1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5033 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Northeast coal development. Mr. Lockstead –– 5033

Mr. Leggatt –– 5033

Amax mine tailings in Alice Arm. Mr. Passarell –– 5034

Racial discrimination. Mr. Barnes –– 5034

Job safety in government service. Mr. Hanson –– 5036

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

On vote 161: transit services –– 5037

Mr. Barber

Mr. Nicolson

Ms. Brown

On vote 162: building occupancy charges –– 5041

Mr. Barber

On the amendment to vote 162 –– 5041

Mr. Howard

Mr. Barber

Division on the amendment

On vote 163: computer and consulting charges –– 5044

Mr. Barber

On the amendment to vote 163 –– 5045

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. King

Division on the amendment

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism estimates. (Hon. Mrs. Jordan)

On vote 183: minister's office –– 5047

Hon. Mrs. Jordan

Mr. Hall

Mr. Barber

Appendix –– 5057

TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the

members of the House will be happy to know that a former MLA is in the

public gallery. Mr. Ernie LeCours was the former member for Richmond

for a short time, 1963 to 1972. I would like the members to welcome him.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery are Mr. and Mrs. Fugeta from the city of Penticton. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a group of students from Alpha

Secondary School accompanied by their teacher. I would ask the House to

join in welcoming them.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker,

in the gallery today we have a visitor, a long-time friend of mine from

Texada Island, Mr. Gordon Copeland. I ask the House to join me in

welcoming him.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, along with

the Minister of Agriculture and Food, I would like to extend my

greetings to Mr. and Mrs. Fugeta, who are friends of my mother. I

welcome them to the House today.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

On a point of order, I seek guidance from the Speaker. During committee

earlier today the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) was asked to

withdraw from the chamber. Glancing at standing order 20, it says that

anyone who has been asked to withdraw from the chamber or who has been

ordered to withdraw from the chamber shall be absent during the

remainder of that day's sitting. I seek guidance on whether the day is

over yet.

MR. SPEAKER: I am reviewing standing order 20 and checking the wording of it.

The minister is right. It says the "remainder of that day's sitting." I'll accept an opinion from the Member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD:

I put to you, Mr. Speaker, that at the commencement of the session the

House passed a motion saying that there would be two distinct sittings

each day, and on this particular day one of those sittings was from

9:30 a.m. until 12:30 unless otherwise ordered, and it was ordered

yesterday that it commence at 10 o'clock. The second distinct, separate

sitting is commencing now.

I submit the reading of standing

order 20 should be taken as such that it means the suspension for the

balance of that day's sitting, indicating that because there are two

distinct sittings, that only applied to the sitting this morning and

not this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I do

not have a precedent for this particular question. I would ask that the

House give me perhaps the time of question period to reflect on it and,

without prejudice to the member, give a decision before we go into the

orders of the day. Is that agreed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

Oral Questions

NORTHEAST COAL DEVELOPMENT

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. In

the northeast coal project, the access roads to the townsite will be

built from Chetwynd and Dawson Creek rather than from Prince George. As

a direct result, the major suppliers to the project and the future

townsite are more economically situated in Alberta. Will the minister

advise why the routes chosen give better access to Alberta suppliers

than to B.C. suppliers? What have you got against B.C. businessmen, Mr.

Minister?

HON. MR. FRASER: The member for Mackenzie

omitted to say in there that, you bet, we're accessing it from B.C. We

have a good highway, which we didn't have when we took over government

in 1975, the Hart highway from Prince George to Chetwynd. We've rebuilt

over half of it. We have good highway access for distribution, if they

so choose, out of Prince George and north, and, of course, railroad as

well. It is not correct to say that the other accesses give access only

to Alberta.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Can I give a supplementary answer, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The only answer that would be acceptable would be an answer to a question that the minister himself took on notice.

MR. LEGGATT:

The minister, I know, is anxious to answer this question, because it's

essentially along the same lines. Concerns have been expressed,

particularly by residents of Prince George....

MRS. WALLACE: Which minister?

MR. LEGGATT: This is to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development.

Residents

of Prince George and the area have been very concerned that the jobs in

this great northeast coal project are going to go to Alberta and not to

the province of British Columbia at all. The minister knows that if

we're going to subsidize jobs, at least the British Columbians who are

subsidizing them ought to get those jobs. My question is this. Can the

minister confirm that the first B.C. Rail contract to build an access

road along the right-of-way of the Anzac spurline has been awarded to

Coal Valley Industry Ltd., a company which has mainly used non-union

labour from Alberta?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm surprised

that that member, who has never been in the area, knows so much about

the logistics of the area. I'm also surprised that that member, who

represents that socialist party that would do nothing to build highways

in that area when the great oil boom started, and all of the access to

the natural resources of that area was going to the province of

Alberta.... I stood on that side of the House and pleaded with the

socialists, when they were over here, to build some highways so that

British Columbians could have some of the benefits of their natural

resource developments. I'm really surprised that that member would be

able to stand in this Legislature and even talk about highways in that

area.

[ Page 5034 ]

Your second question I'll take as notice.

MR. LEGGATT:

Now that the minister is confirming, I think, that the first serious

contracts are going to Alberta, what I would like him to advise the

House is: what guarantees are you going to give to the workers of

British Columbia who are subsidizing this massive deal that they're

going to get some jobs out of this project?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I almost blush when I stand in this Legislature in answer to that

member's question, because he's been wrong, wrong, wrong, and he's

wrong again. He's wrong today, and he's always been wrong. Even though

the socialist hordes out there are trying to create the atmosphere that

there's great subsidization in this project, which is the greatest

that's ever taken place in British Columbia or in Canada — I know

they're trying to do that, and I'm glad — the people out there

recognize the benefits and the jobs that will flow not only to British

Columbia but to every other province in Canada from this great

development.

HON. MR. BENNETT: To Canadians.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Yes, and we're Canadians. We're more Canadians on this side of the

House than they are on that side of that House, because whenever

anybody in this House starts to talk about the constitution, what do

they do? They hide under their bloody desks; that's what they do.

Now let me.... What was your question? [Laughter.]

I have to inform the member from Coquitlam that he's wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We cannot proceed without order. The hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody.

MR. LEGGATT: Perhaps I'll speak a little slower this time so that the minister can get the question.

The

question is this: what assurance or guarantee is there that the

taxpayers and the workers of British Columbia, who are engaged in a

massive subsidy of the northeast coal project, are going to receive

jobs in the northeast, rather than the people of Alberta?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, I'm really surprised at the member's question, because he

doesn't want the coal project to go ahead and now all of a sudden that

member is concerned about jobs and where the jobs are going to go.

Well, I want to tell you that indeed we will be putting on seminars and

identifying for all British Columbia industries the opportunities that

will come from this great development. I want to tell the member that

many manufacturing and fabricating plants in the member's own riding

will receive a great opportunity to fabricate a lot of the material and

the machinery that will be used on this great development. We will

identify those opportunities by putting on seminars in Vancouver,

Prince George and indeed in the Peace River area. But I want to remind

that member over there, who all of a sudden is so interested in jobs in

British Columbia, that in this province we are Canadians.

would also like to remind that member that there are manufacturers,

engineers and other people in the province of British Columbia, indeed

some in his own riding, who — as a result of the seminar we put on for

the Alaska pipeline, where some 850 small business people from the

lower mainland came into the Vancouver Hotel while we brought over the

Alcan people and identified the jobs and opportunities that would be

available from that great project — are presently doing business with

the petroleum industry in Calgary. Until we put on that great seminar,

they did not know those opportunities existed.

MR. LEGGATT:

There is something we do know, and that is that the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development doesn't need any of those

seminars in fabrication.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

There was no question; there was only perhaps an unparliamentary

accusation. I would ask the member to withdraw any imputation of

wrongdoing,

MR. LEGGATT: Certainly I'll withdraw, and I'd be happy to rephrase the question.

My question to the minister is: does he feel that he needs to take any of those seminars in fabrication?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: May I answer the member's statement, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: We must first of all determine whether the question was in order. Does the minister wish to answer?

AMAX MINE TAILINGS IN ALICE ARM

MR. PASSARELL:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources. Yesterday A.J. Richardson, deputy chief inspector

of mines, advised the Nishga Indians that they will be barred from

attending a meeting tomorrow regarding the application by Amax for a

further permit to dump excess rock and earth into the Alice Arm

watershed. In view of widespread concern by the Nishga Indians over

their vital food fisheries in Alice Arm, has the minister decided to

allow the Nishga to attend the meeting?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I think the nature of the meeting which is being held

should be understood by all members. It is a technical meeting,

involving technical discussions not only with people from my ministry

but also with representatives from the water rights, waste management

and fish and wildlife branches in the Minister of Environment, and also

with people from the federal environmental protection service. It's

been a policy of the Ministry of Mines for many years in this province,

including the years in which the former government was in power — under

an agreement with the Mining Association of British Columbia, the B.C.

and Yukon Chamber of Mines and others — that those kinds of technical

discussions and presentations, because they deal with items of a nature

that could be of benefit to competitors, be held in private with the

companies. However, there may be opportunities at some later time for

public meetings to be held. This is not one of them.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

MR. BARNES:

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

Minister, you recently appointed Mr. John McAlpine to investigate ways

in which the Human Rights Code might be effective in dealing with the

Ku Klux Klan, a racist organization in this province. I'd like to ask

you to explain to the House why you have advised your deputy minister,

Mr. Steve Stackhouse, to interfere with the authority of Human Rights

Director Nola Landucci in the Chandrama Mishra case involving the

Vancouver Community College.

[ Page

5035 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I'm not really in a position to answer that question right now. What I

will do is take it as notice and come back to the member.

MR. BARNES:

I'd like to ask the minister if he is aware that under the NDP, the

director had the power to investigate all complaints and was given

complete access to records. Is the minister also aware that she had

access to legal counsel in pursuance of these duties, in terms of

investigating to get preliminary information?

MR. SPEAKER: The purpose of question period is to seek information, not to bring information.

MR. BARNES: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I was asking him if he was aware of the policy that had existed and was in place. That's a question.

MR. GABELMANN: The Speaker's biased.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member for North Island to withdraw the accusation that the Chair is biased.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, because of the institution of parliament, I do.

MR. SPEAKER: No, I would ask the member for North Island for an unqualified withdrawal that the Chair is biased.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw any comments that the Chair itself is unbiased,

MR. SPEAKER: I ask for an unqualified withdrawal that the Chair is biased,

MR. GABELMANN: That's what I gave you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

We give the member just a moment to reflect upon his attitude, and then

I will order the member for an unqualified withdrawal of the statement

that the Chair is biased.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat, I agree the Chair is not biased.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. KING:

On a point of order, I wish the Speaker would share with the House the

reason for ruling out of order the question of my colleague from

Vancouver Centre. It was a serious question. I think the member

deserves the courtesy of an explanation of why he is being ignored.

MR. SPEAKER:

To the best of my recollection, I said the purpose of question period

is to seek information, not to bring information to the House. A

question which asks whether the minister is aware of certain

information seems to the Chair to be a device that is used to bring

information to the House.

MR. LEA: One of the things that Mr. Speaker quite often points out to

all members of this House is.... You ask us whether we are putting forward motives

for other members, and if we say we are you say that's out of order. I ask

you, sir, are you doing the same?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is the member for Prince Rupert showing disregard for the Chair?

MR. LEA: No, I am not. I asked you a question, sir. I'm asking whether you're doing the same thing that you stop us from doing.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. The responsibility of the Chair is to determine points

of order for the entire House, whether that be in question period or

under the normal orders of the day. The decision of the Chair is

subject to an appeal to the House at any time. However, in question

period, if a question is to be determined in order or out of order,

that determination is left to the Chair itself, and the Chair tries to

be extremely lenient.

MR. BARRETT: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is sounding like a debate but I'll take an opinion from the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, is it not a fact that motivation is a subjective decision

and that the question then must be put to the member whether or not his

motive is in order or not? A subjective judgment by the Chair leaves

members feeling that motives are being interpreted without a member

having expressed an opinion as to whether or not that is subjective or

objective.

MR. SPEAKER: Well received. It is not at

all the intent of the Chair to try to determine motives; it is simply

to rule a question in order or out of order. Does that conclude the

matter? Can we proceed?

On a point of order, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I think it might be of continuing assistance for all members on both

sides of the House if they could perhaps take a second look at the

Speaker's ruling, February 28. 1977, concerning question period. It

followed the report of the select standing committee of 1973. Firstly,

questions without notice must be urgent and important; secondly,

supplementary questions may be allowed by permission of Mr. Speaker;

thirdly, no debate shall be allowed during question period; and

fourthly, the decision of Mr. Speaker shall be final on allowing or

disallowing any question. These are the rules that this House has had

before it since this report came in and since the ruling of the

Speaker. I don't think we've got anything new here.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Member.

will allow an extra five minutes in question period today because of

the time that the Chair itself took in explaining some points of order.

The second member for Vancouver Centre.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

MR. BARNES:

I'd like to repeat my question to the Minister of Labour. I was asking

the minister if he was aware that prior to his taking office under the

New Democratic Party there did exist power for the human rights

director to investigate with full authority any questions regarding

discrimination. I'm asking if he's aware of that. In other words, is he

familiar with the Human Rights Code sections 13 and 15, with respect to

the power of the director?

[ Page 5036 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Energy on a point of order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

It's my understanding that for a long time the practice — at least, as

long as I've been in this Legislature — in dealing with, first of all,

preliminary questions and then questions which follow has been that in

order to bring fullest possible information to this House, if a

minister takes a question as notice for good reason, then the proper

time to bring forward a supplementary would be when that question is

answered by the speaker, and not to bring forward supplementaries to

questions which have been taken as notice.

MR. SPEAKER:

At the time the question was taken as notice, the Chair asked for a new

question. With great respect, I think it was the intent of the member

to ask a new question, although the question which he asked did sound

as though he was bringing information to the House.

The second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. BARNES:

I think it's quite necessary sometimes to bring information in the way

of a

preamble to clarify the situation and then ask the question.

That's quite common in this House. That's all I was doing. I'm quite

prepared to drop the matter, because I think it's obvious that the

minister is not familiar with what goes on in his department.

JOB SAFETY IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE

MR. HANSON:

I have a question for the Provincial Secretary, as the minister

responsible for the Public Service Commission and more specifically the

accident prevention branch. Would the minister confirm to the House

today that the annual award — what they call the Premier's Safety Award

— for 1980 was cancelled because of the accident performance of the six

major ministries of government?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, I cannot confirm that.

MR. HANSON:

I have a document here from Mr. Long, the acting chairman and former

chairman of the Public Service Commission, which indicates that the

Forest Service and Highways have had a deterioration in accident rates

up to 157 percent over the last six months of 1980. Will the minister

tell us what actions and what agents are responsible for this

disastrous increase?

HON. MR. WOLFE: That question is

a little different than the first one. I might just correct the member

in that Mr. Long is the current chairman of the Public Service

Commission.

I'd be more than happy to bring a report to the

House on the status of the safety program and the status of this year's

safety awards. I'm not aware that any awards have been cancelled. There

may be a ministry which has not become eligible under the point system,

due to circumstances that prevailed, but I'm not aware that there's

been any cancellation of the program.

MR. HANSON: I

don't think it is necessary for there to be a report to this House, in

the sense that this is filed with the provincial library.

The

first eight months of 1980 have resulted in $7.5 million of compensable

fines for the provincial government. Why is the provincial government

seeking variances from the WCB to avoid safety regulations within the

government service?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I've undertaken to bring an answer to that question to the House, so I'll take that question as notice.

MR. HOWARD:

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, to seek the advice of the

Chair in assisting the House during question period. It arose as a

result of the extension of today's question period. Some days ago Your

Honour took under advisement the subject matter about points of order

in question period, and whether the time of question period should be

expanded as a result of time taken up by points of order and the like.

I wonder if Your Honour could advise the House when he would come back

with a ruling in that regard.

MR. SPEAKER: That decision is now nearly prepared. It could even arrive as early as later today.

However,

before we proceed, hon. members, I did undertake without prejudice, and

before we arrived at orders of the day, to take into consideration the

point of order raised by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) regarding the suspension of a member

from committee.

Standing order 20 in our own Standing Orders

says that a member whose conduct is grossly disorderly shall be ordered

"to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of that

day's sitting." It then further explains how that order shall be

carried out. May, in his eighteenth edition, on page 429 says:

"When...a member persists in disorderly conduct or conducts himself in

a grossly disorderly manner the Speaker is enjoined..."— by a standing

order — "forthwith to order him to withdraw from the House for the

remainder of the sitting...." That in itself perhaps does not clarify

the matter, but if you readjust a little further it is clarified. It

says: "....if he thinks" — this is the Speaker or the Chairman, by the

way — "the authority and the dignity of the House would not be

sufficiently vindicated by excluding the offender from the House for

the remainder of the sitting..." then the remedy would be to name him.

it appears to the Chair that when a member is excluded, if it is not

thought sufficient that the remainder of the sitting would vindicate

the House, then the second procedure should be engaged at that time. I

recommend the same to the House.

MR. LEA: On a point

of order, earlier in today's proceedings, during question period, one

of the members of the House was asked to withdraw a remark as to

whether he felt that the Chair was biased. Mr. Speaker, I'd ask for

your guidance. In my experience in the House, there has never been a

government member kicked out. There has never been an emergency

resolution by the opposition accepted. Although I know the Chair isn't

biased, the statistics from such an historical account do leave certain

members to wonder whether or not we stand any sort of chance in this

House of ever having a ruling come our way. I'm sure that Mr. Speaker

can understand that we are just a little perplexed that it always seems

to go the other way, and I was wondering whether or not there isn't

some way that Mr. Speaker could resolve this wonder in my mind.

[ Page

5037 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: . Order, please, hon.

members. The point of order was raised for the Chair to consider, and I

do not take the member's concern lightly. As long as this Speaker shall

occupy this chair, the decisions from this Chair shall continue to be

unbiased.

The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) just a few

minutes ago asked about the decision regarding question period. It is

now ready, and with the concurrence of the House, let me leave it with

you. On last Wednesday a point of order was raised by the Leader of the

Opposition as to whether or not the period of time allotted for oral

questions should be extended by virtue of points of order being raised

after commencement and before completion of the question period. The

report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private

Bills, dated February 27, 1973, which has since been adopted by the

House as a sessional order, is silent on this point. I have noted,

however, that on last May 8, the Chair ruled that oral question period

ought not to be infringed upon by the raising of a matter of privilege.

Hon. members will recall also that the Chair has recommended previously

that lengthy answers to questions previously taken on notice would best

be deferred until after question period, so as to keep intact the time

allotted.

It is the opinion of the Chair, in accordance with

the practice adopted in other jurisdictions, that points of order

generally should not be raised at all during question period, but would

more properly be deferred until the question period has been completed.

In view of the authority vested in the Chair by the sessional order, it

is very difficult to conceive of a valid point of order being raised

which would require any significant time to deal with, unless, of

course, there was any disposition to improperly engage in protracted

discussions on points of order with the Chair.

It is my view

that if the Chair itself has to interrupt question period for a

significant period, any time so utilized ought to be restored as

determined by the Chair. Should any hon. member insist upon raising a

point of order during oral question period, rather than deferring the

matter without prejudice until after the question period, any extension

of time ought best be left to the discretion of the Chair with leave of

the House according to the circumstances.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 161: transit services, $92,675,151.

MR. BARBER:

Some time ago the Premier admitted that his government has a

communications problem. There are those who would argue that it has a

credibility problem. In discussing transit, one of the major

credibility problems suffered by the coalition is the problem of

comparing its record to its promises. One of the major problems the

Minister of Municipal Affairs has is persuading anyone to take any of

his promises seriously.

This morning we were discussing the

record of half-truths associated with the administration of Municipal

Affairs in this province. I wish to briefly read into the record

half-truths that have been corrected — not for the first time, but

certainly not for the last either — by the official opposition. It was

alleged that the New Democratic Party had purchased a German rail

vehicle for transit purposes that would not fit on the tracks. That

half-truth has now been properly exposed as such, and it was done by

reading into the record the words of the former Minister of Municipal

Affairs, Mr. Curtis, who said that it fitted the tracks perfectly well

and that claims to the contrary were nonsense. He publicly chastised

B.C. Hydro for making such a false claim. This is one half-truth in the

field of transit which the official opposition rejects and repudiates

and reminds the committee of at this time.

Secondly, another

half-truth was heard by this committee. It was alleged that in 1975 the

New Democratic Party spent all of $3 million on transit. The truth is

that $3 million was spent by the Bureau of Transit Services within the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs, that additional millions were spent on

SeaBus, and that something like $24 million was spent by B.C. Hydro in

its transit division — if I recall the figure that the minister read

out when he finally admitted what was really going on before the

existence of the UTA. The half-truth was that the government of 1975....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. member, this morning we determined that the term

"half-truth" was one that was not acceptable to the Chair. All members

were asked at that time to find alternative descriptive words that

would be equally appropriate and certainly much more suitable in this

chamber. Would the member so try.

MR. BARBER: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.

I'm

not accusing the minister of telling half-truths. I do say, though,

that we heard half-truths. There is a distinction. One is

parliamentary, the other is not. I’m pursuing the parliamentary one,

with respect.

The half-truth which we heard but which we now

reject — to set the record straight — is that the New Democratic Party

spent $3 million on transit in 1975.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I just asked the member if he would refrain from use of

that term. The member said yes, and came right back with the same term.

MR. BARBER: I made it clear that I'm not charging the minister with telling a half-truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, we're referring to debate that took place this morning

among hon. members. I ask the member who is presently taking his place

in debate to use terms that are much more parliamentarily acceptable

than that one.

MR. BARBER: Okay. It was wrongly and

insupportably and unfactually alleged that the New Democratic Party

spent — we were told — all of $3 million on transit. What a ridiculous,

preposterous, incorrect statement. So the record was set straight on

that.

Also talking about transit, when my colleague the

second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) was debating, it was alleged

that he was unqualified to discuss the issue because he had allegedly

been a floor-sweeper at the Provincial Mu-

[ Page 5038 ]

seum

— as if there was something wrong with that in the first place. What's

wrong with that is that it's false. He is an anthropologist with a

graduate degree who worked for the Provincial Museum. That my colleague

from Victoria doesn't meet the social status of the millionaire

minister whose estimates we're debating is not, I think, a plausible

reason for questioning his ability to ask good questions in this

committee. That any millionaire over there doesn't care to be

associated with anthropologists or floor-sweepers — just because of

that sneering attitude — is no reason to refuse to answer questions in

this committee. I reject that, and I think the minister should have

been held accountable to answer the questions put by my colleague the

second member for Victoria. He didn't do that, so once again we are

forced, in the instance of vote 161, to debate transit services in the

absence of a complete answer from the Minister of Municipal Affairs,

who instead prefers to talk about nonexistent floor-sweepers at the

Provincial Museum.

Discussing transit further, it was also

insupportably alleged, without any factual basis, that the New

Democratic Party had bought and presumably attempted to put on the road

— although the minister didn't specifically say "on the road" —

broken-down buses from Saskatchewan. This equally incorrect,

insupportable, non-factual allegation has also been corrected by the

official opposition, which pointed out two things. First of all, the

people saved a heck of a lot of money when all of those perfectly

usable spare parts were purchased at an excellent bargain rate. They

were never intended to be put on the highways. It may be that certain

used-car dealers are familiar with the practice of throwing any old

trash on the highway. Maybe they think that's a plausible argument for

them to make against us. But the point is that we didn't because we

aren't and we wouldn't. Any claim to the contrary is simply

half-accurate or less.

There was another phony claim, and I

saw how this one happened. This morning in committee the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) turned

around and said to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm): "How long does it take SeaBus to cross Burrard Inlet?" I, who

can lip-read, saw the minister reply "20 minutes." So the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications wrote down "20 minutes" on a

pad of paper and, sure enough, a couple of minutes later he got up and

said: "It takes SeaBus 20 minutes to cross the Burrard Inlet."

AN HON. MEMBER: You lip-read wrong, Charley.

MR. BARBER:

I did not lip-read wrong. You heard it? Good. You stand up and defend

the wrong information given by your colleague the Minister of Municipal

Affairs.

Once again we see the origins of another

inaccurate, insupportable, incorrect and unfactual claim which this

committee has been all too much the victim of during the estimates of

the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The Minister of Universities,

Science and Communication was wrong. He said it took 20 minutes. He got

the information from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Then he changed

it and he said it took ten minutes to cross. Finally he abandoned any

attempt whatever to make up a figure for the crossing time.

In fact, it's variously six to eight and sometimes nine minutes. Why does

it vary, Mr. Chairman? It depends on traffic in the harbour; that's one

reason. Secondly, it depends on the orders of the harbour master. Thirdly, as

they discovered in the trials of SeaBus, which is a splendid piece of British

Columbia technology initiated and created by our administration, they discovered

it went too fast, and the wake created by the potential SeaBus speed was doing

damage to boats that were tied up at docks nearby. The harbour master ordered

them to slow down.

That's

why we have to stand up in the committee and time and time again

correct the record of misinformation for which that minister is

responsible. He tried to tell his colleague that it took SeaBus 20

minutes to cross Burrard Inlet. He embarrassed his colleague, who then

had to back down and say that it was ten minutes. It's not ten minutes

either. As I say, it is variously six to eight or nine minutes. SeaBus

is perfectly capable of doing that and might even be able to do it just

a little bit faster. But as with the Marguerite

in Seattle harbour, it is capable of a greater speed than it's allowed

to go because of the possibility of damage caused by the wake to boats

tied up nearby.

We are sick and tired of the misinformation

constantly coming from that minister. I presume that he is not being

badly advised by his public servants. I presume, because I happen to

know and respect them as individuals, that they are not giving him this

misinformation that he tries to give us. I also know that if I were a

minister and I did get that kind of misinformation from a public

servant, he would be out the door so fast that he would wonder if there

were a door there at all. I don't believe the minister is being given

misinformation by his public servants. I do believe, though, that he

has stood up in the committee during these estimates for the last three

days of debate and again and again, for whatever his political motives

may be, said completely insupportable, absolutely wrong, unfactual and

incorrect things, claims and criticisms regarding the first New

Democrat administration in this province.

We had another

illustration this morning, Mr. Chairman the final one of the six claims

made by this minister. He described the initiative taken by my

colleague from Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) to provide transit

service to the people of the Cowichan Valley as a broken-down taxi

service in the Cowichan Valley using old vehicles.

What's

the truth, Mr. Chairman? It's not what we heard from the minister. The

truth, as my colleague from Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) pointed

out, is that it wasn't a taxi in the first place, it wasn't broken down

in the second, and it wasn't old in the third. It was a brand new

eight-passenger bus that served a small community with an appropriately

sized vehicle in an energy efficient way, and it was killed by Social

Credit. That's the truth. What we heard on that instance, as well as

with the other five, is something other than the truth.

Why

the minister would be provoked or moved to go with this endless line of

misinformation that he continues to dig in this committee is beyond me.

We're sick and tired of it. The German rail vehicle fit on the tracks,

and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) said so publicly. We did

not spend $3 million on transit in 1975. A great deal more than that

was spent on transit. This party yields to no one — least of all Social

Credit — in its record of commitment to public transit in British

Columbia. My colleague, who was asking legitimate questions, was not a

floor-sweeper at the Provincial Museum. That is no reason — even if he

were — to refuse to answer his questions, as the snooty millionaire

minister did. Apparently being a floor-sweeper doesn't qualify you to

be answered.

[ Page 5039 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, personal aspersions towards members....

MR. BARBER: The minister's aspersions were wrong and offensive.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. It really does not enhance debate. I would ask the

member and all members to be a little more cautious. If we're to

complete any kind of process that we were dispatched to do here, then

we must certainly pay more attention to matters of debate and less to

somewhat personal terms, which are becoming more and more prevalent on

both sides of the House.

MR. BARBER: Well, it was

certainly not my colleague from Victoria, who he alleged had been a

floor-sweeper at the Provincial Museum. But that's another matter.

The

third totally misinformed claim of this minister was that the

government of Mr. Barrett had attempted to put broken-down buses from

Saskatchewan, as he described them — which had been bought for spare

parts — into service in British Columbia.

The next

phony-baloney claim was that of the alleged inadequacy of SeaBus, when

he told his colleague the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications that it took 20 minutes — and then it was ten minutes,

and then he abandoned any figure at all, because none of them were

accurate.

The final completely incorrect claim....

HON. MR. HEWITT: It's unbelievable.

MR. BARBER: It certainly is. It's unbelievable that a minister of the Crown would think he could get away with this nonsense.

The

sixth and final piece of total misinformation from this first member

for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) was that the New Democratic Party had

supplied a broken-down taxi service in the Cowichan Valley, which, upon

examination, turns out to have been a brand-new eight-passenger bus.

The Premier says his government's problem is communications. We say

it's credibility, and we say the committee now knows why.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, I rise to correct a statement made by the member across

the floor, whether or not it's other than the truth he's telling or

whether it's information. But the remark that was passed — which I

heard and didn't lip-read, Mr. Member for Victoria — was "between eight

and ten minutes"; it was not 20, as you so stated.

MR. BARBER:

That's an even more amazing admission of Social Credit incompetence. If

the minister told Mr. McGeer, the Minister of Science, that it took

eight to ten minutes, why did he turn around and tell us it took 20?

Which way is it, you guys?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr.

Chairman, I don't want to debate this issue with the first member for

Victoria, but when he talks about "half-truth" or "less than the truth"

or "misinformation" — and he considers himself an expert from across

the floor, lip-reading — regardless of what the Minister of Science

said, the first member for Victoria is attacking the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. I want to assure that member and the House that the

correct figures stated were "eight to ten minutes." And I would

suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that member tell the truth and not just

less than the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Hon. members, I must again ask, if any imputation from the minister

toward the first member was made, for a withdrawal of any imputation to

that member. Would the member so withdraw.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, yes, I would be pleased to withdraw any imputation with

regard to telling less than the truth. I'm just saying the member

misinformed the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: "Misinformed" is one thing and "tell less than the truth" is something else.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman, apparently the only person who misinformed the House was

the Minister of Science who, it is alleged, did not correctly report

the advice he had received from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. For

some reason or another he was prompted to say "20 minutes," while

apparently he was told "eight to ten." Now if I mis-lipread, I'm

delighted to be corrected, but not by that minister of all people. The

minister for Spetifore is hardly....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. We're on vote 161, and I'd ask the member

and all members to bear in mind that somewhere along the way we have an

obligation to follow the rules that bind us in this committee, and to

be strictly relevant to the points we discuss. Otherwise we get off on

tangents, we start personal attacks and we accomplish very little to

the benefit of all whom we are here to represent.

MR. BARBER:

What we've done is illustrate six instances, six cases, six events, six

encounters with the truth; and we see who won and who did not win when

the facts came out regarding the truth.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: There were closer encounters on the part of some than others.

Now

what I wish to do is remind the committee that I will be calling a

division on vote 16 1. The purpose of that is, once again, to set the

record straight, because there are some who allege that the New

Democratic Party is less than concerned with public transit. That's

nonsense, it's gibberish, it never was and never will be true. Our

commitment is clear and obvious. Our commitment stands in part on the

record of achievement when were in government the first time around. We

will vote in favour of this and we will call a division as soon as the

government is ready.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I want to respond very briefly to the six points raised by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber).

Firstly,

I certainly am on record as having said the German train did fit the

track, but it had the wrong calibration, and you can't run it on the

track. That's not to say it won't sit on the track, but you can't run

it. I said that very clearly. He conveniently picked up only a portion

of it.

I didn't say that B.C. Hydro was not involved in transit services; I simply said that the provision by the then NDP

[ Page 5040 ]

government was something in excess of $3 million for the year 1975. I did not mention the B.C. Hydro transit contribution.

Third,

I'll bet you I do more floor-sweeping than anybody in here, because I

love floor-sweeping. Every chance I get I go out to my nursery and

sweep floors. I think it's great. What's wrong with floor-sweeping? Is

that such a terrible thing? I don't know why these academics always get

it into their heads that anything like floor-sweeping, digging or

shovelling is bad. I think it's wonderful. I think to shovel is the

greatest thing ever invented.

Broken-down Saskatoon buses.

That has not been denied. They were a part of the bus purchases. The

member himself admitted that these broken-down buses were used for

parts. That's fine; if they decided to buy a fleet of buses from

Saskatoon for parts, I guess, that was their foolish mistake. I only

made mention of that.

SeaBus. When my colleague asked I told

him it was initially designed for eight minutes, but because there was

a problem with the speed across from central Vancouver to the North

Shore and the waves it caused, they cut it back to ten. So it takes ten

minutes, which is 20 minutes for a turnaround, or approximately that.

With

respect to the taxi service in Duncan, I used that as an example in

response to the Leader of the Opposition when he said we can provide

commuter service to Mission by stopping the CPR train when it comes

through. I remind him that it runs on a very irregular schedule, only

once every so many days, and that would not be satisfactory for the

people in Mission. That would be a ridiculous approach, just as

ridiculous as the purchase of a broken-down taxi service for Cowichan.

It wasn't a good taxi service or they wouldn't have required a subsidy.

It was obviously broken-down. I compared and criticized that particular

act just as I criticized the former administration for subsidizing,

purchasing and running parlour buses and trips to Reno at taxpayers'

expense.

I think I've covered all the points, but there's

one final point I wish to see covered. This morning the Leader of the

Opposition said: "All you've done for transportation is dump the load

on the local taxpayer. You tell the local taxpayer that you would never

vote for a formula that calls for escalation because there's

inflation...." Then, he says, I go ahead and put on a gas tax. "Every

time those people buy gas they're paying for their transportation....

We never dumped that on gasoline or on the municipalities." For the

benefit of the hon. members here I refer to the budget speech of 1975.

On page 27....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Who was in government?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

That was the NDP government. It has a picture of the Minister of

Finance, the Hon. Dave Barrett, Premier, right on the front cover. It

says: "The government intends to continue the orderly development of

such systems" — meaning transit systems — "both because of their

favourable effect on the development of our cities and for reasons of

fuel conservation. To this end I am announcing today an increase in

motor fuel taxes of two cents per gallon." They conveniently forget

those things. They want to forget, and they somehow don't want to be

reminded of them as in this debate they batter us with a lot of

innuendo and things that have no relevance to the vote we're dealing

with.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm in favour of this vote. I'm

in favour of $92,675,151 being allocated for transit. Last year I was

in favour of $77,765,000 being allocated for transit. We can give the

minister a cheque — not a blank cheque, but a cheque up to a certain

amount — but there is nothing to guarantee that after it is passed in

the House he intends to make that kind of investment in transit.

What

did the minister do last year? According to the details of expenditure

for the 10 months from April 1, 1980, to January 31, 1981, for the

first ten months the ministry had spent less than $50 million out of

that almost $78 million. So either it intends to be spending on transit

hand over fist for the last two months — in other words spend as much

money in two months as they were taking five months to spend — or it's

another area where they have overestimated their expenditures. Of

course, we know that they've underestimated their revenues.

What we're really voting for here, no doubt, is B.C. Place, the convention

centre and any other fancy that might strike some of those cabinet ministers.

But there is no guarantee that this money will really be spent for what it

is being allocated for by this Legislature. I think that this House deserves

some explanation as to why the minister came here last year with his cap in

hand asking the Legislature to approve almost $78 million when he only

spent $50 million.

he goes on at a normal rate to the end of the year, there's going to be

$60 million spent and there's going to be a surplus of $17 million.

That's a pretty rough estimation. If this money is not really going to

be spent, then this money should be saved. I very strongly suspect that

what we have here is just another piece of evidence that we really

didn't need a tax increase this year.

This is just another

one of the little building blocks — the unravelling of this budget,

which will go on. This isn't the only minister who has been caught up

in this flimflam. I suspect that there is $17 million, and probably in

these new estimates I suspect that the real figure to be spent is

probably closer to about $72 million than it is to $92 million.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I'm very pleased to see with us today, formerly from Richmond and now

living in Victoria, Mr. Ernie LeCours and also a good friend of mine

from Surrey, Mr. Peter Zeemen. I would ask the House to bid them

welcome.

Very quickly again, the estimate was $77 million.

By the time all the bills come in — there are outstanding bills — we

will have spent $73 million this year. That certainly would indicate a

balance of $4 million, which is not bad. Frankly, in the area of

transit you're dealing with estimates, which are given you by bodies

such as the Urban Transit Authority, Pacific Coach Lines, the custom

bus service and Cariboo West. You're dealing with other agencies and

are receiving their budgets and you're preparing your budget on the

basis of the information given by these other bodies. So the estimates

which we're looking at today are based on the figures which were given

us by UTA, by Custom bus and Pacific Coach.

[ Page 5041 ]

MS. BROWN:

I was pleased to hear the minister say that they're going to have $3

million left over. I hope that $25,000 of that will be placed back in

the budget so that the blind people in Vancouver and Victoria will have

the use of their bus passes and not have them taken away from them as

this minister has managed to allow to happen.

Vote 161 approved unanimously on a division.

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

On vote 162: building occupancy charges, $504,000.

MR. BARBER:

How much more proof do we need, Mr. Chairman, of a negative government,

automatically reflex, opposed to anything the opposition stands for?

Vote

162 is the building occupancy charges of the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs, which this year has gone from $349,000 to $504,000. This is a

spectacular increase of 44 percent in one year. Forty-four percent in a

year of restraint does not, on the surface, sound justifiable.

ask the minister to tell us whether or not the total floor space

occupied by the ministry increased by 44 percent last year or will this

year. If so, perhaps he can justify how that's gone up. As well, would

he tell us who his landlord is? If the landlord is the Crown, will he

tell us why he's been so badly fleeced by one of his own colleagues? If

your floor space didn't go up and your rent did and your landlord is

the Crown, I'm not sure you should be paying another 44 percent.

The

minister told us earlier during a previous vote that his staff had

increased by 20 persons. Well, once again the record doesn't quite bear

that out. At the beginning of the estimates of the Ministry of

Municipal Affairs, we discovered that the staff has not gone up by 20

at all; they have gone up from 114 to 130. This is an increase of 16,

not 20. In a ministry as small as that of Municipal Affairs, a

difference of four persons is considerable. It's not like the Ministry

of Health, which has 5,000 employees. It's a small ministry — perhaps

the very smallest in government, next to Finance.

Under

another vote the minister tells us the reason we should pay more for

travel and office expenses is because he has 20 new staff.

Unfortunately the minister's own estimates indicate that it went from

114 to 130. As usual, his figures are wrong. But he needn't believe a

New Democrat — just read his own estimates. They would tell you it went

from 114 to 130. That's not an increase of 20; it's an increase of 16.

No doubt the minister will have some excuse about the anticipated

retirements for this year. However, that's still no excuse for an

increase of 44 percent under vote 162 for building occupancy. I

therefore move that vote 162 for building occupancy be reduced by

$156,000 so that the minister will be restricted to last year's

expenditures and so that the minister will practise the restraint that

Social Credit preaches but never actually delivers.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

well, I would observe that the New Democratic Party was using a chart

earlier today to demonstrate this, but that was not allowed, so I must

now take somewhat longer in order to describe it verbally. We have been

making a series of excellent proposals for budget cuts. These proposals

would have seen $12 million in waste and fat lopped off the Ministry of

Forests estimates. It would have seen $600,000 in waste and fat and

overexpenditure lopped off the estimates of the Ministry of

Universities, Science and Communications. Unfortunately the government

has seen fit not to accept any of the opposition's constructive

amendments for fiscal restraint. During this vote as well, we have

attempted to reduce the total estimates of the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs by $368,308. The specific amendment before us is to reduce

spending by $156,000.

This year the government wants 44

percent more than they wanted last year for building occupancy charges.

In a year of restraint, this is not justifiable. In a government that

supposedly governs by example, this is the worst possible example. We

ask that the government accept our amendment and reduce its spending to

last year's level.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

The increase in staff is: building standards, a transfer of seven

people; planning from ELUC, nine people; education officers — these are

two new positions that have been continually requested by the UBCM, and

finally we have been able to respond to their request. We have provided

two education officers who, of course, travel the province and provide

information not only to newly elected members of council but also to

new staff, etc. They provide a lot of information to clerks and other

people in the various municipalities. The downtown revitalization

program has approved four people, although they are not all on staff,

and that number may not be required. The standards appeal board has two

people. The total is 24. Then there's a decrease of two from

engineering: one transfer and Islands Trust one, for a balance of 21.

It's a figure of 21, and I hope that is of some assistance to the

member.

With respect to the building occupancy vote, as the

member is aware and I mentioned previously, we have the transfer of the

building standards branch and the ELUC secretariat staff, so obviously

we required additional space in that building. It's not a Crown

building; it's leased from an individual. It's a lease which is fairly

recent but which will have some considerable time left. The building

occupancy vote also provides for the establishment of four regional

offices: Cranbrook, Kamloops, Smithers and Penticton. If the hon. first

member for Victoria — because so often they don't see beyond Victoria —

is suggesting that we remove those regional offices and not give the

people in the Kootenays, the Cariboo, the north country or the Okanagan

the opportunity of dealing at the local level with respect to planning

problems or other matters that can best be dealt with regionally, then

I think that should be his motion, not a blanket one to go back to last

year and deny these people these facilities.

With this new

information, I thought he was going to ask initially before his motion,

because that's how his comments began.... When you're discussing

various votes, the fair thing for an opposition member is to get up and

question the vote if there is something not entirely clear. It's not

only the right thing; it's certainly the intelligent thing to do.

Instead, he stood up and made some comments which I thought would lead

to a question. He almost appeared to indicate that he would ask the

question, and next he made the motion for an amendment. I would ask

that he consider this and withdraw his amendment in light of the

accurate information that's been given him now, which he could have had

initially — and apologize too.

[ Page 5042 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the debate has been parliamentary.

MR. HOWARD: I understood the minister to say he gave accurate information to the committee. What a switch!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let's remember that all members of the House are honourable.

MR. HOWARD:

I want to deal a bit with the landlord, who I gather is largely B.C.

Buildings Corporation. I understood the minister to say that there are

some outside, private leases involved or something of that sort. Am I

incorrect that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs does not use space

provided by B.C. Buildings Corporation?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, you're incorrect.

MR. HOWARD:

Could I ask the minister a question then? Does the Ministry of

Municipal Affairs use space or rent space provided by B.C. Buildings

Corporation?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, one

of the things that I certainly appreciate as a member of the

Legislature looking at all of these estimates is that we now for the

first time — certainly it's not this year for first time, but it was

something introduced by this government — are able to tell exactly what

it is costing the various ministries for building space. I think that's

good and healthy. It's something that people ought to know. That's

certainly to the credit of this government. Of course, like all

ministries, we deal through the B.C. Buildings Corporation. They

arrange for the space and we deal with them.

MR. HOWARD:

The B.C. Buildings Corporation, Mr. Chairman, is one of those agencies

established by this government in order to hide some debt and not have

it show on the books of the province. It's part of the function of the

corporation. The B.C. Buildings Corporation annual report for March 31,

1980, says that it incurred in that one year an additional amount of

$18,386,000 of long-term debt. It had at that time a total long-term

debt of $86,386,000 plus short-term borrowings, promissory notes

payable to the province on demand, accounts payable, etc., plus

short-term indebtedness of $203,985,000. One of the things that is

happening is that the government — and the minister is proud of it —

set up a corporation so that they could hide the debt from public view.

Who

pays the interest on the debt? It's the direct obligation of the

taxpayers through the estimates here to provide the funds for building

occupancy charges. A fair proportion of that goes to pay interest on

debt — something in the neighbourhood of nearly $290 million of debt —

incurred in just a short three- or four-year period by this agency

called B.C. Buildings Corporation.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD:

The Minister of Transportation and Highways said something there. I

don't know if Hansard caught it. If I can repeat what he said it was:

"We're still paying off your debt." I'm quoting him now.

The fact of the matter is that there was no debt incurred when the NDP was

government — not a penny. That $261 million was a fabricated figure — absolutely.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I will ask the Minister of Transportation and Highways not to interrupt

the member who is speaking. I will further ask the member for Skeena to

relate his argument and debate to the amendment which is before us. I

should point out that there will be ample time in another vote to

criticize or debate the entire matter of BCBC. If we could stick to the

amendment to vote 162, the committee would be well served.

MR. HOWARD:

That's what I'm seeking to do and yet, as you know, Mr. Chairman, when

a member of the government interjects a comment of that nature, the

record needs to be put straight, because comments of that nature are

not factual. So long as they are raised, then the truth of the matter

has to be put forward in balance.

B.C. Buildings

Corporation, I say again, was an agency created by this government so

that B.C. Buildings Corporation could incur the debt and the province

could stand there and say: "Oh, we don't owe any money." That's

fiction. That's $290 million worth of it incurred by B.C. Buildings

Corporation to the end of March 31, 1980. Whether they incurred any

additional debt in the fiscal year immediately preceding the one we're

in now I don't know, because that report is not available. So part of

the building occupancy charges before us that the amendment seeks to

reduce are to pay the interest on that debt. It's for no other purpose.

Secondly,

they built into this B.C. Buildings Corporation a fictional thing

called "net profits" and another fictional thing called "dividends."

Where do they get the net profit? They get it from the rent they charge

to groups and ministries like the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. They

charge the ministry building occupancy charges — charge them rent. They

charge an excessive amount of rent, just so they can satisfy the

bookkeeping entry called net profit or retained earnings and so they

were able to say as they did in 1979 that we have provided a dividend

to the people of B.C. of $10 million that comes back in the form of a

cheque on the other side of the account. Where do they get the $10

million? They got it from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and every

other ministry. Why did they have that excess amount of money to put

back on the other side? Because they charged excessive rents. That's

why. They did so well in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980, that

they returned — or so their annual report says — $18,342,000

overcharge. That's $18 million in excessive charges for rent.

That's

why we're seeking to reduce this item. The history of B.C. Buildings

Corporation has shown that it charges excessive rents in order that it

can turn around and give some of the money back again and say: "Aren't

we a wonderful corporation? Aren't we doing well? We're making a

profit."

In addition to that, for each of the two preceding

years the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has not expended the full

amount of the funds allocated by the committee for building occupancy

charges. He always had a shortage. He always came to this Legislature

and asked for more money than he needed. Now with that record of two

successive years — in the two years preceding the one we're in now —

saying, "I want more money than I'm really going to spend," plus the

fact that the B C. Buildings Corporation is padding the rent in any

event in order to pay the interest on debt and create a surplus that

they're going to feed back into the treasury someplace, is there any

reason in the history of this ministry

[ Page 5043 ]

that we should not reduce that item, regardless of what he talks about, regardless of these regional offices?

say to him that if he were a competent manager of the public funds, he

would sit down with B.C. Buildings Corporation and he'd say: "Look,

you've been overcharging me the last two years in a row. I'm not going

to stand for it anymore." If the minister cared enough to put his money

where his mouth is, as the expression goes, he would be dealing with

B.C. Buildings Corporation.... Now that the minister is looking at me,

I'll restate the statement. You should be saying to B.C. Buildings

Corporation: "Look, you guys, you overcharged me last year. You

overcharged me the year before that. You created a surplus out of this

overcharge. I won't stand for it anymore. You guys pare the rent

charges back to the bone. Save the taxpayers of this province some

funds, some money."

Never mind twisting the thing about

regional offices in Cranbrook and Smithers. We know they're going to be

there, but we're just saying that the minister has come forward to this

committee and to the House with a padded account for building occupancy

charges that he cannot justify. All we're seeking to do to him is what

he said to the thousands of people who were clients of the Ministry of

Human Resources when he was the minister: "Tighten your belt a little

bit, Bill." Save the taxpayers some money. That's all we're asking.

MR. BARBER:

To conclude for the opposition, Mr. Chairman, it's quite clear from the

brilliant and extremely helpful analysis of my colleague from Skeena

how it is that the B.C. Buildings Corporation turns a phony profit

every year, Oh, come on, that's not unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not saying it's unparliamentary...

MR. BARBER: Well, then don't look like you're groaning.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

...but I would suggest that we are referring to a vote that is not

before the committee yet, or at least we could be leading that way. I

would ask, as the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) did, if we could

contain our remarks to the amendment that is specifically before the

House now. I'm sure the hon. member can do that.

MR. BARBER:

That's right, and I am. I'm saying that the excellent analysis of the

member for Skeena, as the House Leader for the official opposition,

makes it perfectly clear that the B.C. Buildings Corporation appears to

be overcharging its clients; otherwise, how could they possibly justify

a profit? It's one agent of the government charging another agency of

the government and ripping them off by making a big profit. Why do we

ask that this ministry be held to last year's office expense? Why do we

have this amendment put forward? It is to help prevent the fleecing of

the poor Minister of Municipal Affairs by the big, bad B.C. Buildings

Corporation. If B.C. Buildings Corporation was operating like it should

be, it would break even. That's the idea of it. But no, it tries to

make a phony paper profit for some political purpose that is simply

weird and ridiculous, except in a Social Credit province where this

sort of flimflam is traditional. For that reason, we reject the

minister's completely inadequate defence of his proposal to increase

rental expenditures this year by 44 percent.

Secondly, as

usual the minister's figures don't add up. He told the committee

earlier he had 20 new employees. He now tells us he has 21. At page 199

of the estimates, we learn that he only has 16. It tells us that last

year's staff were 114 and this year's will be 130. That's 16, not 20 or

21. I don't ask the minister to believe any of our figures. I ask him

to look at his own and realize the contradictions. His estimates say

16. An hour ago he said 20. This hour it's 21. What will it be

tomorrow, Mr. Chairman? What new figure will we have tomorrow from this

incompetent minister?

Further, our administration and our

party proudly and profoundly support decentralization. We did it with

resource boards. We did it in many fields. I'm glad that the Minister

of Municipal Affairs has finally taken advice that I offered in 1976

that it start operating field offices. I argued in 1976 that they go

out and meet the folks where the folks are, but I would never be such a

wastrel as to tell this committee that I need half again as much money

as I had last year to run four field offices, which will apparently

only have two or three employees each. Now one or two people, plus a

phone,and two desks, hardly justify an increase of 44 percent in one

year for rental charges.

The minister has admitted that he's

using private suppliers of rental space. Now that's a strange twist,

because I remember when the former minister, Mr. Curtis, opened the

Robert Ker Building on Blanshard in Victoria, and that was owned and

paid for by the public courtesy of our administration's "pay as you go"

policy. None of this phony-baloney B.C. Buildings Corporation — we paid

as we went. At that time it was dedicated to the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs. Well, apparently for some reason — I know what it is, but I

won't mention it in committee — they were moved out of that building,

and they are now into the home of a private supplier who clearly

charges far too much.

On behalf of the taxpayer, who is

being fleeced by B.C. Buildings Corporation in order to turn a paper

profit and who is being fleeced — it would appear — by private

suppliers who are charging too much, and who is perfectly well able to

understand that you don't need 44 percent more rent if you only have 16

more staff out of a total of 130, we argue that this amendment should

pass because we know the minister's arguments have failed.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 25

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 28

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Davidson

Mussallem

[ Page 5044 ]

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

Vote 162 approved.

On vote 163: computer and consulting charges, $143,750.

MR. BARBER:

This is the last opportunity for the committee to get serious about

cutting costs, trimming fat and getting rid of wasteful Socred

expenditures. This is the last attempt that the official opposition

will make during this estimate, but not during these estimates, to

reduce the ridiculous attempt by Social Credit to overcharge the people

of British Columbia and to over spend within given portfolios.

earlier indicated — this morning I did it by a chart that visually made

it perfectly clear how these things worked — that the New Democrats

have taken the initiative to cut waste in this current budget. We

proposed reductions of $12 million worth of waste in the Ministry of

Forests; we proposed reductions worth $600,000 in the Ministry of

Universities, Science and Communications; and in the Ministry of

Municipal Affairs we have proposed reductions in the amount of $368,000

worth of waste caused and created by Social Credit.

We have

observed that this government has asked for a travel grant increase of

192 percent in Municipal Affairs. They've asked for office expenses to

go up 133 percent, the advertising budget to go up by 266 percent and

the office rental budget to go up by 44 percent.

Now we have

at hand vote 163, computer and consulting charges. This is one of the

worst of all. In one year this government wants an increase of 193

percent for one estimate. They propose to go from $49,000, which they

spent last year — or claimed last year — to $143,750 this year. This is

a ridiculous example of restraint. In fact it is an accurate example of

just the opposite. For computer charges to go up by 193 percent in one

year again reveals two things.

First of all yet another Crown corporation is overcharging, ripping off and fleecing the taxpayers. Anyone who reads Monday magazine

saw in last week's issue, and will see again in this week's issue, an

excellent analysis by Jack Danylchuk of what's gone wrong with the B.C.

Systems Corp. The member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) will

remember that when the Systems Corp. was promised it was further

promised that it would save the taxpayers money. The minister at the

time promised that this was an attempt to reduce, control and limit

public expenditure in the field of computer services. In fact, the

spending of the Systems Corporation is wildly and recklessly out of

control, and a great deal of press attention has been spent lately

examining the way in which the reckless policies of Social Credit have

lent themselves to such grotesque overexpenditures in the field of

computer services. Here is another example, Mr. Chairman.

The

minister wants 193 percent more money this year than last year for

computer charges. We can only presume it's because he has ill-advisedly

taken on projects in a year of restraint that cannot be afforded. We

can only presume as well that he is being charged much too much by the

Systems Corporation for their services. We might presume that they were

being charged too much by outside suppliers, but I have to hope that

they have not gone to outside suppliers for this estimate. If they did,

Mr. Chairman, they'd be totally contradicting the promise their own

Premier made three and a half years ago. They wouldn't want to do that,

would they?

Mr. Chairman, we have proposed reductions of

$368,000 in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs' estimates. This is a

bold and new initiative by the New Democratic Party to reassure the

people of British Columbia that this House is doing its business

properly and that this committee is playing a watchdog role over public

expenditures. What has Social Credit done? They have totally undermined

the traditional role of this committee. They've done what we expected

them to do, Mr. Chairman, to put it charitably. They've done what the

people of British Columbia have come to expect them to do: they talk

tough outside, but inside they vote soft, and they give in to every

ridiculous scheme and proposal of the big spenders in cabinet, one of

the worst of whom is the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

predict that this government with its majority will force its

spendthrift way on the committee from now till the end of this

committee's sessions, some time in September or October. At the end of

it, I predict that they will have rejected all of the cost-cutting

measures proposed by the fiscally prudent and responsible New

Democratic Party of British Columbia. I predict that they will reject

them all and they will say yes instead to the big, mighty, wasteful

spenders in the coalition cabinet. There is no way that the minister

can justify any project that requires his computer services to increase

by 193 percent in one year. It may well be more, as my colleague from

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) will shortly demonstrate. However, it is

minimally 193 percent. What does the official opposition do in the

amendment I'm about to propose, Mr. Chairman? We do not propose to

reduce them to nothing.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER:

We've already done our homework and we know the ridiculous answers

you'll supply, so we won't bother. We're not going to believe any

excuse you may offer to justify an increase of 193 percent in one year.

Mr.

Chairman, imagine what would have happened if a New Democrat

administration of today had come in here with a proposal to increase

the computer charges and consulting services in this ministry by 193

percent. If the member for Surrey were in the House at such a time, do

you know what he'd say? He would stand up and he would say: "It's

wrong; it's not justified; it's a bad example; it's no restraint; it's

unacceptable and it should be denied." However, now that he's minister,

now that he's the victim and a member of the big-spenders team in

caucus in that unholy coalition of car dealers, et al., we see that he

has forsaken his former Liberal principles and political promises when

he ran as MLA for Surrey. We anticipate that he will stand up and offer

another ridiculous, grotesque, weird and unbelievable explanation for

why he's asking for another 193 percent in one year. There is no

project that we can imagine which would justify such an increase.

can imagine that this minister falls victim to the unnecessarily high

charge of the Systems Corporation, because we know something now about

the record of charges made by that corporation. Even another Eckardt

redistribution wouldn't cost 193 percent more than last year. The

minister, I predict, will stand up and rattle off a list of

expenditures, item by item, which he thinks will justify to the

[ Page 5045 ]

public

an increase of 192 percent in one year for computer and consulting

charges. We tell him that no matter what rationale he may care to

offer, politically it won't wash. The public of British Columbia will

not buy it, just as they reject travel expenditures being upped by 193

percent, office expenses going up by 133, advertising by 266 percent,

building occupancy charges by 44 percent, and so too, in a year of

restraint, will they also reject computer charges going up by the

phenomenal figure of 193 percent.

We imagine the minister

will offer some lame excuse for this reckless, out-of-control spending

by the coalition. But we tell him in advance that it will not be

accepted or believed by anyone. It would not even have been accepted by

Social Credit when they were in opposition. It is rejected by the New

Democratic Party now, and we therefore move that vote 163 be reduced by

the sum of $94,750.

Let me go on to point out that we are

not cutting back to zero. We're simply holding the minister to last

year's expenses. We're holding him to last year's budget. We're holding

him to last year's performance, for what it was worth. We are holding

him to restraint, caution and fiscal prudence. This is the target, this

is the philosophy, and this is the aim of the New Democratic Party in

tough economic times. We have moved many responsible amendments to

reduce spending during the last three days of debate on this minister's

office. We ask him to take this one last opportunity to clear his name

of the charge that he is a wasteful, reckless spender of public funds

and vote instead for this amendment.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, I won't ask for a withdrawal of those statements.

Anything like that coming from the NDP is probably a compliment.

They

don't want to be reminded of the bad NDP days. I won't go through it as

I did previously. I think they've got the message about that. They

don't want any facts, figures or information. They're not prepared to

ask questions, as is normally the procedure in this particular exercise

when we're dealing with budgets. You question the votes or various

components of it. They don't want to know that. They don't want any

information. They just want to go and recklessly move this or move

that, without really having any awareness of why it is they're moving

what. For the last three amendments the first member for Victoria

wanted to withdraw after initially having made the move. I'm sure he

did, but because he had already made the motion, of course he wanted to

proceed with it. But if instead he was to get the information first, we

could save all of that, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure it would save him a

tremendous amount of embarrassment.

I've had to repeat

continually that many of our programs in the ministry are devised to

give information and services to the northeast

section of the province,

the northwest

section of the province, the Kootenays, the Okanagan and

the Cariboo — those areas of the province from which we gain many of

our resources and which certainly provide benefits not only to the

communities there but to the people of Vancouver and Victoria.

Continually, every attempt by this ministry to provide services to

those areas is argued and debated by the first member for Victoria,

whose mentality unfortunately doesn't go beyond the ferry landing just

outside of Victoria. As a matter of fact, I doubt if it really goes

beyond the shopping centre on the outskirts of town. Again, I really

must point out that we have an obligation to provide services to those

outlying communities.

In this computer service program, we

have the moneys for the first time to take and change over the

information program that has been in effect within the ministry for a

good number of years through a computerized program. So instead of a

manual program we will now have a computerized program. It's a

non-recurring, one-time charge, but it must be provided for in this

budget, as that is the appropriate place. This will give us information

very quickly, The trouble with the manual information was that it

really wasn't of any assistance until it was complete. That was often

too late. A computer program will allow us to make proper projections,

etc., to guide municipal programming and to provide for an interface

between the statistical information we have available within the

ministry and that which is required from day to day at the municipal

level.

The cost of preparing this program is in total

about $70,000. It's not only an opportunity to provide for comparative

costs in recreation from one community to the next, comparative per

capita debt, or comparative costs for fire protection; it will also

give us the opportunity to very quickly provide information for the

Municipal Finance Authority in its dealings with the bond people in New

York or wherever. We're all aware that the Municipal Finance Authority

— as did the B.C. government, to its credit — received a triple-A

rating because of the good economy of British Columbia. It is one of

the very few agencies in the whole of North America that had the honour

to be awarded it this year. In order to maintain that excellent rating.

which obviously is of tremendous advantage to the municipalities in

their borrowing, we should be in a position to very quickly provide

financial information about any municipal authority or group of them to

the Municipal Finance Authority for their dealings with the bond people.

that explains it, Mr. Chairman. It's a one-time charge. It's to change

over from what was. I could show you a chart, if it were permitted; I

had one prepared.

MR. BARBER: Go ahead. Bill; we approve.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

No, Mr. Chairman, I won't, because I respect the rules of the House. I

don't want you to have to go through all that the Chairman had to go

through this morning with respect to the chart on the desk of the first

member for Victoria.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Maybe we'll still have some money in the budget for that office in

Smithers. Anyway, I don't think that amendment passed, did it?

certainly want to see this program develop for the benefit of all

municipalities. But as I said, it's especially important for the

smaller communities outside urban Vancouver and Victoria to have this

information, and that it be available to the Municipal Finance

Authority in order that the municipalities receive the best rates when

borrowing money for the many municipal projects now in progress and

which will be undertaken during the next year.

Finally,

today and yesterday there was a great deal said about municipal

population statistics. This approach will provide better opportunities

for us to compile the statistical information for municipalities with

respect to population, which will be a fantastic help in the

revenue-sharing program. All members are aware that there is a problem

[ Page 5046 ]

municipalities

continually wanting to see this updated — and I don't blame them. Once

more, we have had some difficulty in getting the necessary information

because of the manual process. So this one-time charge is certainly

well justified.

Possibly the hon. first member for Victoria would want to withdraw his amendment.

MR. BARBER: No chance!

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Before recognizing the next member, I must point out that in the debate

between the first member for Victoria and the Minister of Municipal

Affairs there were certain personal reflections made by each member

upon the other member. The Chair finds that unparliamentary. If we can

contain our debate to the amendment before us, it would be most

appreciated by the committee. I'm sure all hon. members, including the

Minister of Municipal Affairs and the first member for Victoria,

understand that.

MR. NICOLSON: We're led to believe

that there's a one-time increase in this particular vote of this

particular ministry. I've done a perusal of every ministry, and I would

say that there's a one-time increase in almost every ministry. When

you're talking about saving money.... You can always make up a case for

needing something more. But what are we doing? He said they're doing

away with the manual information program, and they're going to have a

one-time expenditure. It's going to cost $70,000 to prepare a program —

to do what? To compare communities and to compare their debt service

ratios, and to compare, I think he said, something about recreational

facilities, and so on. I think this is something we could very well do

without. It sounds to me like the minister is trying to become a Big

Brother — information is power — collecting all kinds of information

about various municipalities, so that when they try to explain their

difficulties the minister will be able to try and intimidate the

municipalities.

I look at this vote, as I look at others,

and I see that last year he asked for $49,000. In the first ten months

he had spent $34,083. If you extrapolate that to the end of the year,

he will spend about $40,899. So what he's asking for is about a 250

percent increase over what will probably be spent in this fiscal year.

We're just saying yes, Mr. Minister, everybody would like to do

everything all at once. If there's anything the people of British

Columbia have been telling governments, and are telling governments all

over North America, it is: "Slow down, it's our money, it's not your

money." Mr. Minister, if you think that to have information that you

can use as a club in a Big Brother approach toward municipalities is a

priority, we on this side of the House don't agree that that's how

computers should be used. We think that is the abuse of computers. We

think that the potential danger of computers is when people try to

grasp power through knowledge and information which gives them tactical

advantages.

I think this is the one type of computer

expenditure we can well do without. We can certainly use computerized

information and computer technology which enhances brainscans and does

things like that; the computer has a very good purpose to fulfil in a

modern technological society. But when it is the grasping of

information in order to create a Big Brother power base, then I'm

afraid that a 250 percent increase over actual expenditures to proposed

expenditures is too much in one fiscal year.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment. Over the years the government

has been fond of telling the people that the government has no money of

its own — that's one of their favourite clichés. I object when I see

the punitive taxes this government is assessing to support the reckless

spending sprees in virtually every estimate, which results in these

very spectacular increases in computer and consulting charges — an

increase of 250 percent of the people's money over last year.

The

first minister, to face the task of trying to justify this kind of

out-of-control increase, rationalized it by saying: "Well, I've had a

restructuring of my ministry." The next minister said he'd had a

reorganization, and that's why both building and computer costs had

gone up. Did you get the euphemism this minister used? He's not

involved in a restructuring; he's not involved in a reorganization; my

good friend the Minister of Municipal Affairs justifies that 250

percent increase in computer charges on the basis that he's got a

changeover. That's what he said: he's changing over his information

programs.

I want to advise the minister that the

municipalities out there are not aware of any improved information

service flowing from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Only the other

day the mayor of Kelowna, His Worship Dale Hammill, indicated that the

information flow to that municipality is very weak indeed. There's no

indication that the municipalities of the province are benefiting from

this wild, reckless spending spree of that minister and his colleagues.

He comes in with some pallid excuse, and he says: "Well, my colleagues

were involved in restructuring and reorganization, but I've got a

changeover." The best changeover the people of this province could have

would be the changeover of that whole government out of their seats of

power.

What about all these information programs? We've got

to get information out through this costly computer system. What is

this guy Douglas Heal doing? I understand he's got a big new

amphitheatre with increased staff. I suppose he's got a computer down

there too, to crank out propaganda on behalf of the political

aspirations of this government. On top of that, we see each ministry

with phenomenal increases in their computer capacity, undoubtedly to

serve the partisan interests of that coalition on the other side of the

House.

We say enough is enough. We say it's true that

government has no money of its own. They're gouging it off the backs of

the taxpayers by increasing the sales tax, the liquor tax, ICBC rates —

you name it; you're having to dig down and peel it off. That minister

comes in here and doesn't explain a thing; he doesn't get up and

justify the need for this 250 percent increase in computer costs. Shame

on him! He's irresponsible.

Every responsible member of this

Legislature will support this amendment, which will peel the

irresponsible fat off that minister's estimates.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 24

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Leggatt

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

[ Page

5047 ]

NAYS — 28

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Davidson

Mussallem

Mr. Barrett requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 163 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM

On vote 183: minister's office, $186,530.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Chairman, because this is the first opportunity I've had since

assuming the responsibilities of Minister of Tourism to really make a

statement in this House, at this time I would like to bring to the

House's attention a number of things that have gone on in Tourism this

year: a number of challenges we have met, changes we have made and

accomplishments we have achieved.

Before doing so, I would

like to take this opportunity to thank all the staff in the Ministry of

Tourism: the fellows in the warehouse; the secretaries; the

accommodation counsellors who are out in the field and are seldom in a

position to be known except by those in the industry whom they visit

and serve so well; and the directors. All of them have done so much to

help our fledgling ministry grow, mature, learn to stand on its own

feet and develop the type of professional attitude that we hope to

build into an even more professional state in the future. They've

worked tirelessly — overtime, at night, on weekends — and they've all

done more than was fair to ask of them in helping the industry itself,

helping me as their new minister and helping their ministry form the

team that we hope it will be in the future.

I should also thank the industry itself, the private sector, for the support

and cooperation that they have given our ministry in the past and me as the

new minister this year. They've been very helpful in coming forward with

suggestions. They've been very supportive in new programs that we need and

in requests that I've made of them. They also have been very quick to respond

to new initiatives and very quick to seize the opportunities now available in

British Columbia for the tourist industry because of the growing confidence

in the political and economic climate. Mr. Chairman, these are by no means large

corporate operators. We are pleased to say there are some international chains,

international organizations and major investors in tourism in British Columbia;

but by far most of our operators are what one might call the little guys, people

who have worked hard as families, who have put their capital together and built

their enterprise over the years. All of them have made in the past and make

today a major contribution to our industry, to the attractiveness of British

Columbia as a place to visit, as well as to the future of our province and the

contributions to the economy that this industry — as the third-largest industry

in British Columbia — must take.

You'll

recall, Mr. Chairman, in reviewing this past year, that our Premier and

our government agreed to the request and declared tourism a basic

resource in the province. The reason was that we as a government have

recognized that tourism is to be nurtured and planned for, to be

husbanded, to be thought about as carefully as any other basic

resource, such as water and trees. The government has recognized that

tourism has a great impact on our own lives as citizens — that can be a

very positive impact if we manage it like a resource — and that other

industries and other resources have an impact on tourism itself.

We've

been very busy this year in reorganizing and reclassifying the

ministry. We're pleased to say that we now stand not at the bottom of

the ladder, but very much in the middle, where I personally feel — and

obviously Treasury feels — this ministry belongs in terms of its

contribution to the province, its growth potential and the qualified

people that we must have, both internally and externally, if we are to

meet the mandate that has been given to us.

Mr. Chairman,

I've tried as a new minister to have an open-door policy, and hope I

have made very clear to the whole industry and the citizens that we

look upon tourism in the very broadest terms. We've tried to encourage

cultural and recreational people to work with us so that we can

complement each other and combine many of our promotions, helping to

bring them more clients to enjoy their plays or sports events and

helping us to have more widespread knowledge of the attractions we have

in British Columbia. I've been very strong in my position that in

having an open-door policy I don't wish to have any specific

organization or group stand between any individual — a citizen or

someone in the industry from whatever part of the province — and the

minister's office.

Part of our mandate has been to maintain

and increase the image and the high spirits that were brought to a very

depressed industry by our colleague the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who gave it the spirit, the drive and the

excitement it needed and attracted the type of international attention

that we had to have to help the industry gain the confidence and the

vision that it needed to meet the challenges. As well as that, it was

to take and build upon the excellent business base, the economic

foresight that another former minister, now the Minister of Industry

and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) brought to this

industry. He was the one who said: "Tourism is business, and big

business." We have tried to build upon that base. I'd like to thank

both those former ministers for the support that they've given us as a

new ministry.

We have been challenged, Mr. Chairman, with

the need to increase the opportunities for tourism in British Columbia

and to increase the economic investment. I look to that as being

accomplished largely in the softer areas of the province as far as

summer growth is concerned, but more particularly in the spring and the

fall all over the province and in the wintertime. We are very mindful

that tourism can bring many advantages to our own citizens. We have the

great variety of restaurants, motels and hotels, amusements and

attractions in British Columbia today for ourselves as citizens at a

reasonable cost because they are in part supported by the tourist

industry. We want to continue to have that type of growth and

opportunity for our citizens and do it in such a way that we round out

the year and see that the opportunities don't crowd our own citizens.

[ Page 5048 ]

One

of our objectives this year which has been accomplished was to take the

3-M study which had been initiated by the former Minister of Tourism,

the now Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, around the

province in such a way that the challenges that exist for us in a

changing and more competitive world in the tourism industry could be

understood by those in the field, be they the most sophisticated or the

most enthusiastic but perhaps with less time than others to understand

what those challenges were. We call this "Tell the World." We went to

every region of the province and we invited those people who we felt

would like to learn to understand tourism and who could benefit most

from this study and the showing of it. That included people from the

arts, from all cultural areas and from recreation; people such as

women's institutes, who have so much to contribute to this industry on

the basis of their personality and their activities, if nothing more.

the request of and after discussions with the industry, it appeared

that there was a great need to develop new marketing approaches and to

examine potential market areas. Along with travelling around to nearly

every area of the province — twice in most instances — I also embarked

on the first tourism industrial trade mission with its own minister to

overseas bases. That, of course, was to Asia, Mr. Chairman. It was a

very highly successful mission.

Then we embarked upon an

effort to help our industry have the opportunity to understand and be

exposed to what is going on internationally in the tourism world. This

was accomplished by the very modestly named "Seminar of the Century" in

Richmond. It was a three-day event where we had, I noticed, more

delegates than they had at the national seminar in Toronto recently.

Mr. Chairman, I know you and the members will be pleased to know that

we had world authorities — international speakers — at that seminar,

and the attendance was very widely dispersed from around the province.

So people in Peace River, north Vancouver Island or the Kootenays had

an opportunity to enjoy this type of presentation, to get together with

operators from other parts of the province and to decide for themselves

how they could share this information with other operators in their

area and benefit most from it.

I would also like to advise

you, Mr. Chairman, and the House that since assuming the ministry, and

with the help of our new deputy minister, Dr. Rae, we have decided that

there is great potential for film and television production in British

Columbia. You will note in the budget that there's considerable

emphasis placed on this new approach. We hope that with a little luck

and a great deal of hard work and planning we will be able to secure

British Columbia as a major film production centre in North America. We

have a lot of opportunity. We believe that with care we can take care

of it.

Much of the time has been spent in meeting with various associations within

the industry. I would venture to say that we have now met at least once with

all associations, be they a chamber of commerce in a small community, regional

tourist associations or one of the various specialized associations within the

industry. Again, we have been meeting with cultural and recreational groups,

exchanging ideas as to how we can help each other. We have made a new step in

British Columbia in terms of agriculture. Our colleague the Minister of Agriculture

and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) has been most helpful. His industry has expressed

great interest in our two industries working more closely together. It's

not a new thought to you, Mr. Chairman, that one of the most important ingredients

that we have to have to be successful in tourism in British Columbia is not

only the facilities that people would expect and a variety of experiences within

the province that they can find nowhere else, but also the quality of service

— the feeling of warmth not only on the part of those in the industry in management

and on the front line — waiters and waitresses — but also on the part of our

own citizens. We have embarked on a new program called the "Good Show."

It's one of the many new attitudes that we're trying to bring to the

industry with the great help and imagination of our new deputy minister of marketing,

Mr. John Plul, who is no stranger to any of you. The Good Show program is an

adjudication by those who visit us. Whether they're from Richmond to Vancouver,

from Prince George to Kimberley, Amsterdam to Vancouver, or Tokyo to Prince

Rupert, it is our guests who adjudicate those who are in the front line of our

industry. We can have all the capital investment and all the experiences that

one could ask for, but unless those who meet the visitors daily, who greet them

and who offer them the type of service they'd like to have, recognize their

importance in the industry and understand how much they can do for the industry

and feel a sense of pride and professionalism in themselves and their training

.... Then we can move ahead much more strongly. They will be happier in their

work, and we will have a much better product to sell.

Among

the priorities that I have established, Mr. Chairman, is the area of

education. We employ in this industry over 65,000 people directly. We

are a labour-intensive industry, and we look forward to encouraging

people who are entering the industry — whether it be as a dishwasher, a

hotel manager or in any other area — to recognize the need that they

will have to strive to make themselves the best in the industry and to

afford them the opportunity to do the same in their own region at many

areas. I'm most anxious, Mr. Chairman, that we should see tourism

introduced in the elementary schools, so that our young people can

understand what an important industry it is to British Columbia, what

fun it can be to be part of it and how much it can bring to us as

citizens, as well as the return it can bring in dollars and providing

jobs and encouraging capital investment. I'm sure there will be

questions about that later on in the estimates, but I thought I'd like

to touch on that.

The last point I'd like to make at this

time is the efforts that our deputy and our new assistant deputy of

operations, Mr. John Currie, have made in trying to strengthen the

internal core and the business management of the ministry. We can't

talk to the industry at all areas of interest about it being a business

as well as the fact that we are marketing fun unless our own house is

in order. This has been a high priority along with the emphasis that we

try to bring to new marketing approaches and looking into new marketing

areas.

Mr. Chairman, I will look forward to my estimates.

It's a privilege for me to have this opportunity. I suspect there will

be times during the estimates when I may wonder about it, but I also

wish to assure you and this House that our team between the industry

and our ministry is growing stronger and that we accept the mandate

before us with enthusiasm and, I believe, with a great deal of

professionalism. I would also like to thank the members of the

opposition, those who responded to my invitation when I was first a

minister to discuss tourism with our ministry and with myself and to

bring forth ideas that they had that might benefit their own area or

benefit the industry in itself.

[ Page

5049 ]

I thank you for these few moments, Mr. Chairman. I hope that as the

estimates move along you yourself will learn more about this exciting

and challenging industry and realize that while we recognize that we

are marketing fun and we must be a buoyant and positive industry to

market fun, underlying it is a very complex, sensitive and very, very

businesslike industry.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I

thank the minister for opening up her estimates in that way. I found a

lot I could agree with in her opening remarks. I know she's

enthusiastic, and for that I think she deserves full marks. I don't

think anybody who has known the minister for as long as most of us have

known her would ever fault her on the score of enthusiasm. Indeed it

may be her enthusiasm that sometimes might lead her occasionally into

straying into the paths of error, and I might touch on those as I go

through the estimates.

I did want to set the record straight

a little bit, as I've heard while I was away from the chamber for a

little space of time statements that were made which were not quite

accurate. She mentioned that this is a new ministry, and just now we've

heard that it was a fledgling ministry. One can say: some chicken, some

neck or something like that. I think only the minister and I could

possibly get some mutual enjoyment out of expressions like that, but

it's not a new ministry and it's not a fledgling ministry. Can I show

an annual report in the House? I can't. I can. This is an exhibit; this

is allowed.

This is an annual report here, which is the

sixth annual report of the ministry, so it's a hell of long time

aborning, if it's fledgling. I do want to correct that kind of

impression. I heard the minister say there was a new ministry, and I

heard the previous minister say it was a new ministry. It's not a new

ministry at all. The ministry was founded out of a division of the old

Department of Recreation. It became a full-fledged department and had a

minister. The fact that a minister had two portfolios has got nothing

to do with the fact that it was a full-fledged ministry. The then

member for Chilliwack had two portfolios, and I think nobody would ever

say that he didn't fulfil them both very well. I happened to be the

next Minister of Travel Industry — or Tourism, as it's now known — and

that was a full-fledged ministry. Then, at the end of 1975, that

ministry had, for a time, a minister all to itself — to use some

expressions that have been used in previous debate. For a brief period

of time before the general election in 1975 it enjoyed the

administrative supervision of the then member for Cranbrook, who had

previously been the Minister of Mines, Then, you'll be interested to

know, when the new administration took over at the end of 1975 and the

beginning of 1976 governmental reorganization took place, and a new

Ministry was formed entitled the Department of Recreation and Travel

Industry. That's how this has come about.

Then, of course,

under the Social Credit administration it flitted from place to place

like an orphan. First of all it was in Recreation; then it was taken

over to the Provincial Secretary for a while. From there it went to

Small Business and then on to Industry. Now it's back all on its own

again under a minister who has no other responsibilities but to look

after this one.

I'm glad to hear the minister mention the 3M

study in her opening remarks. I wrote down most of the things I wanted

to say about her opening remarks. I was interested to hear her say she

was on the very first mission to Asia that dealt with promoting

tourism. I have to take exception to that. I went to Japan, and I

promoted tourism all over the place.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You didn't play rugby.

MR. HALL: No, I didn't play rugby; it's the wrong-shaped ball.

It's that crazy game where the chief shout from the touchlines is: "Never

mind the ball, get on with the game." I can say that when the Leader of

the Opposition is away.

went to Japan on a combined industry-ministerial visit promoting

tourism. I spoke to hundreds of tour people, wholesalers and tour

packagers. I shared the platform in a public meeting in Tokyo with the

Japanese daredevil who skis down Kilimanjaro, Everest and other places.

I spoke to the largest ski club in Tokyo. In my press releases I

collect from the minister — I seem to get two copies in my office in

Surrey; I guess that's because there are two members for Surrey.... I

took some of the same people that accompanied you; Mr. Iwata, Gordon

Kadota and others accompanied me on the trip. So I think it's a little

bit unfair to say you were the first minister to go promoting tourism.

I know you did a good job though.

The Seminar of the Century

has echoes of the minister from South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips).

If I may say so, to call anything a Seminar of the Century starts to

lurch into hyperbole that I don't think even the minister can sustain.

I would caution the minister on those kinds of titles, as indeed I

would, if I may, in the friendliest possible way, caution her about the

use of the expression "assuming the ministry." I don't think you assume

the ministry at all. It could be argued, as we're dealing with usages

of parliament and the throne, that you might assume a throne, but I

don't think you assume the ministry. You might be appointed as

minister, but I don't think you assume the ministry. I think the casual

interuse and exchange of the pronouns we and I in the minister's

remarks, while it may label me a pedantic, does tend to confuse when

one listens to the minister describing what is going on in her

department. I'm not too sure whether the minister did it, as it were,

or whether a staff person did it. If you consistently use the words we,

our or I, meaning the same thing, it is difficult for members of the

Legislature to understand exactly what it is you're achieving.

The

first time we heard from the minister, other than the unfortunate

launching of her ministerial career at a time when there wasn't

sufficient constitutional room in our statutes for her in terms of

payment of wages — and we all sympathized over the unfortunate hiatus

that developed here in the chamber until she could receive salary....

We then received word from her in the following way. I'm reflecting on

a letter dated January 28, 1980, addressed to myself in a familiar way

— which is fine; I appreciate it and I mean that sincerely — from the

Ministry of Tourism, signed by Patricia J. Jordan, Minister.

am sure by now it has come to your attention that the golden crown of

Tourism now lies on the head of Okanagan North, a challenge to which I

really look forward. From time to time we've had discussions on tourism

and you've had a number of ideas. At this time I'm writing to ask you

if you feel you would like to share these ideas with me again," etc.

I replied to the minister.

That

was the first correspondence that most of us got from the minister. I

would have felt a little better, in terms of being addressed as "Dear

Ernie," if I hadn't seen that everybody else had exactly the same

letter. I thought I was getting something special, but I wasn't. It was

kind of a mim-

[ Page 5050 ]

eographed

letter. That let me down a bit. You strike out the name, put Ernie in

and sign it Pat. Then I saw that Dennis got one, and Eileen and Bill

and Karen. It kind of takes it out of you a bit. That's why I mention

it.

It refers to the golden crown. I know a classical

reference about the golden crown: "Uneasy lies the golden crown." I

leave that for the minister to cogitate upon.

The next

letter we got from the minister — I've got a full file here — dated

March 5, 1980, was headed "Minister of Tourism." "To all Members of the

Legislative Assembly." No "Dear Ernie" this time.

"Please

be advised that Mr. Gary Ley has come on staff with my office as an

executive assistant. Mr. Ley has my confidence and will be very

involved with many of the ministry's more detailed programming. Would

you please let your staff" — I've got a huge staff; thousands of them —

"know of Mr. Ley's position. He may be reached in my office at

387-1201. I would appreciate any assistance you can give him. Thank

you."

Well, I thought I'd give him a couple of tips. I

phoned him up and — do you know? — he'd gone. Either the place was too

hot or all that dedicated work was too much; but zip, that revolving

door was....

March 26. Minister of Tourism. "To all cabinet

ministers and MLAs." I thought.... But no, it's to me. "Please be

advised that Mrs. Barbara Morrison has joined my office staff as an

executive assistant." I thought to myself, another one. We do tend to

do that when we get letters about executive assistants. It's a

political knee-jerk reaction to those orders-in-council.

"Mrs.

Morrison will be involved in the minister's more detailed programming."

Well, that's what he was doing. "I would also like to take this

opportunity of introducing my executive secretary, Mrs. Francine

Mailhot. Both Mrs. Morrison and Mrs. Mailhot can be reached through my

office at 387-1201. Will you please advise your staff" — there they are

again — "and the appropriate members of your ministry" — that's you,

over there — "of these two recent appointments."

Interjection.

MR. HALL:

I don't know. I'll have to search through the record. No, by jingo,

she's gone as well. That detailed programming must be a real toughie in

that office. That's something you've really got to work at.

thought, well, we'll hang on a bit. The minister wasn't on salary for a

while and I thought she deserved a holiday and we'd get back to it. On

June 3, 1980, I got a note from the Minister of Tourism. It wasn't

addressed to me personally.

"To all MLAs. It

gives me pleasure to invite you to be my guests at the Empress Hotel

tomorrow evening at 7:30 p.m. to view my ministry's 1981 marketing and

promotion presentation, as well as to discuss the paper on tourism

development strategy for the eighties. The evening shall be an

interesting one. I do hope to see you there. Pat."

The

trouble is I didn't receive that until 9:50 a. m., June 4. I don't have

a crowded social calendar these days. I mean, I'm not beating them off

with a stick. Sad to say, that's not a bad offer — the best I've had to

date — but I couldn't make it. So there was that one gone.

Then I got one September 16, 1980. I thought: "Now we're cooking with gas." That's my birthday — can't miss.

"To all hon. members: I would like to introduce Mr. Ray Dykes, a former Colonist

legislative reporter who has joined my office as executive assistant

effective immediately. He will be responsible for tourism and

legislative matters."

They've obviously deep-sixed that detailed programming now.

He brings with him an extensive background in parliamentary reporting

in several countries, including the B.C. Legislature, as well as having

wide travel industry public information experience. I appreciate your

extending all courtesies and help you can to him on my behalf. Ray has

my full confidence, both as to his ability and discretion."

thought "discretion" was such an unusual word to use in a press release

like that. However, I thought, that's the kind of fulsomeness that

sometimes leads the minister into trouble — that unerring selection of

the wrong word. "The assistance you and your staff give to Mr. Dykes

will be very much appreciated." I don't know if Mr. Dykes is still with

us on this long list. We'll find out.

I asked a question on

June 27 because by then I was really worried. I was beginning to think

about the Health department and occupational therapy and all sorts of

things about the Bermuda Triangle down there. Anyone who ventured in

the office during the last two weeks.... I spoke to my colleague the

ex-Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke), and I thought I'd better find out. I

asked the question on June 27 about who's working in the department. It

took until August 22 to find out who works in the department. I got a

seven- or eight-page reply. Then I looked through my cuttings and I

found that the establishment of the department was 101 last year and is

108 this year. But when you took at the actual figures, you find that

there's only 83 established positions filled. You've been there a year

and you've only got 83 of the established positions filled. That

doesn't sit too well with the kind of speech that you opened up the

estimates with. Your friends and advisers on tourism should be able to

tell you that you've got to do better in terms of getting people on

staff to do those things that you're talking about.

Simply

said on a first go-around, I honestly feel that one of the major things

wrong with this department is the staff morale. I said at the time that

the minister was appointed that she had a wonderful opportunity to

solve that problem, because it had become serious. I thought she had

the enthusiasm, with a clean sheet, to go to it and get it sorted out.

I'm not going to pass judgment yet, but I'm not at all happy, confident

or sure that the past 12 months have seen the kind of improvement that

I think was available to the minister when she eventually took her

portfolio a year ago.

I'm going to say to you, Mr. Chairman,

that in answer to that question about who was on staff, what jobs they

were doing and what changes there had been.... Over and over again I

have examined estimates from last year and this year and looked at the

Public Service Commission report to see who's drawing wages. The

estimates, if I may be lighthearted with the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr.Curtis), are just figures in a book. You've got to look at what

really happens in the Public Service Commission to see who's drawing

pay and rations, as it were. We find out that in actual fact there are

only 83 people drawing pay and rations in established positions at

December 31, 1980, in the Ministry of Tourism.

[ Page 5051 ]

You've

got people releasing press releases with different names all the time.

You've named travel aides. On May 28, 1980, you named a new deputy, who

we're pleased to see here today. We welcome him to his first go-around.

We wish him well in his job. I know how important a deputy minister is.

I think I can say that when I was Minister of Tourism my appointment of

Richard Colby was welcomed, congratulat