responsible in

terms of cost, but it has a responsibility to try and set an example

within a community, and this is what many of our Public Works buildings

have done in the past.

One just has to look at the Duncan courthouse to know what the

establishment of that building did for the community of Duncan. It set

an example for the private sector as to what could be done on a

responsible basis, and it encouraged the people of Duncan to reassess

the objectives of their community. This government feels that that is a

responsibility of government, and there's ample provision because of

the flexibility that is built into this bill, as well as the

accountability for this new corporation to, in fact, look at the

province as a whole, to take areas where there may well be the need for

two public buildings, but one area might be a boom area and another

area might be very much in need of stimulation to its economy, of

stimulation in terms of thinking of the character and development of

its own community and the stimulation in terms of providing jobs. There

[ Page 2182 ]

will be the flexibility of this corporation under

this legislation to do that which isn't now available to the Public

Works department.

Mr. Speaker, this bill allows for much greater co-ordination between

all departments of government in relation to space requirements,

long-term planning for space requirements and in terms of budgeting in

the long term for their own space requirements.

MR. LEA: That's deficit financing.

MRS. JORDAN: We've seen examples here....

Well, the member for Prince Rupert says.... We've seen deficit

financing. Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, we have seen thousands

and thousands of taxpayers' dollars being churned into pockets over the

last three years because the NDP government was so incompetent in its

planning that it went out and leased hundreds of square feet of office

space that was never used — office space for which they had no plan,

office space for which the department had no plan and office space for

which there was no budgeting. The taxpayers...

MR. KEMPF: That's $125,000 worth.

MRS. JORDAN: ...of this province have had to pick this up,

and this, Mr. Speaker, in itself would be enough justification for this

bill, and this will allow the departments to co-ordinate their planning

through the British Columbia Building Corp.

Mr. Speaker, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) runs around

with scare tactics, undermining the confidence of individuals, talking

about the loss of 750 civil service jobs because of this bill, and I

have only one comment to make: balderdash! Mr. Speaker, we have highly

competent people in the Public Works department and it's very clear in

this bill that these people will be utilized by the Crown corporation,

but there will be from time to time situations where a highly

specialized individual would be required. This bill merely makes

provision for that person to be hired in a capacity which does not

necessarily put that individual under the civil service.

Really, wouldn't it be foolish to go to the time consumption and the

cost of bringing an individual who's highly specialized in his own

field under the civil service for a short period of time? Surely the

thinking of the NDP isn't so rigid that they could preclude this type

of unnecessary situation and that they would shoot down a very strong

and innovative bill with that type of narrow and rigid thinking.

Mr. Speaker, there obviously is going to be development in this

corporation of its own specialized staff, and much of that staff will

come from other departments. There will be an opportunity for much

greater co-ordination and communication between departments. How often

we've seen in other provinces and even in British Columbia a situation

where you have one department building that side of town and another

department building this side of town, because each had their

bailiwick, each had their interests, and while they might not have done

it deliberately, there was no vehicle through which they could

co-ordinate this type of planning. This, Mr. Speaker, is provided for

in this bill. This again reflects the policy of this government and its

commitments in the election to accountability and to responsible

government, to allow for greater planning.

Mr. Speaker, it does allow for greater flexibility in financing; and

again we see the rigid thinking of the NDP, when they're not being

inconsistent with each other...complete incapability to accept any new

ideas, any breadth of thinking.

Mr. Speaker, they call us the coalition party. How that reflects the

narrowness of this NDP view that doesn't even know whether it's the CCF

Party or the Labour Party; they don't know whether they're socialists,

labourites, liberalites. We know in this party that rigidity to a

specific philosophy is destructive to the people of the province and to

the government. To make a corporation like the British Columbia

Building Corp. be what it is in terms of imagination and innovation,

there has to be input from ideas of all sides, and this government will

listen to good ideas from the NDP and the opposition as well, and so

they should.

Mr. Speaker, life is for the living. Life is based on reality, and

you can't sit in the corner and say: "I'm a Conservative" or "I'm a

Liberal" or "I'm a socialist." You've got to take the very best ideas

and the very best minds from all if we are ever going to meet our

problems and our commitments to this province. We're proud to sit

together, whatever area of the spectrum we represent.

MR. LEA: Down there or up there?

MRS. JORDAN: And knowing that I'm the middle of the road?

MR. LEA: But the Liberals are in the cabinet, though.

MRS. JORDAN: If to think realistically, to be flexible and to

be responsible is coalition, then I'm proud to be a coalitionist,

because, Mr. Speaker, we have a job to do and the people of this

province charged us with this job and we intend to do it.

MR. LEA: You're sure charging them.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, another point of flexibility which

is built into the British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act is an

opportunity for the

[ Page 2183 ]

private sector, local

governments — whether it's municipal or regional — and the government

to enter in concert to meet the needs of that community. It would allow

the government to plan their buildings in cooperation with the

municipality and some of theirs, and, yes, it could allow the

introduction of the private sector. If one level of government owns the

land, then is it not reasonable to be flexible enough and have the

authority to enter into lease arrangements, rental arrangements,

whatever is appropriate in terms of meeting the needs of that community

and the departments that it is to serve?

A threat to the private enterprise? A threat to other levels of

government? A threat to the people of this province? I'm sure that

member looks under the bed at night, he's so threatened. This is an

opportunity for strength for each level of government.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: It can do nothing but benefit the areas.

Already, again, if the members of the NDP would do their homework,

they would know that in this province at this time I can name three —

without even looking into a book — communities where this type of

legislation will allow the flexibility and the concert of action and

planning that is so badly needed and which is not now available under

the departmental structure and which was rejected by the former NDP

government.

Prince George, Williams Lake, Kamloops — I'd like to say Vernon, but

I don't think we're that far along on the drawing board. But the hon.

member knows that in Kamloops they are waiting to proceed, and it was

rejected by the former government. Does the hon. member for Victoria

reject that? Would the hon. member go up to Williams Lake or Prince

George or Kamloops and say, "there are bugs under the bed; don't trust

them, " when they're sitting there waiting to go?

MR. KEMPF: He wouldn't dare!

MRS. JORDAN: It's funny; they're the people involved. They're

the people with the knowledge, Mr. Member. They're the people who have

worked in their lives, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, and

they're the people who welcome this legislation because they know we

can make it work. And there will be mistakes.

MR. KEMPF: You wouldn't dare come up there.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, another portion of flexibility that

this legislation allows is in the area of charging, and appropriate

charging. As it is now with the structure of government, it's almost,

if not illegal, inappropriate for government to charge for specific

public services. We feel very strongly about the museum, for example,

and I am sure no one in this....

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the former Social Credit government built the museum. I'm glad you like it, Mr. Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke).

Your own area of New Westminster, Mr. Member, could benefit greatly

from this corporation. You should be standing up championing their

causes. I'm sure the people of New Westminster are saying: "Why is he

knocking it? Why isn't he saying that we're ready to put together a

package, that we can develop in New Westminster a unique and

pace-setting and cost-conscious complex which can do nothing but

benefit this province?"

Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted, I was trying to point out

another area of flexibility, and that's in charging. I want to make it

very clear that I'm sure there's not a member in this Legislature who

ever wants to see a fee on the British Columbia museum. But there are

areas where the inability of government to charge for a service that is

installed creates very inequitable situations around the province, and

disparities.

I would take, for example, one that's coming up, because we know

about it, in the B.C. Building: the ice rink. It is not appropriate

that every other community in this province should be raising money at

the community level to build and operate their ice arenas and yet have

a centre down in one part of the province where it would be free. It

would be extremely difficult under the present legislation for this

facility — a recreational facility for the people of the province — to

be charged for. If it seemed necessary in order to help to pay for the

operation of that ice rink and in keeping with creating as much equal

opportunity as possible around the province, under this legislation

they could charge. Mr. Speaker, this government is dedicated as much as

possible to try and create equitable situations within the province.

The whole matter of property taxation — under this corporation it

would be much easier for government buildings to, in fact, enter into a

budgeting system which did allow for property tax contributions to the

community. But I would hope if this does take place that there would be

an equalizing formula in terms of that taxation. It is not unreasonable

to see or expect development of situations where a very, very small

community could, in fact, reap millions of dollars from taxation of a

Crown asset within their area when, in fact, that money would be

excessive in terms of the needs of

[ Page 2184 ]

the people. It certainly would be most unequal in terms of the

distribution of responsibility around the province. So if this is part

of the proposal — I certainly hope it is — then I would hope that the

minister would give serious consideration to an equalizing formula.

Mr. Speaker, there are many other facets of this building that we

all support and which I personally support, but I don't want to go into

all of them. I would like to close by just saying that I believe that

within this corporation there is an opportunity to greatly influence

and stimulate the character development of this province. Through this

corporation we can help communities that are not yet aware or not yet

confident enough of their own capability to recognize that the

character of British Columbia in relation to its geographic setting,

whatever part of the province it's in, should be a motivating force.

If you want to talk in terms of dollars in the bank, then that will

be dollars in the bank in years to come. Nobody in 10 or 15 or 20 years

from now wants to travel to Seattle to Portland to Vancouver to

Williams Lake to meet one shopping centre after another, to see the

same type of building construction, the same facings and the same

character. We have to, in British Columbia, recognize — not only for

creating an environment for ourselves which is most pleasing to our way

of life and for our children — that we have to capitalize on the

uniqueness of each area of this province.

If it is the Kamloops area, then we should be using natu