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

Morning Sitting

[ Page

5015 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On the amendment to vote 160: central ministry services –– 5015

Mr. Barber

Ms. Brown

Hon. Mrs. Jordan

Mr. Lorimer

Division on the amendment

On vote 161: transit services –– 5024

Mr. Barber

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Lorimer

Mr. Barrett

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Lea

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Cocke

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

On the amendment to vote 160: central ministry services, $596,514.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Yesterday I advised the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) that

standing orders preclude the use of such material as visual aids such

as the one presently on the member's desk. Latitude was extended to the

member yesterday for his initial display, but now I must instruct the

member to remove the

article from his desk.

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order, the Chair said standing orders prohibit such

matter being presented. Could you cite the standing order, please?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Beauchesne, sixth edition, the

section we looked at yesterday, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: You said standing orders, Mr. Chairman. I was just wondering which standing order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The rules of the House, hon. member.

For

the benefit of all hon. members, I will once again read from page 117

of Beauchesne's sixth edition,

section 333, entitled "Exhibits":

"Speakers have consistently ruled that it is improper to produce

exhibits of any sort in the chamber." He cites Debates , June 16, 1969, page 10156 –– I hope the matter is therefore settled.

MR. HOWARD:

What you are ruling, then, Mr. Chairman, is that henceforth there be no

distribution of any exhibits of any nature, be it apples or flowers or

logs, such as the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) brought in

at one time, and presented to the House and distributed. Those are

exhibits of a nature, and I assume that is what your ruling means.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I am sure the hon. member is very familiar with what I am referring to.

We are talking now about the placing of a specific exhibit on the desk.

might add, hon. member, that throughout the day yesterday the member

was allowed the opportunity to use the particular graph that he now has

before him. Hon. member, the Chair so rules.

MR. HOWARD: But what you are ruling is that exhibits....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I have ruled, hon. member, and that ends the matter. There is an option

available to the member, but the ruling of the Chair has been made, and

there the matter ends.

MR. HOWARD: But your ruling is

on all exhibits of any nature — that's what you read. Speakers have

consistently ruled that exhibits of any nature should not be presented

in the chamber. Of course, if you're relying on what they do in Ottawa,

and not what the practice is here.... It's passing strange to me that

you would look to that place in Ottawa that nobody on the other side

seems to enjoy in terms of any precedents. What you're ruling is that

henceforth no exhibits of any nature shall be presented and displayed

in the chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon.

members. For the benefit of all members I will once again say that my

decision is based on the particular exhibit that is presently on the

desk of the first member for Victoria. On that matter the Chair has

made a ruling. If members wish, there is an opportunity to take the

proper course. But there is no further debate; the Chair has ruled.

MR. BARRETT:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you're making a ruling on that

particular exhibit — that's what you ve just said. If you're going to

pick out a particular exhibit, you're leaving the Chair open to the

charge that the Chair will decide what side of the House and when

exhibits will be seen. My colleague has asked: does this ruling mean

that from now on all exhibits will be prohibited? You just mentioned

that one. None of that stuff; that's politics.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. members. The Chair has ruled that the particular

exhibit on the desk of the first member for Victoria is not to be

placed there. The Chair so rules, and there is no discussion,

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. BARBER:

On a point of order pursuant to your ruling, which I would like to

understand.... As the Chairman will remember, I gave an undertaking

yesterday, according to the advice of the member for Dewdney (Mr.

Mussallem) that he only used his charts and displays for a limited

period, that I would too — during the period of moving reductions in

votes — and then it would be put away because it would serve no further

purpose. I wonder if the Chairman could advise me why, when some time

ago the member for Dewdney spent some time in this House with displays

and exhibits, we heard no such ruling from the then Chairman, When the

Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) brought logs into the House as

an exhibit in favour of his proposed Forest Act, we heard no such

ruling from the Chair. When the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy), then the Minister of Tourism, brought exhibits into the

House — smile buttons and other paraphernalia on her desk — once again

we heard nothing from the Chair. What I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman,

pursuant to your ruling, is whether or not there's just the possibility

that some people would think there might be a double standard here.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. As the member will recall, yesterday the Chair advised

the member, we read the

section that we're referring to and the member

was allowed to produce the particular chart that he now has on his

desk. He was permitted to use that extensively for approximately an

hour and a half yesterday — more time than either of the other

[ Page 5016 ]

members

referred to. At that point, hon. member, I advised the member that the

graph would not be allowed to be used further in the chamber. I've

cited the particular reference. The member has used the graph already,

certainly more so than any of the others referred to by other members.

On that matter we carry on with our business, which is the amendment to

vote 160.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr.

Chairman, standing order I says: "In all cases not provided for

hereafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of

the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and

Northern Ireland as in force at the time shall be followed as far as

they may be applicable to this House." I think that when the Chair

cites a practice in the House of Commons in Ottawa, it should be the

very last thing that applies in practice to this House. For instance, I

have risen in this House under a practice, which is quite acceptable in

Beauchesne and which is silent in other jurisdictions, to ask if an

hon. member in the middle of his speech would entertain a question.

This is quite the practice in Ottawa. I'm sure that Beauchesne

recognizes that. But I was told that we follow the rules of Erskine May

as he explains the

interpretation of rules in Great Britain and

Northern Ireland.

Mr. Chairman, what concerns me here is

that we are saying that we who are a Legislature and are really

sovereign are now going to become subservient to another House which

should really be our equal, not our superior. We get our practice under

standing order 1. I see no reference which says, that we should then

disregard practice which is firmly established in this House and follow

the rules of Ottawa. I think that the Speaker probably made a good

ruling the other day when he said: "Yes, that's true. That's a practice

in Ottawa, but you don't do it here because we follow the rules of

Great Britain." I'm very concerned, Mr. Chairman, that if this is going

to be the procedure, we start looking at Beauchesne and using it....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I think the member has made his point.

MR. NICOLSON: Would Mr. Chairman then reconsider?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, for the benefit of all members let us just review what

does guide our activities in this chamber. Our own standing orders are

parliamentary tradition on. Lastly, we use the references when

available from Ottawa or other common parliamentary traditions to which

we can look for guidance in customs and usage in our own House.

Hon. members, firstly, I now instruct the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) to remove the sign. Thank you, hon. member.

I have concluded debate on the matter, hon. members.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, you have a responsibility under standing order 9....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I also have responsibility under other standing orders. The first member for Victoria.

On a point of order, the member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON:

It is absolutely imperative to the continuance of order in this House.

You have an obligation under standing order 9, and I ask you to live up

to it!

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

Interjection.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: .Order, please. Hon. members, again I would bring....

MR. NICOLSON: Cite an authority anywhere in the Commonwealth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I order the member for Nelson-Creston now to leave the chamber.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm not going to.... I would ask you to adjourn this House in the interest of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sergeant-at-Arms. Sergeant-at-Arms.

MR. NICOLSON: This is a travesty!

MR. CHAIRMAN:

This committee will come to order. The Leader of the Opposition is on

his feet on a point of order. No interruptions will be tolerated. The

Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

MR. BARRETT:

As the member for Nelson-Creston pointed out, he asked the Chair to

cite the particular standing order under which the ruling was made. For

asking, Mr. Chairman, for the definition of the ruling under standing

order 9, the member was asked to leave. Now I can understand that

there's a need for order in the House, but when a member asks for a

definition under standing orders, that is hardly appropriate for the

kind of scene we've had. I repeat the member's request: under standing

order 9, would the Speaker please tell us under what standing order the

decision was made?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Firstly, may we just

review the very firm rule, which has been established in this House,

that when the Chairman or the Speaker is standing, absolutely no

conversation is to take place. That is the ultimate and only way that

this chamber may be brought to order. If members, whether they be on a

valid point of order or an invalid point of order, whether they be

right or whether they be wrong, the Chair has made it abundantly clear

that when the Chair rises no interruptions will take place, or the

member will be excluded from this chamber. That, hon. members, was the

reason for the last action; it had nothing to do with the points of

order.

Now in reference to the Leader of the Opposition, let

me read standing order 9: "Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum

and shall decide questions of order, subject to an appeal to the House

without debate. In explaining a point of order or practice, he shall

state the standing order or authority applicable to the case." Or

authority.... Hon. members, we read from Beauchesne twice today, twice

yesterday, to refer specifically to the matter before us. Hon. members,

[ Page

5017 ]

with due respect, the matter should at this point be concluded, and we should return to debate.

The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT:

Under standing order 9, it is imperative that the Chair receive the

full respect of every member, and because of that the Chair must calmly

explain authorities or standing orders.

As I recall the series of events that have unfortunately happened, the member was not facing the Chairman on his feet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please,

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we have a problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clearly now, hon. member, you are entering into debate on an issue that has already been decided.

MR. BARRETT:

No. In reference to the point of order I raised, you went through an

explanation that I didn't ask for. I asked for the

interpretation of

standing order 9, but the Chair then interpreted his actions for

throwing the member out under the request that I asked on standing

order 9. Now you're saying, Mr. Chairman, that the member was not

thrown out for asking for an

interpretation of standing order 9, but

that he was thrown out because he didn't sit down when you stood up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right.

MR. BARRETT:

Well, that was not made clear to the member, nor do I recall, Mr.

Chairman, very candidly, that the member was on his feet when you were

on your feet, and I point that out to you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The Leader of the Opposition, doubtless, does not have the same view of the chamber as does the member presiding.

Hon. members, the first member for Victoria rises on the amendment to vote 160.

MR. BARBER:

The use of graphs and charts ordinarily would save time, but that being

unavailable at the moment at least, I will return without graphs and

charts and will have to take a little longer to explain verbally what I

would rather illustrate visually, and that is the necessity for this

government to respect, honour and support the proposed amendments the

New Democratic Party puts forward in the estimates of the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. As the chart would show, if it were available to the

committee, we propose to reduce the spending estimates by $368,000 this

year. In particular, our amendment to vote 160, specifically $76,262,

is an attempt to reduce the waste, trim the fat and get rid of some of

the red ink — for which Social Credit is responsible — in the general

budget whose specific estimate we are now voting.

Specifically, Mr. Chairman, our amendment does not reduce public service salaries

by one penny. It does not reduce the ability of the minister or his associates

below last year's spending to do anything they did last year in the field

of travel, office expenses and advertising. But we are shocked to discover that

in vote 160 the estimate for travel is up by a phenomenal 192 percent. This

is the government that poses and parades as cost-cutters, but when you look close

you find out where their real priorities lie. When you look close you discover

that office expenses in this vote are up by 133 percent, a shocking admission

by Social Credit of its gross inability to control spending within the public

purse. And when you look even closer, Mr. Chairman, you discover that under

vote 160. which we are now amending, advertising expenses are going up an unheard

of 266 percent.

This

group of posers opposite, who pretend in campaigns that they are

cost-conscious but who in this committee reveal their true hand, which

is that they are reckless, wasteful and spendthrift, propose increases

that cannot be justified in a year of restraint and in a time of high

inflation either. A government that should be setting an example is

doing just that, but the problem is that they are setting the worst

possible example for the people of British Columbia and for private

enterprise in British Columbia. Private enterprise has also got to be

told to tighten its belt. They tell that to trade unions, and that same

thing must be said to private enterprise. When it comes from a

government that raises travel expenses by 192 percent, office expenses

by 133 percent and advertising by 266 percent in this one vote alone,

then we, Mr. Chairman, tell this committee that these proposed expenses

are utterly unacceptable.

We have made a motion to reduce

vote 160 by $76,262, Let me say again, so that the minister may not

twist our intent, that this does not apply to public service salaries

or the vital functions of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I've acted

as critic for that ministry for going on six years now; I have great

respect for its necessary and worthwhile work: I have no respect for a

minister who would come in and propose to increase travel by 192

percent, office expenses by 133 percent and advertising by an

astonishing 266 percent.

The government, which runs around

this province and says that it will exercise fiscal restraint and that

it will be an example of prudence to the people of British Columbia,

has no right to come in with a proposal like this. The government has

an obligation to support an amendment like ours. It reduces not public

service salaries, not vital expenditures. but unnecessary expenditures

in the field of travel. office expenses and advertising. But does it

reduce it to zero, Mr. Chairman? No, it doesn't. All we do is reduce

this year's figure to last year's figure. We allow no increase in the

field of travel, office expenses or advertising. We don't cut it down

to nothing; we simply restrict them to what they spent last year. This

is not a punitive amendment; this is a cautionary amendment. This is

not like the Premier treating the doctors vengefully; this is a

responsible opposition treating the budget responsibly and saying that

in a time of restraint this committee should restrain you to what you

spent last year, and not a nickel more. That's all. We're not cutting

it to zero: we're not getting rid of it altogether, but rather we are

reducing it to what you spent last year.

I would point out,

Mr. Chairman. that we proposed during the Forests estimates $12 million

in reductions in equally unnecessary expenditures. We proposed $458,000

in the estimates of the Ministry of Universities. Science and

Communications. We propose $368,000 now in the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs. If the government is serious about cost-cutting, let it take

seriously the considered and researched amendments of the official

opposition. There is no justification in a year of restraint to

increase travel by 192 percent,

[ Page 5018 ]

office

expenses by 133 percent and advertising by 266 percent in one year.

That cannot be justified, especially by a government that poses,

parades and postures as cost-cutters. This committee knows better. We

now know who the real cost-cutters are; it is the New Democratic Party

that proposes these prudent amendments. I hope that our amendment to

vote 160, reducing the budget by $76,262, shall pass.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, certainly the purpose of this debate during estimates is

for the opposition to question the various votes and those portions of

a vote that make up the total. There have been no questions asked with

respect to this vote, and unfortunately, for that reason, I've not been

able to respond to the various sections of this particular vote which

have been raised by the member in the amendment. That's unfortunate,

because again, as usual, he is very wrong in his assumptions. The

travel expense shown here is shown as travel expense, because that's

how it normally and historically shows up in this particular vote. But

again, as I pointed out to the member and to this assembly previously,

we are wanting to decentralize the efforts within the ministry, in

order to give greater and better service to the various regions of the

province.

Our effort in this regard this year, in order to

assure that the people in the eastern, northern and northwestern parts

of this province receive the appropriate consideration, in order to

assure that people everywhere throughout the province will get the

opportunities and the benefits that would be available to a person if

they were living in Victoria....

Again, the first member for

Victoria forgets that British Columbia does not end at Victoria. There

are whole vast regions of this province which are fast developing, and

the people in those vast regions of this province require and deserve

consideration every bit as much as the person living on Blanshard,

Douglas, Government or some place in Victoria. British Columbia is much

greater than Victoria. As a matter of fact, I am from a metropolitan

area and 1, as a member of this government, am very grateful that we

are receiving innumerable revenues and benefits from all the works that

are provided us by the people in those northern, eastern and western

regions. This is the lifeline, the lifeblood, of this province. We are

in need and depend greatly on what happens in the development that

takes place in those regions, and we're wanting to decentralize into

those areas in order to provide the service they deserve.

Mr.

Chairman, again, as I mentioned, we are decentralizing and we are

locating four planning offices and planning directors in those areas in

order to give the responses quickly and fairly to the people there. Now

the travel portion here is in effect the moneys required to relocate

the people that are taking on those functions, people that are

presently stationed in Victoria. It's not so the minister or someone

can fly from here to Prince George or Fort St. John or Atlin or

whatever; it's to relocate those people as a part of the

decentralization program. If the hon. first member for Victoria (Mr.

Barber) wants to cutout decentralization because he cares only for

Victoria, I'm afraid I have a responsibility much beyond my own

constituency or the constituency of Victoria. I intend to carry out

that responsibility fairly in recognition of the services those people

in the outer regions deserve.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, the

member makes reference to office expenses. Again, what he fails to

recognize — and certainly he, as critic for this ministry, should be

aware of these sorts of things, if he would research it throughout the

year.... But I'll bring it to his attention now, and perhaps he will

immediately withdraw his amendment. The additional funds required for

office expenses are a result of the addition of 22 new staff. This is

because of the assumption of new programs and the establishment of four

field officers and the transfer of the building standards branch and

the staff of the ELUC secretariat to the ministry. Those who were

previously in the ELUC secretariat doing those tasks that are better

carried out by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs have been transferred

to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and thus they must be provided

for in the offices of Municipal Affairs. Similarly, of course, we have

the new programs that are in place; and we've had this transfer of the

building standards branch to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I seem

to recall debate in this House a year or two ago to the effect that

really the building standards branch property belonged in that

ministry. We have accomplished that, but that requires us to provide

for those people. So that accounts for the change in that vote.

The

only item remaining then is advertising and publications. The hon.

member points out that's there's $2,500 in that vote for 1980-81 and

$9,174 for 1981-82. The $9,174 includes $7,000 for the annual report of

the ministry, which is done every year. It will undoubtedly cost a

little bit more this year than it did last year and because the printer

is getting more money this year than he got last year, because his

employees are deserving of a little bit more money this year than last

year. No one would or should argue that. Obviously too, the paper costs

might be a little more this year than they were last year, because the

people at the pulp and paper mill are getting a little more this year

than last year, and no one would argue that. So it's gone up a bit. The

circulation of the report in a growing province with a tremendous

economy has naturally increased this year over what it was last year.

In total, we've got a greater volume of material to ship to the various

parts of the province where the people are desiring and in need of it.

The cost has gone up some, but that report is included here in accounts

for $7,000. In actual fact, it's come down from $2,500 to $2,174,

because of the transfer of $7,000.

I would now ask the hon.

member, in fairness to what we want to see done to the outer regions of

the province, where the people are producing in order for Victoria to

thrive, exist and continue to be a beautiful city, in recognition of

that and of the need to relocate these people into the various regions,

and of the fact that we've had these transfers of the building

standards branch and the staff of ELUC to the office, which .L, Counts

for the increased office expense, and in recognition of the fact that

we should make the report from this ministry available to all people in

all parts of the province who are in need of the report, that he

withdraw the amendment.

MR. BARBER: In recognition of the several red herrings offered by the minister, we refuse his proposal.

recognition of the public memory, we now see what some might call

hypocrisy — but I won't — on the part of a minister who, when he was

Minister of Human Resources, shut down the resource boards in this

province, which were one of the most brave and venturesome attempts at

decentralization that this government has ever enjoyed.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

On a point of order, I would love to debate my role as Minister of

Human Resources with that member, but I would prefer to do it outside

[ Page 5019 ]

the House. I don't think that this is the place nor the time. We should remain now with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good point. The first member for Victoria continues on the amendment to vote 160.

MR. BARBER:

We've heard a very peculiar argument from this minister, of all people,

in favour of decentralizing. Only by way of allusion, which is always

in order, and only briefly, which is even more in order, I would point

out that we heard from that minister in another capacity at another

time arguing against decentralization. But this morning, because he's

embarrassed about his wasteful spending and chagrined by our

responsible, prudent and cost-cutting amendment, he now poses as a

friend of decentralization.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Say that again! That's beautiful!

MR. BARBER: Do you like that? Responsible, prudent and cost-cutting amendment — I'll say it a third time; maybe you'll hear it.

However,

the reason the amendment should pass is not just because of the

inconsistency of this gentleman's approach to decentralizing the

offices and the operations of government. The fact that when he was

Minister of Human Resources he shut down one of the finest initiatives

any government ever took — the resource boards — to decentralize out of

Victoria into the community control for Human Resources policies....

It's not just because we are offended by that inconsistency, but also

because, as usual, the minister's explanations do not add up and his

figures don't either. For instance, he said that it was because he was

responsible now for certain of the operations of ELUC that we have to

allow him more money.

Let's take a look briefly at vote 78

in the Ministry of Environment. Only by way of allusion, this is the

resource and environment management division of the Ministry of

Environment where ELUC used to live. Do we find'comparable reductions

in this year's equivalent of last year's ELUC? Do we find in vote 78 —

it's on page 103, Mr. Minister, if you care to look it up — a

comparable reduction, an example of savings or a cutback, in what used

to be ELUC and what has now, the minister would pretend and have us

believe, simply been transferred to Municipal Affairs? I'm afraid we

don't. For instance, look at item 30, office expense: last year

$621,000, this year $623,000. It didn't go down at all, it went up —

only $2,000, that's good. You know, if they had less staff, Mr.

Chairman, in what used to be ELUC and what is now in part Municipal

Affairs, you'd think office furniture and equipment would go down. But

no, amazingly it's gone up from $118,000 to $175,000.

If you

think that the minister was telling the whole story, you might imagine

that item 40 in vote 78, which used to be ELUC, would go down. That

item is advertising and publications. But no, surprise, surprise, it's

gone up also from $401,000 to $557,000. I might believe the minister's

story if he could prove to us that there were savings in other

ministries because of his ministry taking over other functions. The

point is he can't prove it at all because it ain't true. What I've

illustrated — it's in vote 178, page 103 of this year's estimates — is

that we do not find comparable savings in one aspect of this

government's operations, formerly ELUC, now Municipal Affairs. We don't

find the savings at all.

The minister rises on another spurious point of order.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, I can't speak for the vote of the Ministry of

Environment. I'm sure that the minister will have the opportunity of

responding to the various aspects of that vote. I really can't speak

for that. I think it's totally out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The hon. first member for Victoria must stay to the strictly relevant

section of the vote before us. We are presently on an amendment to vote

160. I would ask the member to contain his remarks to that specific

section.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I'm always happy

to do that and to point out to the committee that the minister in his

defence alleged that a partial justification for his wasteful and gross

increase in vote 160 was the fact that he was taking over certain

functions of ELUC. When pinned to the mat, because he has no proof

whatever that there have been comparable reductions in the other

ministry that he supposedly took over the functions of, the minister

then says that he's not prepared to debate that. As my colleague for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) points out, if you can speak about it,

that's fine; but if you refuse to speak about it, you can't hide behind

the fact that you have no defence. no rational explanation, and, on

this issue, as with so many others, no credibility.

The

minister would tell the committee that the reason that he needs 192

percent more for travel is because of decentralization. Suddenly he's

found another philosophy — strangely — that is utterly inconsistent

with his public record to date. I remind the committee of the resource

boards and the shameful way in which this government shut them down,

thanks to that minister, who still hasn't apologized for what be did.

He set back the progress of Human Resources policy by ten years in this

province. He still hasn't apologized for that mistake.

Secondly,

he tells us that because of decentralization, office expenses are up

133 percent. I simply repeat my reply and argue again that it is, to

say the least, a somewhat inconsistent and basically incredible

response from that particular minister: to argue in favour of

decentralization, We might believe it from a few others. We'd probably

believe it from the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) ; at least

he's been consistent. He has decentralized — he's done it from the

beginning and made no bones about it. Fair enough. As a capital city

MLA I will argue against anything that reduces the economic base of my

community, and that's fair enough too. Nonetheless. coming from this

particular minister who shut down resource boards....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. Again, vote 160 is very clear and specific.

Our standing orders indicate that we must be strictly relevant, and not

wander off as the member has. I would ask him to contain his remarks to

the specifics of vote 160. We're talking about travel expense,

professional and special services, office expense. office furniture and

advertising. and really that is all we can discuss under the strictly

relevant sections that bind us all in debate in this chamber. The

member continues on vote 160.

MR. BARBER:

Specifically to our amendment to vote 160, I'm not really wandering

off. I know where I'm going quite precisely. It may not be a debate the

minister Would like to hear, it may not be comfortable for the minister

to realize that his own arguments are simply full of holes, and it may

[ Page 5020 ]

not

be pleasant for the committee to realize that the minister, as usual,

makes a claim he cannot substantiate. Part of the claim in reply to our

amendment was that he had taken over certain of the functions of ELUC.

I think this is in order. If it wasn't you would have ruled the

minister out of order, but you didn't do that so I know he was in order

on that item, and I guess I must be too, because I'm debating the same

item.

If we saw comparable reductions in other offices, then

we might be a little more willing to reduce our amendment by a

comparable amount. That would be fair. If the minister could tell us

they saved $10,000 in Environment and they added $10,000 in Municipal

Affairs I would give our word that we'd reduce our amendment by

$10,000. That's fine. If it's a simple transfer of functions and

finance to pay for them, we'd be willing to reduce ours accordingly.

But the problem is the minister cannot demonstrate it because we can't

find it in the only comparable vote, which is vote 78 — to which I

briefly alluded — that indicates there was any reduction. To the

contrary, we find massive increases there too.

I don't wish

to reflect on an amendment that we have not yet introduced, but the

committee should certainly be aware that in our research office we have

also looked very closely at vote 78. It's just possible we'll be

proposing amendments to reduce more Socred waste, fat and

overexpenditures.

Meanwhile we're dealing with our amendment

to vote 160, which I think should succeed. It should succeed because

this government has got to set an example. It's got to set an example

of restraint, caution and financial prudence.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're going to talk for hours because he wouldn't let you keep your chart.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman, would you protect me from that anonymous member in the

wrong chair? He worries me. He's three inches shorter than I am, and

I'm afraid of him.

What I'm trying to illustrate is that

some day or another this government has got to summon up the courage,

guts and political will to say no to reckless expenditures and yes to,

caution and fiscal restraint. We are not proposing anything other than

saying no to a 192 percent increase in travel. We're not saying get rid

of it altogether. Through this amendment we're asking the government to

keep this year's expenditures to last year's level. I think that's

fair. We're not asking them to cut it to zero.

Similarly, we

are asking them not to go ahead with the proposed increase in office

expenses of 133 percent. We just don't think that can be justified in a

year of restraint. We're not asking them to cut to zero but to restrict

themselves to last year's expenditures. We think that's fair and

responsible.

Finally, we are not asking them to raise their

advertising budget by 266 percent, which is what they want the

committee to approve. We don't think that's responsible at all. We're

asking them to keep it to last year's budget and estimate, and we're

asking them to set a good, moderate, prudent and fiscally responsible

example. We're asking them to approve our amendment to reduce vote 160

by $76,262. It's a simple thing. That's all there is to it.

Either they have the political conviction, guts and will to reduce public spending

or they don't. It's a very simple item. I hope the government majority

will listen. I realize it's a slim majority, but nonetheless they have the

power; the opposition doesn't. We may win all the debates, but they win

all the votes. We ask the government to be a little more consistent, philosophically

a little more straightforward with this committee, and a little more willing

to set a good example rather than the notoriously bad example which they're

setting in this budget and specifically in this vote. I hope the government

will reconsider and accept this prudent, cautious and costcutting amendment

put forward by the New Democratic Party, which this year is pioneering a new

approach to government expenditure by cutting waste, trimming fat and reducing

unnecessary Socred expenditures in what is supposed to be a year of restraint.

MS. BROWN:

I just thought I should remind the House that this minister, who is

increasing his advertising budget by 266 percent and who has increased

his travel budget by 192 percent, is the very same minister who is

going to deprive blind people in this province of the right to use

their bus passes, because it would cost $25,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, we're on vote 160.

MS. BROWN:

I'm speaking in support of the amendment to reduce the budget in that

vote, because that money should have been spent on people, rather than

on advertising.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Whether or not the

money could be spent for other purposes is not debatable under the

amendment. We have before us an amendment on vote 160 to reduce the

expenditure by $76,262. We can only confine our remarks to the matters

covered under that specific vote. The member is well aware of that and

doesn't need the Chair to point that out.

MS. BROWN:

Exactly. That's why I'm doing it, Mr. Chairman. It doesn't make any

sense to stand up and say "reduce the vote" without giving a reason.

One has to be logical about these things.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the previous speaker covered in some detail various items

regarding vote 160. But clearly the member is now on a totally

different track, and I must advise her that her remarks at this

particular point are out of order. We must return to the specifics of

vote 160.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I am not in

support of the minister's vote being increased by $76,000 — the figure

the amendment is reducing it by — for a number of reasons. I'm trying

to give these reasons, in some kind of logical order.

I'm not permitted to remind the House that the minister has deprived blind people in this province by cutting out $25,000....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. We cannot do in one way what we, cannot do

in another. Saying "I can't do something" and then going. ahead and

doing it is an abuse of the rules of the House.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to cooperate with you, because I recognize your dilemma.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair finds it difficult to see the cooperation.

[ Page 5021 ]

MS. BROWN:

That's right, I know you find it difficult. That's why I'm trying to

cooperate with you. And I'm trying to cooperate with you, please

believe me. That's why I am not going to repeat what I said before,

because I've already said it. It's not necessary. No one in the

province needs to be reminded of that minister's inhumanity to people

in his tenure as Minister of Human Resources. And now during his tenure

as Minister of Municipal Affairs, we find that he is quite capable of

raising his own travel budget — it goes up to $53,000 — while $25,000

to be spent on people wasn't there, despite the fact that those people

are blind. But he finds $53,000 to be spent on his travel. There is a

266 percent increase in advertising. Maybe he is not like the Minister

of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), maybe he is not going to be

using it for buttons, song-books, posters and these kinds of things. I

don't know what he's going to use it for. But I don't believe that a

266 percent increase in an advertising budget can be justified, when

there are people in this province.... For example, in Nanaimo the women

cannot get $7,000 for the operating cost of a transition house.

MR. CHAIRMAN . Order, please. Hon. member, again....

MR. BARNES: His priorities are turned around.

MS. BROWN:

That's right. My colleague the second member for Vancouver Centre has

expressed it in a more succinct way for me. What I'm dealing with is

the minister's priorities. I think his priorities are quite wrong.

colleague the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) said that this was

waste and fat. I don't believe that. I believe that this is a

deliberate overestimation of the minister's budget. I don't believe

he's going to spend all of that money. I think that we're seeing in

this ministry — as we saw in the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of

Universities, Science and Communications, and in all the ministries as

we've been preparing for the estimates — a deliberate overestimation of

expenditures.

The public accounts record will show that they

have underspent and that in fact they have not used the full amount

voted to them under the estimates. Then suddenly out of nowhere, lo and

behold, a surplus. Magic! What we are really saying has got to be

brought to the attention of that government is that they are not

fooling anyone. No one is deceived by what they are doing. We recognize

that we're dealing with deliberate overestimation. We know that we're

going to have deliberate under-expenditures in terms of this

overestimation. We know that out of nowhere and as a result of this

deliberate fiscal manipulation on their part, the porkbarrel account is

going to get larger and larger. Suddenly there's going to a surplus of

money to be used to purchase people's votes when the time comes.

this is this minister's contribution to what I refer to as the

pork-barrel account. That's my personal way of describing it and why I

am so strongly in support of this resolution. That is why I am saying

that it is unfair that people should be deliberately overtaxed — in

most instances the people who can least afford it — so this government

can deliberately under spend and accumulate the surplus to be used for

straight political reasons when the time comes. This minister's

contribution to that is particularly reprehensible when we realize the

group of people who are being penalized so that he can do that. I am

not going to remind us once again, because I've done it three times and

I know that you caught on immediately. As soon as I moved in that

direction it went "click" with you, as I'm sure it's going to click

with everyone else who is listening to this. We know what group of

people are being penalized so that this minister can made his

contribution to this fiscal game being played by that government over

there. He is carrying on in the tradition which he established when he

was Minister of Human Resources, and we are not surprised by that. We

are not surprised by the group he chose to use in terms of accumulating

his surplus. He hasn't changed.

We were under the impression

that once he had been moved by his leader into Municipal Affairs, maybe

he would have seen the evil of his ways and he would have changed. He

hasn't changed. It really makes us very sad that it doesn't matter

whether he's in Human Resources or in Municipal Affairs. Somehow he

still manages to penalize the old, poor and disabled in this province.

I would like to support the resolution very strongly. I hope it gets

the endorsement of those members of the government over there who do

not want to be a party to this fiscal game they're playing. They

deliberately overtax the people of this province, deliberately under

spend their budgets and deliberately cut back on their services.

Despite the fact that they have overtaxed everybody and they have the

money to deliver those services, they build a surplus to contribute to

what I refer to as their pork-barrel account and use that surplus to

purchase votes when an election is called. It's despicable!

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I wish to take my place in the debate but I also seek the leave of the House to introduce some guests.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to introduce Ed and Helen

Peneycad, who are in the members' gallery. The Peneycads and I met a

year ago when I was doing a quick jog on the breakwater in February.

They were out fishing, were beautifully tanned and having a wonderful

time. I stopped and spoke to them, and they were telling me that they

came to British Columbia for their vacation. They had such a nice time

last year that they're here this year. They think B.C. Is the best

place in the world. We welcome you here and I ask the House to welcome

them.

In the same breath, Mr. Chairman, I would also

apologize to my guests for what I suppose one should charitably call

the debate that we've just heard. The hon. member certainly showed

herself to be an authority on pork-barrelling. She seems to use the

term a lot. I'd suggest that we have some difficulty in understanding

what she means. 19m sure she'll enlighten us when she tends to....

MS. BROWN: Ask Spetifore. He knows.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Spetifore, my dear, happens to, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. The hon. minister is well aware that matters other, than

the ones before us are not debatable in this particular estimate. We

will have ample opportunity for that debate at a later date. I'm sure

all members will help the Chair by containing their remarks.

[ Page 5022 ]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. What I really wanted to do, in,

speaking against this amendment, was to bring to the attention of the

public and the opposition what seems to be an incredible lack of

understanding of life in the province of British Columbia. There seems

to be an incredible lack of ability for them to realize that there are

responsibilities to people in all parts of this province. In speaking

against the amendment, I say that, while there are great benefits in

living in the interior or the north of the province, there are also

some penalties.

This minister, whom the opposition are

trying to oppose and negate in their debate, deserves credit and

admiration for the efforts that he has made since becoming Minister of

Municipal Affairs to make municipal affairs, in the first place,

understandable to everyone and certainly understandable to those people

who live in the interior of the province. He has made himself available

to meeting after meeting when people needed his help. It's impossible

for the city slickers on the other side — those who practice socialism

but ride on capitalism — to understand that in places such as the

Okanagan, the Kootenays, the Peace River, and even northern Vancouver

Island, municipal affairs have been clouded in mystique for years. Such

words as "assessment" and "taxes" have been very much the prerogative

of the elite in the lower mainland who were close to the source of

information. This minister has come out and talked about these things.

People in these areas are very nervous and unsure about such words as

"planning" and how to go about establishing needed services, whether to

go regional or municipal.

The vote that the opposition are

attempting to discredit and cut back is perhaps one of the most

important votes to the people in the interior of this province. They

wanted to know what the planning act was about. They want to have their

minister available to them. They want to have the staff of Municipal

Affairs located in a region where they're accessible. They also want to

know that those authorities can be — and they certainly have been,

under this minister — free and willing to come out to meetings at the

drop of a hat. I believe that the opposition are, if I can so describe

it, sinful and guilty of great hypocrisy in presenting this amendment —

or ignorant; perhaps that's it. But some of those members do come from

the interior and I notice that they are not supporting this amendment —

not verbally anyway.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. I

applaud the minister and his staff for the incredible efforts they have

made over these last two years to help us in the interior of this

province have our rightful place and voice in government and for the

opportunity for discussions that can give us the information which

enables us to make decisions based on fact.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank the hon. member for speaking in support

of our attempts to decentralize and provide services to people outside

of the metropolitan areas of Victoria and Vancouver.

I did

want to spend just a moment responding very briefly to the remarks made

by the hon. member for Burnaby Edmonds (Ms. Brown). I don't want to

comment on the Vancouver Resources Board, because that was an

organization much more interested in politics than people services.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Members of the committee have been advised that we must

be strictly relevant. Would the minister please contain his remarks to

the amendment.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: My only comment

with respect to the bus passes is that that was an attempt that has,

worked very well to decentralize the transit services into the

communities. I'm sorry that the hon. member used the bus passes for the

blind as a way of scaring those people. I would assure them that we're

working with the regional districts to prevent this sort of thing from

happening. But then again, that came from the same hon. member who

suggested yesterday....

MR. BARNES: Why is he permitted to comment on something that's out of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The second member for Vancouver Centre makes a good point. We are on

the amendment, and the Chair has asked all members to be strictly

relevant to the amendment of the vote before us.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, I didn't see the second member for Vancouver Centre get

up. He's still in his seat, leaning back against the wall.

said that that came from the same hon. member who suggested yesterday

that perhaps people's rents should go up so they could park their

Cadillacs.

Mr. Chairman, we are again attempting to

decentralize, and the travel vote is not for the minister, as was

suggested, it's to relocate those people into their regional offices.

The increase in the office vote is because of the shift of the people

from the ELUC secretariat as well as the transfer of the building

safety standards branch. I have explained that so many times; I hope

now the members will understand, and I'm sure they would like to

withdraw their amendment.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman,

I want to congratulate my colleague from Victoria, who has brought

forward this good amendment. He's been watching closely the waste and

the fat in this minister's portfolio: these great increases in office

expenditures, in his advertising budget and his travelling expenses. I

was interested in the minister's saying that the increases were due to

the fact that we're decentralizing — we are having people throughout

the province — and there was increase of staff and so on and so forth,

an increase of, I think he quoted, some 20 people, and that's why he

needs more money. Well, according to the estimates, the present staff

of 15 has been increased to 17 this year; that's an increase of 2. He

got his zeros mixed up here.

We've got an increase of well

over 100 percent in the travel expense, from $18,000 last year to

$53,000 — 193 percent for an additional two people. Now I'll tell you,

those two are going to be travelling. There is no question in my mind:

it looks to me like travel expenses under your estimates. Now if you

want to change them, I would suggest you bring in an amendment to

change your estimates to put in what you're talking about. But it says

here "travel expenses," and with the 190 percent increase, those two

people are going to have very little time to do any work; they're going

to be travelling the whole time. If there is a job vacancy in that

area, I don't mind travel myself.

[ Page 5023 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I know. You used to do it a lot when you were minister.

MR. LORIMER:

I didn't, compared to you. I went to every municipality in this

province, with the exception of about two or three, in the three years

that I was the minister.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Every one in Sweden too, Jim.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LORIMER:

No, I would like to go to Sweden, but I have never been to Sweden in my

life. I went to Europe, and the minister was on the same delegation

that I was on; we went there together. I went at the expense of this

province, and the minister went at the expense of the Greater Vancouver

Regional District. That is the only trip I had. The minister can outdo

me any day of the week as far as travelling is concerned. I don't think

we'll hear another word about that.

Now we come to office

expenses. We've got two extra people, remember, Mr. Chairman; we've got

to keep that clear. We've gone from 15 to 17. How much are we going to

spend for their office? From $26,000 last year to $70,000....

MR. BARBER: A 133 percent increase.

MR. LORIMER:

A 133 percent increase for those two people; they're going to be

awfully expensive people. The province is going to be paying for those

people; those two people are going to be very expensive for the people

of this province. Now that's an interesting item. What are you going to

do with that money? What kind of furniture are they going to have? What

kind of accommodation are you going to give them? I would imagine with

that kind of increase it could be a very good suite somewhere.

Now we come to advertising and publications. This is an important one, because this is where we get our...

MR. BARBER: Socred news.

MR. LORIMER: ...Socred

news, yes; where we get our picture on TV and so on. This is where we

do our TV stints and so on. Last year the budget was for $2,500 and

this year it's for $9,174.

MR. BARBER: That's 266 percent.

MR. LORIMER:

A 266 percent increase, from $2,000 to $9,000. For two extra people

we're going to spend that extra money in advertising and publications.

It's obviously just straight fat in this budget — putting the taxes up

so the people of this province have to pay more and more taxes in order

to have this kind of extravagance and this kind of budget. I'm sure

that both sides of the House will be very prepared to support my worthy

colleague's amendment, especially in this vote.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, again I'll continue to point out the lack of research

that has been done by the opposition, and the fact that they've never

asked any questions with respect to any of these votes. This argument

by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon illustrates it again, because that

member once held the position of Minister of Municipal Affairs. He

should understand that central ministry services is a group of 17

people that provide for all central ministry services. Central ministry

services as one of its responsibilities has the acquisition of all

office material for every branch of the ministry. So it's not two

people here. The two-person increase here is a transfer of two

engineering staff to this particular branch. They provide for all the

additional staff that have come about because of the transfer from ELUC

and the transfer from the B.C. building safety standards branch. I hope

he now understands it.

Once more, the travel is for the

relocation of the people from Victoria offices into the regions. I

realize that the members opposite want to keep everything in Victoria

and are very concerned about urban areas only. They don't care very

much about the more rural areas of the province, but I do.

Thirdly,

the advertising and publications is the transfer from another vote for

the publication called the annual report for the ministry. I hope the

member now understands. I realize there aren't too many members here

and that they keep coming in and out. I'm sure that, one by one, they']

I all begin to understand.

MR. COCKE: That was almost

an answer. The minister knows full well that when the members aren't in

the House, we do like he does and listen to what's going on in the

chamber on our little speakers.

The minister tends to muddy

the waters. We've heard renditions of Cadillac parking in Burnaby,

which is a total twist in trying to answer a question with respect to

the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who was talking on an

entirely different subject with respect to parking for apartments. I

think she made a fair discussion of it too — that each apartment should

have a parking spot. What has that got to do with Cadillacs? It's just

ridiculous. The former Minister of Municipal Affairs' trip to Sweden....

It's

this twisting and diverting attention from his responsibilities. Then

he says that we should be asking questions. What's the point in asking

questions? This has been going on for two or three days. One asks the

minister a question and he gets up and replies that in the NDP days of

government this, this and this. They have no relevance whatsoever to

the questions that are being asked of his responsibility today.

That

minister, talking about decentralization — of all the people to talk

about decentralization, he's the last that should. He was the one that

tied the can to the resource boards, which were totally a

decentralizing proposition. They will come back, because the people

will demand them. They don't want all the shots called from Victoria,

particularly from an unglorious government like this who don't really

know what's going on out there.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, again this particular member is

getting into the Ministry of Human Resources. I point out once more

that I would love to debate that with him or any one of the opposition,

or the whole lot of them, outside of the House. But here we should

stick to my estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member

makes a very good point, and I will remind the committee that we must

be strictly relevant. The committee will remember and the records will

show that when the minister digressed, in fact the

[ Page 5024 ]

Chair

brought him back to relevant statements. I would ask the hon. member

for New Westminster to continue on the amendment to vote 160.

MR. COCKE:

I would like to explain that the reason I did what I did was just to

point out that that's exactly what the minister has been doing all

through his estimates. It's unforgivable on my part, but I thought it

would be a good example for the committee to hear what it sounds like

from this side of the House.

All I can suggest about this

particular vote is that I see monstrous increases without any

justification. I support the amendment of the hon. first member for

Victoria to this particular vote, by virtue of the fact that there is

too much fat and it hasn't been responsibly accounted for.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 28

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

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

Vote 160 approved.

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

MR. BARBER: I will be calling division on this vote as a means of repudiating

the false claim this committee heard yesterday concerning the New Democrat commitment

to the funding of public transit. We will be voting in favour of vote 161,

and we will call a division in order to have that recorded. We will no longer

put up with the wrong and insupportable claims of the minister responsible for

transit — claims we heard yesterday, which we rejected and repudiated, and which

we repudiate again today. There was the particularly preposterous claim that

in 1975 our government spent all of $3 million on transit — simple nonsense,

absolute and categorical nonsense. So that the minister's nonsense is assuredly

corrected, we will call a division in favour of this vote.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Regarding the transit system to Maple Ridge, I'd like to ask the

minister.... I understand it will be starting in the middle of 1982. Is

there consideration being given to extending that system as far as

Mission? I want to make it clear that I'm grateful it's going to Maple

Ridge; but at this time I'd especially like to ask if there's

consideration being given to going on a further 12 miles.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

The transit program for the lower mainland is not only the ALRT

proposal to serve the whole of greater Vancouver. At the same time we

announced a commuter program which will be utilizing the CPR tracks.

The system will run from Maple Ridge, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody,

through Burnaby into Vancouver — just another tremendous step in the

provision of transit services for the people of British Columbia.

MR. LORIMER:

I don't believe the minister answered the question from the hon. member

for Dewdney. I want to assure the hon. member that in 1975 an agreement

was basically reached between the CPR and the government of the day for

a commuter service on the CPR tracks from Mission into Vancouver. There

were to be two trains coming in in the morning and two in the

afternoon. That agreement was never consummated after the election in

December 1975. It was killed by that group over there, who call

themselves your friends. I don't know if the member for Dewdney wants

to change some of his votes after hearing what his friends have done to

his constituency.

In addition to the commuter train service,

which was cancelled by the new government, the bus services in the

areas of Mission and Maple Ridge were substantially increased. So I

think that's a better answer, Mr. Member, than was given by the

minister.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The estimates for

1974-75 would indicate a metropolitan transit subsidy of $2 million; it

was the same amount for 1975-76. There was also a provincial rapid

transit fund, which had a total of $500,000 in 1974-75; it was

increased to $600,000 in 1975-76. The $600,000 which they had in the

1975-76 budget wasn't enough to buy the spikes to fix the track to run

the train. So any suggestion now that there was some proposal or plan

to provide a commuter service is absolutely ludicrous, and the member

knows that. There was no plan at all. All they were proposing was to

buy more second-hand buses from Saskatoon.

Yes, the commuter

service is capable of extension from Maple Ridge to Mission. I

certainly would not give any information other than that which we are

able to follow through on. When we say we're going to do something, we

do it. We don't just talk about it. That train will initially go to

Maple Ridge, and as development takes place beyond Maple Ridge, we will

consider extending it to Mission as well.

MR. LORIMER:

The minister probably doesn't realize this, but I'll have to explain it

to him. Formerly, before the transfer of the transit system from B.C.

Hydro, B.C. Hydro was responsible for transit services in the coastal

areas. In addition to what B.C. Hydro supplied, the provincial

government also paid into the transit services. So they had it not only

through Hydro but also through the government.

I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the number of vehicles increased from about 350 in 1972, when this little group

[ Page 5025 ]

became

government, until 1975, at which time it was about 800 — over a 100

percent increase. What has happened since 1975? The number of vehicles

is now about 650. It's a reduction of vehicles and a reduction of

service — a true history of Social Credit commitment to transit. That

is the case. In addition, areas which had no service were brought into

service — North Vancouver, Coquitlam, Surrey, Delta, Maple Ridge and

Haney.

How this minister can stand up and talk about

transit.... I would imagine he would want it to go away, because he's

done absolutely nothing in the field of transit.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

The total B.C. Hydro transit program was $24 million in 1972, and the

total was $28.5 million in 1975. Certainly they did provide some very

small amounts in budgets, and they did purchase some extra buses. A lot

of those extra buses are still parked in a Burnaby junk yard.

MR. LORIMER:

I might point out that in addition to the funds listed, there were

warrants for vehicles which were presented during that period of time.

I also want to explain the system of buying vehicles. If you want to

buy new vehicles, it's difficult to get them and there's a long waiting

time. I'm sure the minister is finding that out now. In areas that are

going into a different type of transit, you can buy a fleet of

vehicles. In that fleet you have good vehicles and you may have poor

ones. But you can't pick and choose; you buy the whole fleet. The odd

one of those vehicles was not fit for use, but it was useful for parts

and so on for the other vehicles. Not only was this a saving to the

public of British Columbia, but it gave us service immediately. The

other vehicles were purchased for the purpose of taking motors from the

trolleys to put into the new trolleys that were ordered, with a saving

of some $20,000 on each new vehicle bought.

I don't know how

many times I have to explain this to you people over there. Your

understanding of transit is less than zilch. I wish that someone over

there would take it up maybe as a hobby and try to understand a little

bit about the transit programs.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, I have to answer that, because certainly I appreciate

these old buses from Saskatoon. The whole of that NDP fleet may have

been bought for parts purposes. The member ought to be aware that when

Jimmy Gorst bought a bunch of buses, he similarly wanted to buy a bunch

of used buses for parts. That's not the role of government: to buy a

bunch of junk buses to fix up other junk buses for some guy who's

running a tour business or this sort of thing.

We did not

cancel any bus orders that were placed by anyone. We not only carried

through with whatever the orders — I don't recall the orders — but we

placed the orders for new equipment. The system is now tremendously

improved over anything that was there. Not only that, instead of having

a service available to three small communities only — again, they were

perhaps conscious of the need in greater Victoria and Vancouver,

although they didn't respond — we went out and provided transit

services to 20 small communities in all parts of the province. We are

concerned about the north, the northwest, the northeast, the Kootenays

and the Cariboo. We don't have the Victoria-only mentality. This

government knows British Columbia goes beyond Victoria.

MR. LORIMER:

This was a typical display from this minister. As far as the government

is concerned, Jimmy Gorst never bought a bus at any time. I'm not quite

sure what the minister is trying to get at.

MR. COCKE: He's twisting again.

MR. LORIMER: He's twisting, but he's doing a little better today. I would say that half the time he's telling the truth. I'll withdraw that.

MR. BARRETT: The member for Burnaby-Willingdon is like transportation: he's got the minister coming and going on that one.

wanted to raise an objection to some of the things that the minister

said. First of all, we've seen an example of how you handle

transportation with the Marguerite

— first it's on, then it's off. And $5 million later you blow all that

money. You've got a day ferry running at night, and a night ferry

running in the day — all that money down the tube and still no

transportation in Mission.

This is the point I want to make: the question is service for Mission. If you hadn't blown all that money on the Marguerite ,

and wasted a million-dollar study on the tunnel, we'd have

transportation to Mission. I want to keep this on the record. You've

driven the member out of the House. He can't stand it because you

haven't given him an answer. I know how embarrassed he is, because I

used to serve that area. Mr. Chairman, you see this badge here? That's

a display. I can't show a display or I'll be thrown out of the House.

I'll put it in my pocket. Before I do, it says: "I've been adopted by

North Delta." It's going to be scratched out to say, "I've been adopted

by Dewdney," unless we get some transportation up there in Mission. We

need that transportation in Mission.

The other thing is that

some members come in here and threaten the government for bridges. They

get a bridge but the consequence of getting that bridge is they get a

badge saying they should be adopted. I don't want that member driven to

badge campaigns. I want an answer for that member.

If the

CPR is going all the way in from Mission, why can't it stop and pick up

the passengers in Mission? You're afraid of the CPR, that's what you

are. All this bluff talk about the CPR not being welcome in B.C. and

"B.C. Is not for sale." You haven't got enough guts to tell the CPR to

stop in Mission. If you haven't. we have. We'll tell the CPR to stop in

Mission.

Flim-flam! Where did the SeaBus come from? Did it

take the minister four years of fiddling, diddling and shoving money

back onto the taxpayers and municipalities? Not on your life. Those

SeaBuses were built in B.C. shipyards by B.C. workers, they're

providing transportation for people right now, and that was all paid

for. Mr. Chairman, do you think those SeaBuses came out of committee

after committee? Do you think they weren't paid for by the taxpayers?

It was that member, when he was minister, who said to that North Shore,

which still hasn't heard a word about a bridge from the North Shore

members or received any help from them ever since they've been cabinet

ministers....

Interjection.

[ Page 5026 ]

MR. BARRETT:

I know. And what have you done about it for five years? Absolutely

nothing. What about the people in West Vancouver? Twenty-five million

dollars was set aside. Five years have gone by and there hasn't been a

move for the people of West Vancouver or North Vancouver, other than

the SeaBuses bought by the NDP.

That member, when he was a

Liberal member, used to stand up and fight for West Vancouver

transportation. Now we don't hear a peep out of him. There are two

things he hasn't said anything about: one is how much he loves Bill

Bennett; and he hasn't said a word about transportation in West

Vancouver.

Where are the members for North Vancouver? What

transportation help have they had over there from this government? When

they were in opposition those Liberal members used to get up.... I

remember in one campaign they held up great big posters on the bridge

saying: "Vote for us; we'll get a new crossing." It's true. That's one

promise they kept. They have a new crossing: they crossed the floor

into the government. That's the only crossing they got. Two of them

left, and because there were two it's known as the doublecross. That's

what took place.

Now that minister gets up and says he's

done this and he's done that for transportation. 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 or increased costs on

transportation, and 24 hours later you come in here and vote for the

same thing in the provincial budget. I think the member for Burnaby was

being too kind when he said you tell the truth half the time — and he

had to withdraw it, with the same result.

I see nothing that

this government has done in moving ahead in transportation. They were

in government for years before we got elected. There was nothing in

Surrey or Coquitlam. What have they done since? They've dumped all the

responsibility back on the local taxpayer. Every time those people buy

gas they're paying for their transportation, under your formula. We

never dumped that on gasoline or on the municipalities. You've done it

all.

You've got the nerve to stand and say you're going to

do it all and then you say you might let it happen in Mission. You have

no right to let that member for Dewdney down. If he isn't prepared to

threaten to give up his seat unless he gets it, I'll threaten for him:

unless he gets that in Mission, he's going to give up his seat. We have

reasons. That's the way it works. If he doesn't want to stick his neck

out, I'll stick his neck out for him.

I want to tell you

this: Mission deserves some attention. Also, I want to hear from those

Liberals on the North Shore why they haven't said a word about

transportation to the North Shore. I went over to visit my

mother-in-law the other night. I went over on that bridge and I went by

those buses. Those buses are jam-packed and there's been no relief. How

about another ferry? How about bringing back the ferry to West

Vancouver? The SeaBuses go across in eight minutes. What about a

12-minute ferry ride to West Vancouver? Why not? You've got no

imagination, no commitment and no drive over there to fight for the

thing. Marriages last longer on the North Shore because there was a

longer courtship time on the ferry rides. Now everything's rammed into

the automobile and everything becomes short-term; relationships don't

get established. Let's have a little romance back on the ferry across

to West Vancouver. Use some imagination. You've got the integrated

thing. My friend the member for Burnaby has built the space for parking

cars. You can move'in. There are two SeaBuses — put two more on to West

Vancouver. What's wrong with that? The thing that really upsets me is

that not one North Shore member has come up with one imaginative idea

for assisting transportation.

I want to conclude by saying

that I support the member for Dewdney in his battle for Mission. If he

doesn't get that train stopping there in six months, he's going to

quit. I want to back him up on that commitment.

Mr.

Minister, we know what's really underneath your whole performance

today. We know that. Look, you can't have leadership by promise. You

have to produce. You're able to stand up and wave your arms better than

any other windmill over there. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that

you've got to produce — besides waving your arms. If you want to be

leader, you've got to go in there and fight and get that money and

produce, even for Mission. Otherwise it doesn't count. You're going to

be baffled by the present leadership. Get together with West Vancouver.

Bring together a little group in the back bench. Have a little palace

revolt. Take over and become number one, so we can have a train

stopping in Mission to save George's seat.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I certainly would welcome any good suggestions from the opposition with

respect to this particular vote or any other. To suggest that the

answer to Mission is to have the CPR train stop there once every three

days or so as it passes through is ludicrous.

MR. BARRETT: Half-truths again.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

What we need for Mission is a regular service in continuation of the

commuter service that will serve Maple Ridge that would eventually

stretch up the valley and provide for all of the people there.

SOME HON. MEMBER: Half-truths!

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. members, the term half-truth is hardly one that

would be parliamentarily acceptable. I think all hon. members in

reflecting upon it would have to agree that it is not conducive to the

kind of debate that we sometimes see in the chamber.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I'll conclude that particular remark, Mr. Chairman, by saying that to

simply have the CPR stop as it goes through now and again is not good

enough. I liken it to their approach to providing transit in the

Duncan-Cowichan area where they decided to subsidize an old,

broken-down taxi service. It's this sort of thing that was their

solution or their answer to transit.

AN. HON. MEMBER: What about SeaBus?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

He talks about SeaBus. Sure, the NDP took some initiative with respect

to SeaBus, but they were broke. Who paid for SeaBus? This government

picked up the tab for SeaBus, because they not only spent the $500

million they inherited as a surplus when they came to office, but they

left a $261 million deficit when they left. They couldn't pay for

SeaBus. They didn't have the money to pay for SeaBus. We finalized the

SeaBus program.

[ Page 5027 ]

They

talk about a fair transit-sharing program. The Leader of the Opposition

said: "We didn't charge the people for transit." They soaked the people

in those smaller communities for 50 percent of the transit deficit.

Certainly they felt that the people in Houston, Cranbrook, Prince

George, Quesnel and everywhere else could help pay for the Vancouver

system through their hydro bills. They felt that the people in all of

those other communities beyond the Vancouver and Victoria boundaries —

that the NDP always and forever forgets; they think everything ends at

Victoria — were required to pay 50 percent. That's right, and that's

why the communities under the Social Credit package have come forth.

We've now got 20 small communities getting transit services, and we're

picking up 75 percent of the deficit.

We responded to the

Vancouver request that they be allowed as a regional district to

participate and that there be a gas tax instituted to pick up their

portion of the deficit, which they wished and requested to assume. I

was a member of that regional district at the time. I well recall the

debate. We are providing transit and we've picked up the deficit for

the West Vancouver line. What did the NDP ever pay towards West

Vancouver? Not a penny. We picked up their share of the deficit. We are

assisting West Vancouver. The NDP forgot about that West Vancouver

transit system. If we wish to compare transit approaches between 1975

and now, it's like going back to the dark ages to look at those early

years of the seventies.

AN HON. MEMBER: On a point of order....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, first we'll take points of order, then debate. On a point of order, the member for Prince George South.

MR. STRACHAN: Under standing order 37, I move that the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) now be heard. The vote must proceed.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Firstly, for that particular motion to be put in place

it cannot be done under a point of order. Therefore I will now

entertain.... I believe there was another point of order? On a point of

order, the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: The point

of order I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is that I cannot understand —

and I say this with great respect to the Chair — why it is that the

Chair permits that Minister of Municipal Affairs to twist, distort and

misrepresent the facts. He distorts everything that comes to mind in

order to paint a particular picture, and you will not permit members of

the opposition to classify that as a falsehood, a half-truth or a lie,

which is exactly what it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order,

please. Hon. member, to even suggest that the Chair in any way can pass

judgment on remarks from members of one side of the House as to their

validity would be placing an impossible charge upon the Chair.

MR. HOWARD: It's not a question of validity, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Please be seated, hon. member. The Chair's position is

very simply that the Chair must accept the word of all hon. members in

this chamber. For the member to suggest that the Chair could interfere

as to whether or not an item. remark or a fact stated by any hon.

member is at the Chair's discretion to interpret as being factual is

totally beyond comprehension. It would simply absolutely destroy the

very fibre by which we operate in this chamber.

Secondly, for the member to make those remarks....

must ask whether directly or indirectly he was imputing any false

motive to the minister. I must ask him to withdraw any such imputation.

MR. HOWARD:

I state directly, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, that the

minister deliberately and consciously twists facts in this House,

deliberately and consciously makes misrepresentations about facts...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, that's not a point of order. Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: ...deliberately and consciously attempts to mislead this House into thinking something is true that is not.

[Mr. Chairman rose.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, when a member takes his place in this chamber on a point

of order, it is anticipated that somewhere along the line a point of

order and not a speech will take place. The member has ample

opportunity in this debate to make the points that he's making, without

making them on what could be classified as somewhat skimpy points of

order, at best. We now have a debate to contend with on the motion

before us.

MR. LORIMER: I want to change the debate a little bit. I want to deal with facts.

just want to explain a couple of matters to the minister again.

Firstly. regarding the cost of the SeaBus, I would like to advise the

minister. In case he is unaware of it. that the SeaBus was not

completely constructed prior to the election. The bills owing on the

SeaBus were paid up to date at the time of the election. After the

election the Social Credit Party wanted to do away with the SeaBus.

They waited some seven months before they gave the order to proceed,

because they couldn't sell it to Edmonton. They didn't know what to do

so they had to proceed with it. In the meantime, because of increased

costs of construction the SeaBus service cost substantially more, due

to that delay, because the docking facilities went up in price

substantially due to the lapse of time. As a result the SeaBus service

cost a lot more than it should have, due to the delaying tactics of

that government.

The second fact I want to explain is the

question of the cost-sharing with the areas in which we supplied

vehicles and so on for the interior communities. The distribution was a

charge of two mills, or at least a 50-50 split in operating, with a

maximum amount of two mills on the school tax base. Now they're paying

money — 25 percent — on the costs with no

[ Page 5028 ]

ceiling.

They're paying the whole thing, the whole 25 percent, and it's going to

go up and up. They had a far better deal then than they do now.

The

second thing I want to point out is that I suggested this to the

Greater Vancouver Regional District. The minister was the mayor of

Surrey at the time, and he opposed the lower mainland paying anything

to help out in transit. He opposed that. He didn't mind the interior

areas paying their share, but he was absolutely opposed to the lower

mainland, Victoria and so on paying any share in transit costs.

HON. MR. McGEER:

This is an interesting debate, and I wouldn't have entered it except to

make an observation following the former Minister of Municipal Affairs'

comments about the brilliant transportation system which the NDP

introduced while they were in office, and which, I take it, was the

crowning achievement of their transportation policy. This was the

SeaBus.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

When I was a

university student I used to work in the shipyards in North Vancouver

and travelled regularly on the North Vancouver ferry. At that time the

crossing, which was reincarnated by the NDP with their SeaBus, took 15

minutes — excuse me, the service ran every 15 minutes. It took eight

minutes to cross, it cost 5 cents, and the service made money. The new

transportation policy brought in by the former Minister of Municipal

Affairs, the former member for Coquitlam, who was eased out of that by

the public of British Columbia and the former Premier, when they

introduced their system of the SeaBus.... It now takes 20 minutes to

cross.

MR. BARBER: That's not true.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, wait a minute; it does a turnaround. It takes ten minutes to cross, not eight. It costs 60 cents.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Will the committee come to order. The second member for Surrey (Mr.

Hall) and the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) are

please reminded....

The minister continues on vote 161.

HON. MR. McGEER: The member for Surrey says: Shame on you. You've never been on it." I have been on it. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that member for Burnaby.... I'm

embarrassed to have her as a constituent of mine, with the argument she

brings up in this House. I just want her to fulfill one promise, Mr.

Chairman, that she made during her election campaign, and that's to go

and live in the constituency she represents. I'm embarrassed to have

any constituent of mine in this Legislative assembly bringing up the

kinds of subjects under debate that that noisy member — who I wish you

would bring to order, Mr. Chairman — continually does in this House.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the minister please take his chair?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you please be seated. Thank you.

We're

on vote 161, transit services, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Will

the House please come to order, and will the minister relate his

remarks to the vote now before us. The minister continues on vote 161.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. McGEER:

I'll tell you this, Mr. Chairman. With this Minister of Municipal

Affairs in charge of rapid transit, it's going to be possible for that

constituent of mine to live in the constituency she represents. That's

the important thing. That's why she should be supporting this minister.

But

I'll tell you this. To the second member for Surrey, yes, I've been on

that SeaBus, and I was on the old North Vancouver ferry, which ran

every 15 minutes, which cost 5 cents and which made money instead of

losing $3 million a year.

When the New Democratic Party was

in office they were well on their way to solving the transportation

problem in the lower mainland area by providing transportation for

people out of British Columbia. It would have been satisfactory to have

that former Minister of Municipal Affairs' policy of buying junked

buses to put in the graveyards, because there wouldn't have been any

people to ride on them. If there's a transportation problem, and there

is, if there's a housing problem, and there is, that's because we've

had successful government in British Columbia and people are coming

here to live. The policy under the New Democratic Party when they were

in office.... One only has to look at the statistics to know that

people were leaving British Columbia in droves. There was no mining

industry. The forest industry was on the rocks. The government didn't

have any money to pay for the health and educational services, because

the workers were leaving British Columbia. Yes, we wouldn't have needed

a transportation system. We wouldn't have needed housing development

because what we needed then was jobs. That was what was going in

British Columbia. That's the only way the New Democratic Party could

have solved the transportation or housing problem — to eliminate the

need for it because people would be leaving the province in droves.

Our

problems here in British Columbia today are problems of success, not

problems of failure. They're the problems created by free enterprise,

not the problems created by socialism. If there's anything the New

Democratic Party should be doing, it's supporting this minister who can

solve the problems of success, of people coming to British Columbia,

and of prosperity. Yes, if people want to have their problems solved by

failure, by lack of jobs and by no money coming into government, they

can put that Minister of Municipal Affairs in again. But I don't think

they will. I think they'll do what they did in 1933, 1937, 1941, 1945,

1949, 1952, 1953, 1960, 1963, 1966, 1969, 1975 and 1979.

MR. LEA: It's always interesting to hear a scientific analysis of where the province is and where it's going.

About

three months after I was made Minister of Highways, I joined the then

Premier of the province to open up the Mission bridge. During the

ceremonies opening up the Mission bridge, I jokingly said: "Isn't it

nice to have an NDP

[ Page 5029 ]

government,

because in just three months look at the bridge you have." Of course it

was a joke, It would have been absolutely stupid for me or my

government at the time to take credit in any way for the Mission

bridge. It would have been ridiculous.

Three months after I

was no longer the Minister of Highways, the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, the now Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), was in Prince

Rupert to open up the bus system. Yet today we hear the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) taking credit for the bus

system in Prince Rupert. I think that is politically dishonest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member will be reminded that courtesy in parliamentary language is always a good feature of the committee.

MR. LEA:

Of course. Mr. Chairman, as it would have been ridiculous for me and my

government to try to take credit for the Mission bridge, it is equally

silly and nonsensical for the present government to try and take credit

for some of the things the NDP did when they were in government. I

believe that's why we have a little disorder in our House today. The

minister doesn't seem to have within him the grace, the political

wisdom, the humility or the respect for politics that I believe he

should have.

I'd say this about the Minister of Finance:

when he was the Minister of Municipal Affairs and opened the bus system

in Prince Rupert, he invited me as the MLA to be with him at their

ceremonies because that minister fully understood that it was the joint

effort of two governments of British Columbia. But mainly it was the

government that minister replaced that was responsible for the bus

systems in the rural communities at that time. It would be very

difficult for me to get up and criticize the Minister of Finance for

his actions at that time, because I think he had the political wisdom

and the sensitivity to understand exactly what he was doing.

This

Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Chairman, doesn't seem to have that

sensitivity or sense of fair play. They'll jump up and talk about

things that they feel didn't go right when we were the government of

British Columbia, as is their right to do. But it would seem to me, Mr.

Chairman, that it would be a much more productive exercise in this

Legislature if this government were to take a look at transportation,

specifically public transportation, in our urban areas and try to solve

the problem as opposed to trying to blame the previous government for

not solving the problem. All they seem to do is feel they can believe

that they can fool the people of British Columbia by coming out with a

brand new transportation policy every three or four months and talking

about the great things that they'd like to do. Maybe they think that

they can fool the people of this province with that kind of rhetoric. I

don't think so. The one thing that we all lose from is that if all they

have in a transportation planning way is rhetoric and no substance,

then everybody loses — the Social Credit, the NDP, but most of all the

people of this province.

I think the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) got up

because he was bored, because he didn't say anything that added to the

debate. He didn't say one thing that enhanced this debate in any way. I

think it would behoove the Minister of Municipal Affairs to stand up

and say: "One year from now, here's what we'll have. Two years from

now, here's what we'll have," or three years and four years and five

years, and talk about the kind of transportation systems.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I wonder if the committee could come to order. The hon. member for Prince Rupert is speaking to the vote.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Chairman, to try and solve the urban transportation problems that

we have in this province is no easy task for any government. I remember

meeting in Surrey when I was the Minister of Highways. One of the

aldermen was a school teacher who lived in Surrey and worked in

Vancouver and was complaining about the traffic tie up in the tunnel

every morning and night. Obviously something is wrong with the whole

system of urban planning when we have, for instance, a new factory

going in that will pay X amount of dollars to the workers there, and

half a mile from the factory we build houses that the wages from the

factory will not support the purchase of.

So you get people

who live in Vancouver and work in Surrey, and people who are exactly

the opposite way around. The problem is that we have to in some way

relate industrial planning, residential planning and transit planning

all into one package, You cannot deal with transportation as an

isolated factor and hope that it all works out. You can't allow

developers to go anywhere they want and develop anything they want, and

then have the province and the municipalities pick up the bill of

chasing an unplanned residential or industrial strategy around. This

government seems to think that anything called planning is evil,

because only communists plan. They're absolutely opposed to any kind of

planning whatsoever, because they think it smacks of communism or

socialism or one of the other imaginary evils that they always have

running around under their beds.

If you take a look at the

greater Vancouver liveable regional district plan, you can look at it

and you can say that it might be very nice to achieve it. But where are

you going to get the politicians with enough guts — municipally,

provincially and federally — to carry it out? There are certain things

that have to be done if you're going to rationalize the urban

community, especially in regard to transportation.

The one

thing that I would like to warn this government about is the fixed-rail

concept of making a public transportation system within the urban

community a fixed-rail one, because it's there forever. Unless you take

your transportation, your residential growth, your industrial growth

and your commercial growth, and put them into one complete package,

with those disciplines that look after each one of those segments

working together in a planning way, you're never going to get anywhere.

You're sure not going to get anywhere with a minister who says to the

municipalities: "You'll do it my way, or it won't be done at all."

have never in my life seen a group of arch-conservatives, who say that

they believe in the decentralization of the decision-making process,

draw to their breast in Victoria so many of the decisions that should

be left in the community. That minister, who is the most

arch-conservative of that group, is probably the worst offender in

centralizing every decision that ever comes down the pipe into his

office in Victoria, wherever it's possible to do it. If that is

conservatism, then let's get rid of it. If a centralized bureaucracy is

the kind of conservative policy that means that government seizes the

option we should take, then let's get rid of it, because it's not what

the people of this province want. They want a say in the decisions that

are going to affect them

[ Page 5030 ]

immediately

and personally in the communities where they live. This minister has to

be the worst offender in taking away those decisions from the

communities and the individuals in those communities and bringing those

decisions into a centralized bureaucracy in Victoria. He must be

ashamed at night. He must be ashamed as a conservative to go for all

that centralized power. Or is that what this conservative group wants?

Is it so they can control it? Are they so sure they're right in every

instance, so sure the people out there are incapable of making

decisions for themselves, on their own or in conjunction with senior

government, that they're afraid to let them do it? Why are they so

concerned about people in the community making decisions that will

affect them? I find it absolutely incredible.

I've said it

before, but I'd like to remind this Legislature that when I was the

Minister of Highways, that minister at that time was the chairman of

the transportation committee of the Greater Vancouver Regional

District. As the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) said, he

sure talked a different line then. In those days he talked about the

need for local participation in the decision-making process in regard

to transportation. He seemed to recognize some of the problems —

regardless of the government — that we would have to face. The one area

we agreed on in those days was that the local residents of a community

should have some say in the decision-making process.

MR. BARBER: Today he is the problem.

MR. LEA:

As my colleague points out, today he is the problem in the way of

people taking some

part in the decisions of solving problems. He is the

arch villain against local municipal decision-making. This government

has taken one piece of legislation after the other, one regulation

after the other, and they've taken the decisions away from local

communities and local school boards and they've taken them into

Victoria so that they can have control. The only thing that remains,

Mr. Chairman, is to ask the question: why? Why do they so distrust the

local resident? Why do they so distrust the individual and that

individual's capability of making decisions for those things that will

affect him or her immediately and sometimes, if it's a wrong decision,

irreparably? This government is the worst centralist government I have

ever had the misfortune to view, to be associated with or to read about.

Mr.

Chairman, in my opinion that minister is doing more damage to the

democratic process than any other in that cabinet. The part that

saddens me is that I really don't think he knows it; I don't think he

appreciates it. I can't find it in my heart to condemn him as a human

being. I personally like the minister and I think he knows that, but

the decisions that that minister makes are actually incredible in terms

of chipping away and scratching away at the democracy that holds us

together. I would like to be charitable, Mr. Chairman, and say that he

doesn't understand. I believe he is embarrassed. It's strange what some

people will do to achieve power; it's even stranger what some people

will do to maintain it. I have never in my life seen such a change of

attitude and principle as I have with that minister since he was a

municipally elected politician to now when he's a provincially elected

politician. He didn't only cross parties; he seemed to cross into the

twilight zone that leaves no room for the individual in his thinking

and which is dictatorial in every aspect.

Every portfolio

that he gets his hands on.... In Human Resources he said: "Do away with

the community decision-making around community resource boards; do away

with it." Then he gets into Municipal Affairs where he has transit, and

he does exactly the same thing. With everything that he puts his hands

on as a Crown minister, he takes away freedom and decision-making from

the local area and brings it into Victoria into a highly centralized

bureaucracy and then sits on top of it like a dictator, telling local

people what they will and what they won't do, and backs off in the face

of nothing. He'll never back off. He somehow seems to feel that there's

strength in that. I suggest to the minister that there's strength in

allowing people in on the decision-making process.

For him

to stand up in this House and even try to discredit those things in

transportation that the previous government did that were good, I find

distasteful. I thought more of him. I thought more of him as a human

being. I can understand why some politicians do it, but I find it

incredible that this politician, who I had respect for in many ways,

has joined his colleagues in doing nothing more than exactly the same

as the Minister of Universities just did. Say nothing, and revert

everything to cheap politics.

Whether that government stays

in power at the next election is one question. But for the good of

British Columbia, the first member for Surrey, the now Minister of

Municipal Affairs, if he continues to act the way he has.... For that

party's sake, for this party's sake and for the sake of the people of

British Columbia, if that government remains in power, let's pray that

he isn't in it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I remind the committee

that Committee of Supply is simply to vote on the amount of money

before us. Personal allusions are not really allowed. As a matter of

fact, Sir Erskine May points out specifically that we cannot discuss

the question of whether or not a minister should be in cabinet. We are

on vote 161.

MRS. WALLACE: When the minister last

addressed the House, he provided us with a rather fanatical

presentation. He referred to the so-called worn-out taxi system which

the New Democratic Party had subsidized in my constituency.

MR. BARBER: Another half-truth.

MRS. WALLACE: It certainly was a half-truth; it was hardly that.

would like the House to recognize the fact.... Obviously that minister

does not recognize the need for transportation in small communities.

The so-called worn-out taxi was a brand new eight-passenger bus. That

bus provided a much needed service between Lake Cowichan, Youbou and

Duncan. Thanks to that minister and his policies, it's no longer

providing that service because there's no more subsidy for that bus

service. The only way those people in Youbou can get to Duncan on the

public transit system is to leave at 4:30 in the morning, thanks to

that minister. For him to stand up and talk about a broken down taxi

service supported by the NDP is annoying to say the least, when people

know what's going on there. It certainly points out that the arguments

that he presents in this House are nothing but fantastic fabrications.

[ Page 5031 ]

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go back to the opening of the debate on this

particular vote. The first member for Victoria said very clearly that

we were supporting the vote and we would even divide on the vote,

because we do support it and want it made clear that we do support it.

Having said that and having made a number of points, the minister got

up and started talking about the NDP's performance — a performance,

incidentally, on transit that reflected three years and four months in

government. If you really look at it and think as I did when I saw all

of Coquitlam served, many of the outlying areas served, Surrey's

service enhanced, White Rock served for the first time and Delta served

far more than it had ever been before.... I thought to myself that is

really something to be proud of, particularly in three years and four

months. This government has been government for five years and four

months. Let's put that into context. We have seen an actual

deterioration in transit service in the lower mainland in that five

years and four months. Yet the minister gets up and is critical of the

NDP.

There is a history in this province, Mr. Chairman, and the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who gets up and makes that hollow

speech every two or three days — what happened in 1960, what happened in 1963,

and so on and so forth.... That great stuff reflects a number of years when

this province has been ill-governed. I think that transit is probably one of

the areas where we can best show that there was a great deal of priority, care

and concern for human needs. Out of that brief three years and four months we

got sortie very great enhancement in transit; we got SeaBus and a number of

other very important aspects in helping convey people from point A to point

B. I agree totally with the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). There has to

be a lot more than just transit planning going into this whole thing.

When

I walked into the chamber a moment ago I heard the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications talking about the incompetence

and inability of the NDP to deal with issues and so on during the time

that we were government. When I think of the blunders that minister has

made — particularly that blunder out at UBC — for him to even have the

nerve to get up in this House and suggest any such thing is just beyond

one's imagination.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:32 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1981,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada