1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1883 ]

CONTENTS

Land Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 13). Hon. Mr. Chabot.

Introduction and first reading –– 1883

Oral Questions

Sale of Elko sawmill operation. Mr. Segarty –– 1883

Appointment of D.E. Smith. Mr. Lea –– 1884

Purchase of Maplewood Poultry. Mrs. Wallace –– 1884

Agricultural land reserve. Mrs. Wallace –– 1885

Tabling Reports

Okanagan Basin Implementation Board third annual report. Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 1885

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Mr. Barrett –– 1885

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1887

Mr. Barrett –– 1891

Special Funds Act, 1980 (Bill 7). Second reading.

Mr. Hyndman –– 1894

Mr. Levi –– 1897

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1900

Mr. Lauk –– 1901

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1905

Matter of Privilege

Allegations against member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie). Deputy Speaker rules –– 1906

An Act to Regulate Smoking in Public Places and Meetings (Bill M205). Mrs. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading –– 1907

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, in the House today we have a representative from the

government of the Northwest Territories, Mr. James Wah-Shee, who is the

Minister of Local Government in that government. He is visiting our

House today and has been in the precincts for the last two days

visiting various ministries. He is accompanied by Tessa McIntosh of

Yellowknife. I would ask each member of the House to welcome them.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, both in the gallery and in the precincts today are the

executive council of the British Columbia School Trustees Association.

Their president is Ruby-may Parrott, who is a very distinguished school

trustee in the province. I wish the House would welcome them all here

to the capital.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would

like to welcome this large delegation of the B.C. School Trustees

Association who met with both our caucuses. We appreciate the real

interest they take in their province and in education.

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Speaker, with the B.C. School Trustees delegation is the chairman

of the Burnaby School Board, Mr. Gary Bagin, whom I would like to

welcome personally. Also in the gallery today there is my nephew, Kevin

Gilmore, and his friend Kevin Holt.

HON. MR. MAIR: I

also would like to join in welcoming the school trustees, and

particularly one from my School District 24, Mr. David Kendall. While I

have the floor I would also like to have the House welcome one of my

constituents, a person who brings much news to Kamloops because he

operates a number of news stands, Mr. Frank Craig.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to ask the House to recognize a tour of

students from Richmond high school in Richmond. They are accompanied by

Mr. Henderson. I also understand that the mayor of Richmond, Mr. Gil

Blair, is in the gallery.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker,

in your gallery today is Mr. Mel Repell who is visiting us from the

community of Atlin. He is doing some research on children's fairy

tales. I'd like the House to pay him due today.

MR. RITCHIE:

It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today a very good friend of

this House, Mayor George Ferguson of Abbotsford. Would the House please

welcome him.

MR. SEGARTY: It is my pleasure to

introduce to the House today His Worship, Mayor Gus Boersma of Fernie;

Alderman Byron Hill; Harry Harker, a planner for the regional district

of the East Kootenay; and Warren Andrews, a consulting engineer. I'd

like the House to welcome them.

MR. HYNDMAN: With us

in the gallery this afternoon from Churchill Secondary School in

Vancouver South will be 54 students from grade 11, along with faculty

members, Mr. Buim and Mr. Goddard. And Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence

of the House, because the person after whom Churchill Secondary School

is named ranks as one of history's great parliamentarians, I wonder if

I might quote my two favourite quotes from Churchill. On politics, he

said: "Politics are almost as exciting as war and quite as dangerous;

in war you can be killed only once, but in politics, many times." As we

know, Mr. Churchill had some affinity for liquids in bottles, and I

think his very best quotation is this: "All I can say is that I have

taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me."

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Doug Murray of the B.C. School Trustees Association is in the chamber today. I ask the House to welcome him.

MR. STRACHAN: I would also extend my best wishes

and welcome to all the representatives of the British Columbia School

Trustees Association. I would also like this House to welcome two

guests of mine from Calgary: my aunt, Marion Strachan, and Frank Smart.

MR. MUSSALLERN:

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to welcome a good friend and neighbour, Mrs.

Casher, chairman of School District 42 and also chairman of the board

of Douglas College. At the same time I have here two good friends, Mr.

and Mrs. Bruce Langston, whom I ask you to welcome.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome all the members of the B.C. School

Trustees Association who haven't been officially welcomed, and also

Mrs. Marjorie Showler from Kelowna, who was chairman of the Kelowna and

District School Board for a number of years and is now our regional

chairman. It's very nice to have her here, and I know that she'll enjoy

the great democratic action of this House and the debate this

afternoon. I'd ask you all to welcome her.

Introduction of Bills

LAND AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

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

a bill intituled Land Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill

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

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

Oral Questions

SALE OF ELKO SAWMILL OPERATION

MR. SEGARTY:

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Forests.

Canadian Shell announced recently that their sawmill operation at Elko

would be sold, and the 230 members of the International Woodworkers of

America employed at the plant are concerned that that mill will not be

kept in operation once a successful bidder has been

[ Page

1884 ]

announced. What assurance can the Minister of Forests give to this Legislature

that the timber rights won't be transferred to a company without guaranteeing

the future security of those employees?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question deals with future policy, but the minister may answer.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kootenay for posing that question;

he shows his normal concern for his constituents. I also thank the

member for giving me notice of the question.

Mr. Speaker,

there are a number of companies which have offered, I understand, to

purchase the Crows Nest Industries operation, and I can assure the

member that the condition of the transfer of cutting rights will be

that the mill will continue in operation so that the employment base

will remain.

MR. HOWARD: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the rules don't preclude rehearsed questions being presented in the House.

APPOINTMENT OF D.E. SMITH

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. On March

27, 1980, order-in-council 731 appointed the former Social Credit

member for North Peace River, Dean Edward Smith, as chairman of a

mediation and arbitration board in the energy area, at a remuneration

of $33,000 per year. Is the government serious?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think that question deals with policy.

MR. LEA: Can the minister confirm that order-in-council 731 did appoint Dean Edward Smith at $33,000 per year?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The order-in-council is a clear matter of public information at this moment.

MR. LEA: Can the minister indicate to the House what special skills Mr. Smith has that would make him eligible for this job?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Having personal knowledge and acquaintance with the gentleman being

referred to, I feel he has all of the qualifications required for

appointments that may be offered to him. I think he's a very capable

gentleman and has all the qualifications required for such an

appointment.

MR. LEA: Can the minister indicate to the House whether any other persons were interviewed for this position? If so, how many?

Interjections.

MR. LEA:

Could the minister assure the House that Mr. Smith will not receive any

MLA's pension while receiving this money for the job from the B.C.

government?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.

MR. LEA:

Can the minister indicate to the House whether Mr. Smith, since

retiring as the member for North Peace River, has received payments

from any oil companies operating within B.C.?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I would not have that information.

PURCHASE OF MAPLEWOOD POULTRY

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Can he

confirm that he met with representatives of both the broiler and turkey

industries yesterday on the mainland?

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

MRS. WALLACE:

Would the minister further confirm that during these meetings he

encouraged members of those groups to withdraw their objections to the

Cargill purchase of Maplewood Poultry?

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

MRS. WALLACE:

To be very sure, Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm that while

meeting with these representatives of the turkey and broiler industries

on the mainland…? Did he or did he not suggest to those people in any

way whatsoever that they should withdraw their objections to the

purchase of Maplewood by Cargill?

MR. SPEAKER: That's a repeat of the same question, hon. member.

MRS. WALLACE:

I assume, as he is not answering that question, that his answer is no,

that he in no way suggested to those people that they should withdraw

their objections to the takeover of Maplewood by Cargill. Can the

minister confirm that he has communicated, under the Foreign Investment

Review Act, his opposition to the intended purchase of Maplewood

Poultry by Cargill, a commitment which he made to this House some time

ago? Has he in fact transmitted those objections to FIRA?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, the communication to Ottawa was made by the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who was

the liaison between this government and the federal government. That

was made, as I stated in the House, I believe, a week or ten days ago.

For the member's information, the meeting held in Vancouver yesterday

with the members of the broiler and turkey boards was to discuss the

ramifications of either Cargill acquiring Maplewood or Cargill not

acquiring Maplewood.

MRS. WALLACE: I would ask if the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development is prepared to file

with this House his intervention to FIRA on behalf of the Minister of

Agriculture.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I will take that question as notice.

[ Page 1885 ]

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

MRS. WALLACE:

To the Minister of Agriculture, on a slightly different subject. This

question has to do with his responsibilities in relation to the Land

Commission.

Now that the courts have overruled the decision

of the Land Commission to hold public hearings regarding the inclusion

of Gloucester properties land in Langley, has the minister decided to

recommend that that property be reincluded in the agricultural land

reserve, under

section 10(3) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, the ruling, as I understand it from the court considering

the case, dealt with the fact that the Land Commission could not or

should not carry out hearings while the matter was before the court.

That meant that the Land Commission could not hold its public hearings

and take a second look at this 626 acres in Langley. As the member

knows, the land is already in a state of freeze, you might say, with

regard to the order-in-council which was passed by this government, and

until the court case is settled there will be no action by the Land

Commission in taking the second.

MRS. WALLACE: I am

sorry, but the minister did not answer my question. I was not referring

to the actions of the Land Commission. I was asking him: is he

prepared, as the minister responsible for the Agricultural Land

Commission, to take a recommendation to cabinet, or has he decided to

take a recommendation to cabinet, under

section 10(3) of the Land

Commission Act to reinstate that land in the agricultural land reserve?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I can tell the member this government doesn't act with a knee-jerk

reaction. We review the matter, and the matter of a second look will be

taken when the court case is completed. But with regard to the member

saying whether or not I should recommend it, that's a matter of future

policy of this government.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker,

the question was: has he decided? But I would like to ask the Minister

of Agriculture what he would call the reason that he's into this

situation with Gloucester, if it wasn't a knee-jerk reaction on the

part of the Premier that got him into the situation.

MR. BARRETT:

A supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister aware

that the Attorney-General's department or ELUC or both had a counsel at

the preliminary hearing before this case had gone before the court,

objecting to the case going to court? Are you aware that that was the

position of the Attorney-General's ministry or ELUC?

Mr.

Speaker, I'm asking the Minister of Agriculture, who is responsible for

this legislation, if he is aware that the Attorney-General's office or

ELUC was represented in the preliminary hearing by government lawyers

opposed to this case going into court. Are you aware of that?

This

question is to the Attorney-General. Did the Attorney-General instruct

lawyers representing the government of British Columbia to appear at

the preliminary hearing of this case and to object to the case

proceeding further in court?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's an improper question. It deals with advice to the government on a legal matter.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's quite proper.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I'm asking for a historical fact. Is the minister aware

that government lawyers who appeared at the preliminary hearing opposed

this case going on to a higher court?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not aware of the officials of the ministry attending any preliminary hearing in this matter.

MR. BARRETT:

My question is to the Attorney-General. Are you aware of any lawyers

representing the government appearing at a preliminary hearing and

opposing Gloucester estate's application to carry this case into court?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: As I answered before. I am not aware of any such appearance.

Hon. Mr. Rouers tabled the third annual report of the Okanagan Basin Implementation Board.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

On vote 9: Premier's office. $551,612 — continued.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I just have four or five simple questions to ask the

Premier before these estimates pass. Firstly, did the Premier meet in

his office with a group of Victoria business persons to discuss a

jetfoil service between Seattle and Victoria? Secondly, if such a

meeting did take place, could the Premier tell us who was invited to

attend? Thirdly, could the Premier tell us what commitments were made

through his office to have BCDC finance a jetfoil service between

Victoria and Seattle for a six-month period? Fourthly, would the

Premier table with this House any written agreement that exists? And

fifthly, would the Premier tell us whether he informed BCDC of these

meetings by writing or by a phone call?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 9 pass?

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I have asked the Premier some straightforward questions

dealing with business of the government. These are his estimates and I

ask him again. Firstly, did the Premier meet with a group of Victoria

business persons regarding jetfoil service between Seattle and

Victoria? Secondly, could the Premier inform us who the persons were

that he met with? Thirdly, could he tell us what arrangements were made

between the Premier and this group of business persons to have the

jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle financed by BCDC for a

six-month period? Fourthly, could the Premier tell us if he notified

BCDC in a letter or by phone? They are simple questions. Just clear up

these matters and we can go on to other things.

[ Page 1886 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the…?

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I still I have the floor. I'd like to know whether the

Premier intends to answer the questions. I would like to ask the

Premier if it is his intention to answer these questions that have been

the subject of discussion for some days now. Perhaps if you say you're

not going to answer them we can ask other questions. I'd like to know

what questions you're prepared to answer. I've asked a series of

questions about the jetfoil. Are you prepared to answer those questions?

HON. MR. SMITH: You're opposed to the jetfoil, eh?

MR. BARRETT:

Not at all. Are you going to buy a pig in a poke? Were you at the

meeting? Can you tell us what commitment was made financially out of

the taxpayers, pockets? How do you know you support the program unless

you know what the details were, hon. member? Are you part of a secret

deal?

Through you, Mr. Chairman, as a responsible member of

the opposition, I ask these questions of the Premier of this province.

Did a meeting take place in his office with a group of business persons

concerning a deal to be made to finance a jetfoil service between

Seattle and Victoria for the forthcoming tourist season? If such a

meeting took place, would the Premier inform the House who was there at

the meeting? Would the Premier inform the House whether he agreed that

BCDC should finance this project for the forthcoming tourist season?

Would he inform the House how he contacted BCDC and told them of the

decision to finance the jetfoil service that has been reported in the

newspapers?

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Premier did not hear the questions.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT:

I don't consider any of this to be frivolous. We're dealing with the

Premier's estimates. We're dealing with the accountability of

taxpayers' dollars, and responsibility to this Legislature and to the

people who pay the bills.

Now that I have the Premier's

undivided attention I will repeat questions that have been asked for

some days. I'll put them very simply. Did the Premier meet in his

office with a group of Victoria business persons to discuss a jetfoil

service between Victoria and Seattle? Was a deal made in the Premier's

office to have BCDC finance a jetfoil service for the forthcoming

tourist season? Will the Premier tell us that he committed BCDC to

finance this jetfoil service? Would the Premier tell us how much money

he committed for this service, and would he tell us how he contacted

BCDC to inform them of the deal that he had negotiated for BCDC? Mr.

Chairman, I'll gladly yield the floor if the Premier wishes to answer

the questions. Does the Premier wish to answer the questions?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor, if he's going to continue to speak.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, if the Premier is ready to answer the questions I will

certainly yield the floor to him. Is the Premier ready to answer these

questions? Mr. Chairman, through you, as one who understands the rules

of the House, I will gladly yield the floor to the Premier if he just

gives the nod and says: "Yes, I'm going to answer these questions."

Mr. Chairman, I will gladly yield the floor if the Premier indicates, as courtesy

wonts, that he is going to answer the questions. I ask this question of the

Premier: are you going to answer these questions?

I'm

thunderstruck by the silence. Is the Premier of this province going to

meet his accountability in his estimates and answer questions that have

been put to him simply over a number of days? Yes or no.

Well,

Mr. Chairman, is that the Premier sitting there? Did anyone tell him

his responsibilities when he took his oath of office? Incredible! We're

talking about taxpayers' dollars, and the author of the slogan "Not a

dime without debate," when called to account under the law of this

province to deal with the estimates of his office….

I'll

just wait until I have his attention. I know that he's under a lot of

pressure, has heavy business responsibilities and can't work nights, so

he's got to deal with those things here. So we'll just wait until this

committee meeting is over, and then we'll go back to the questions.

Mr.

Chairman, now that I have the Premier's undivided attention I ask him

these questions. Did he meet in his office with a number of Victoria

business persons to discuss jetfoil service between Seattle and

Victoria for the coming tourist season? Could he tell this House who he

met with, and would he tell this House whether or not he made a deal

with those Victoria business persons to finance the jetfoil service

between Seattle and Victoria out of BCDC funds? Would he inform this

House as to how he contacted BCDC and told them about this deal? Was it

by phone or by letter?

Mr. Chairman, for your information, I'm prepared to yield the floor to the Premier if he wishes to answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, only one person can be recognized at a time, and as long

as one person is standing no other person can take the floor.

MR. BARRETT: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. That's why I'm making the offer to yield if the Premier indicates he wants the floor.

Mr. Chairman, we don't work nights any more.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now we're not working days either.

MR. BARRETT: And now we've decided not to work days.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 9, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT:

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think it's only courteous that the minister

involved has my full attention or I have his full attention, whichever

is preferable. Now that the Premier has had a little chat to refresh

his memory, could he tell us who was at the meeting in his office on

March 13 at 4:30 representing the Victoria business community to

discuss the jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle? Could he give

us the names of the persons who were there, and could the Premier tell

us what deal was made to finance the jetfoil

[ Page 1887 ]

service

out of public funds through BCDC or any other method that was discussed

and agreed to in his office'? Can the Premier tell us, if BCDC was

involved, whether or not he phoned them or wrote them about the

decision that was made for their involvement in the jetfoil service?

Are you prepared to answer? Are you prepared to stand up?

Mr. Chairman, I'd gladly sit down if the Premier says he's going to stand up.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Chairman, that's fine. We've reached this point in the Premier's estimates after how many days?

MR. HOWARD: Six days.

MR. BARRETT:

It's the sixth or seventh day. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to

yield the floor to the Premier. Does the Premier wish to answer?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Bye-bye yourself. Are you prepared to answer?

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Chairman, I rise under standing order 43, which deals with

repetitious and vexatious questions. I think that this House has

listened with great patience to these five questions being repeated

three, four and five times, and however much the Leader of the

Opposition might wish to have them answered, he has no right to

dominate this chamber while he repeats the questions over and over

again. There are others in this House, including, I might say, myself,

who are seeking the Chairman's attention so that we might ask some

questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member, it is a valid point of order. Nevertheless, at this point the Leader of the Opposition continues.

MR. BARRETT:

The rules of this House allow me to ask questions. If I want to be

lectured by a cabinet minister…. I appreciate the lecture; however, the

rules clearly state that it is my duty and my responsibility and my

right to stand in this place and ask questions. How other people define

their responsibility is on their consciences. But the rules apply.

Mr.

Chairman, I have asked the Premier some simple questions, and I ask him

now whether he is prepared to answer those questions. Are you prepared

to answer those questions? No? Mr. Chairman, I am asking the Premier if

he wishes the floor, which I will gladly yield to him so he can answer

these questions.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I am amused by the defence being run by the member for

Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair). If the rules forbade me to stand here, I am

sure that the Chairman would have ordered me to sit down, but when you

order me to sit down or you threaten me in terms of my time here, there

is no way I will back down from my responsibility to ask any questions

in this House — facetious points of order or not.

HON. MR. MAIR:

On a point of order, I take exception to anybody suggesting that I have

been threatening anybody. I have simply asked the Leader of the

Opposition if he'd stop repeating the questions so that others in this

House, who have the same rights as he does, could seek the attention of

the Chair and ask the Premier some questions. There's no threat; I'm

just asking him as a man who calls for courtesy if he would return

courtesy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for the clarification, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT:

I appreciate the speech by my good friend. the member for Kamloops, but

it certainly wasn't a point of order. Now if you want to deal with a

point of order, the point of order is that I have the floor, I am

asking some questions, and I have made an offer.

HON. MR. MAIR: You accused me of threatening.

MR. BARRETT: Could you keep the member in order, Mr. Chairman?

MR. HOWARD: Keep that wild man from Kamloops in order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, if you don't keep him in order he might try to do something in the hallway.

ask the Premier of this province whether or not he wishes the floor to

answer these simple questions that I have put to him. Do you wish the

floor?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, it's nice to

see that we are finally getting back to members taking their place when

they wish someone else to let up. You would think that after 20 years

in this assembly the Leader of the Opposition would know better. But

today, as usual, he is playing to the galleries. He also knows that the

responsibility for the British Columbia Development Corporation rests

with the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips). Certainly those parts surrounding BCDC can be dealt with

during the minister's estimates. He also knows that the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who is responsible for

ferries, can respond to those areas under his jurisdiction.

Mr.

Chairman, I will make one comment. I am pleased to see a jetfoil

service, and I am pleased to see a society. In this Legislature

yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition and others were suggesting that

there was something wrong with a society operating anything — operating

a jetfoil, operating a ferry — as if somehow the only public group

should be government. Of course, that's a good philosophical debate,

and I wouldn't mind entering into that in this chamber: that's what can

be discussed under my estimates. I don't believe government has all the

answers; I don't believe they are the answer; in fact, quite often they

can become a large part of the problem.

Do I believe in

societies? Yes, I believe in people not going to government and always

crying to government. In fact, I even support the right to have the

Nanaimo Cooperative Commonwealth Holding Society — or whatever it is

that has such a strong association with the Leader of the Opposi-

[ Page 1888 ]

tion

— and other societies that provide help in the areas of medical and

other services to people in need in their communities. I have already

publicly commented that I am pleased to see the response in Victoria; I

am pleased to see the formation of the society; I am pleased that they

apparently are going to be operating a jetfoil service. I am also

pleased if some agency of government has played a role; and certainly

when we get to those ministers' estimates, they can discuss that. I am

pleased, Mr. Chairman, with the accomplishments. And that's what we

should be dealing with here — the accomplishments. Certainly there is

ample opportunity to discuss accomplishment if it involves government

agencies, if in fact it does; there is ample opportunity for members

when those ministers are in their estimates. But in my estimates, I'm

quite willing to discuss the philosophy of whether we should have

government ownership or whether we should have societies operating,

because I believe there is a valid role for them. I also believe there

is a very strong role for the private sector in many areas. We, as

government, wouldn't be here if there wasn't somebody out there working

and paying taxes so we could be here to talk. If everything was owned

by government, who'd pay the taxes? Who'd pay the bills? Especially

with the record of some governments when they got into business.

So,

Mr. Chairman, in regard to jetfoil service, I welcome the service. I'm

sure all people in Victoria do. And I'm sure any minister that has some

responsibility for transportation, who may play a role, or have an

agency that may play a role, will be willing to respond.

Mr.

Chairman, a number of other things have been brought up in this

Legislature, beyond those things that might best be answered in another

minister's estimates, and I would like to take this opportunity to

respond in a number of areas, particularly in the area of ferry

agreements with Ottawa, which was brought up a number of times. Perhaps

the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) might wish to speak

to this issue in this Legislature.

It's been suggested by

the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) that somehow this province's

to have a subsidy paid to the B.C. Ferry Corporation was a failure.

That's nonsense. It has been a matter of policy — perhaps not when they

were government, but a policy certainly since the ferry system was

incorporated — that the west coast of British Columbia, Canada's total

Pacific coast, be given equal treatment with the east coast, where

subsidies are paid to ferry transportation systems. We entered into an

agreement and convinced the federal government. It was a time when

provincial action was sorely needed, because it had been some months

since the federal government withdrew their subsidies to those partial

private services that operated on the north coast.

Perhaps

there wasn't strong enough representation, or voices to speak; but we

as a government some time afterwards, in our negotiations that we had

on behalf of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, made an agreement, an

agreement that broke new ground — new principle. Now, for the first

time, British Columbia was going to be treated in principle — not to

the same amount financially, but in principle at least — the same as

the east coast. It never happened before. It had certainly been

something that had been striven towards, that the former Social Credit

government, prior to 1972, had fought for; it had been a matter of

policy.

I remember the former Social Credit Premier commenting on what a major breakthrough

it had been, that this had been achieved after the years of frustrating negotiation

and hard discussions with Ottawa. He felt that the lapse of interest that had

taken place during the hiatus in British Columbia's growth and relations

with Ottawa from 1972 to 1975 might have seriously impaired our ability to even

introduce such a measure, let alone make a major breakthrough and get an agreement.

I give full credit to the government — and particularly the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour — for helping to achieve that agreement, because it wasn't

easy.

There

will be opportunities for this government now, this government in the

future, and perhaps other governments to follow, to make a financial

case for equity in dollar terms. But the major breakthrough had to come

in an agreement in principle, a principle that had never been

occasions that they would never put a nickel into the British Columbia

Ferry Corporation. But it was a major breakthrough.

I found

it alarming that the member for Skeena's (Mr. Howard'

s) sense of

history — he comes from that part of the country — both in the climate

and in the history of British Columbia's continual fight with an

unresponsive government during those years in trying to get some

agreement…. I believe that the negative attitude that opposition has

had, not only during this session, has now become part of the history.

So ingrained is it in that party that even when they were government

they were negative. They do not have the ability to work with this

government to try to improve an agreement that was a breakthrough in

itself. Instead they stand up and, not knowing what they're talking

about, attempt to paint a false picture. It is easy for the member for

Skeena to sit there and laugh at it, because he laughs and plays games

in this Legislature as no member has. I remember when the federal

government withdrew their subsidies, and I wonder where that member was

then — if he was a voice for the north. Where was he then?

But

it wasn't just that British Columbia had two problems. One was historic

getting an agreement in principle that the British Columbia Ferry

Corporation receive the same treatment as those transportation

companies on the east coast receive. Secondly, we had the problem that

a part of our province had lost its service for a number of months,

after an announcement by the federal government that they had withdrawn

those subsidies and would not reinstate them. That was finished; it

wasn't part of the negotiations; that had been lost. Apparently those

who were to speak to the federal government were not able to convince

them, or were not even voices at all at that time. The B.C. Ferry

Corporation, and this government, moved in to rationalize ferry service

on the coast of British Columbia.

We talk about service, but

the basic agreement was one that was history-making. It broke new

ground, for it provided for the first time a change, a 180 degree turn

B.C. ferry system," they changed and signed an agreement in which they

paid a part of their share and made a commitment to the future that

British Columbia was part of Canada and deserved equal treatment. We

can argue dollars and cents — because I don't believe the amounts are

adequate when they relate to the large dollar amounts that go to the

east coast — but at least we have the breakthrough in principle, and

now we can get on with providing further equity for the people of

British Columbia who live along the coast.

[ Page 1889 ]

The

British Columbia Ferry Corporation at least now has, through the

government of British Columbia, a continuing commitment from the

a loss but a great victory for this province. But then again, only

those who can only be negative, asking silly questions and making silly

statements, could ever believe that. Perhaps there's someone else who

will believe him when he says it, but it's not true. Those who know the

know full well the victory that was achieved. And it can be improved

upon. I think that is an area for which this government can take some

credit. No, we didn't hit a home run, but we got on base. That's the

big thing. We didn't strike out; we got on base. The criticism from

that member is not that we didn't get a hit: it's that we didn't hit a

home run. But at least we got a hit; and we didn't strike out, as had

happened before.

British Columbia is now heard by the

agreements that formerly escaped this province, either through lack of

attention during the administration we followed, or because that

administration was incapable of knowing what federal programs offered

opportunity to this province to participate in development, not only of

transportation but under the general development agreement and other

agreements. It may be history now, but because the member for Skeena

wishes to put his own version of history before this chamber, perhaps

we can get down to the facts of history and talk about the major

breakthrough of the general development agreement that was signed by

this province, It was signed by this government during our first term.

It brought us an opportunity to assist small business.

A lot

of lip service is paid to small business by many people, but this

government signed an agreement that brought us the type of programs

that were available in the rest of Canada with the aid of the dollars

we send to Ottawa to assist small business in this province. That

hadn't been done before. New ground was gained in the TIDSA for tourist

facilities. Perhaps the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) will

expand upon that during her estimates. That hadn't been done before and

just as the ferry subsidy had not been done before, had eluded

government.

Those are not the areas to criticize. Mr. Member

for Skeena, through you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps he could stand up once

in a while and be proud of some of the things that are happening in

this province. Instead of being part of the wrecking crew, how about

being part of the building crew in this province? The negative,

negative members of the opposition consistently, through this debate

and others, year after year, cannot seem to realize that they have an

opportunity to be a part of the building team. They have an opportunity

to be a part of providing better government and government services and

also providing greater opportunity for the private sector.

The

opposition members have earned their reputation as the "bad news boors"

by their consistently negative attitude and behaviour. That is why they

keep talking their political games about numbers in the House and what

would happen if an election was held. I see a movement developing in

this province. They are not looking for an alternative to government,

although this government could stand an improvement. They are looking

for an alternative to the opposition. That is what they are looking for.

have taken special pains to gather a collection of the type and style

of questions from that opposition since we have been sitting, I am

mailing them and making them available when I go home to my

constituency to as many people as possible. I want them to see the type

of questions you are asking. I want them to assess your conduct. I also

want them to be critical of this government. We don't go to the people

of British Columbia with all the answers. We don't go to them with the

holier-than-thou attitude or with a rewritten history, like the member

for Skeena. We go out there in an honest attempt to try and do

something better for the people of this province,

Instead we

get cheap theatrics from the opposition, like last night at

adjournment. They say: "The government wants to work bankers' hours."

There has never been a government that has put in more hours as a

government or as individuals in the history of this province. Last

night they held up a cabinet meeting that had been scheduled for some

time, and I suspect they knew it had been scheduled. The government

members were going right from this assembly to that meeting. Members

had been in these buildings since early morning, worked through lunch

and worked through the sitting, and they were going to work through a

light dinner last night and work right through the evening. Yet they

have the effrontery and the gall to say that this government was only

working four hours a day. I ask you. hon. members opposite, through

you, Mr. Chairman, do not take your own standards and try to apply them

to us through the cheap theatrics of last night and those of the Leader

of the Opposition today.

You might well know, Mr. Chairman,

that a number of years ago the Leader of the Opposition, who was the

then Leader of the Opposition, was thrown out of this chamber in what

was assessed by the news media of the day as a calculated move to draw

attention to himself and get a headline by asking the same unanswerable

question over and over. I think it was 34 times he asked it, finally

trying the patience of the Chair. I wasn't here. I only have the

newspaper reports, but they are in my memory.

Certainly we

have grown beyond those cheap theatrics. Certainly now there are a

number of issues we have tried to discuss. I have said I do not intend

to trv to deal in detail with the estimates or questions that can be

brought up in ministers' votes, nor will I respond to what I think are

silly questions. Silly questions are those political questions from

which they get great glee but which provide little in the way of

answers for the people's business in this province.

B.C.

Ferries and the agreements with Ottawa…. All of those have been great

successes. They asked me about a jetfoil service. Yes, I am pleased to

see one. Yes, I believe in societies and their rights to operate many

of the facilities, whether they be health facilities or others,

including transportation. They provide a community service.

Yes,

I believe in the right of the private sector beyond societies to grow

and develop. I do not find all the answers in big government. Yes, if a

government agency under a ministerial responsibility has played a role,

an opportunity to respond during his estimates will be given to the

minister responsible. The type of questions asked by the Leader of the

Opposition when he makes a premise and asks a question on his premise

is hardly the type of question we in this assembly are prepared to deal

with in a positive way.

I would also like to move on to some

areas which the opposition has found boring. They say they don't like

the speech about what this government has done to improve the economy

of the province. They don't like the feeling of

[ Page 1890 ]

optimism,

the feeling of growth which has taken place in this province, or the

confidence felt by the private sector. The House Leader, the Minister

of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), who is responsible

for the organization of the business of the House, will remember the

opposition saying before the session opened that they had this great

research and were going to concentrate on things such as unemployment.

Yet that subject has not dominated question period. In fact, I've been

waiting for my first question on unemployment from that party. Both in

my estimates and in question period — they talked about inflation —

I've been waiting for a question on that. Those are problems that

plague us.

I'm quite prepared to say that, although the

figures we have are an improvement on last year's figures, in the

province generally we have continued to make steady but slow

improvement on the unemployment figures. Compared to 1975 our position

has improved in comparison with the Canadian position. I think this

province, this assembly and this government should feel proud that we

have made progress. It is dramatic progress when you consider the

concerns which face the country as a whole. We've made dramatic

progress in the area of trying to do something. Perhaps the operative

word is not unemployment but employment, because that is the area we

have tried to tackle. We're trying to develop a climate in which the

private sector can create employment. That's where the response has

been. It's easy to solve short-term unemployment by creating jobs

through a large amount of construction in the public sector, but these

jobs do not last and are not permanent.

If you analyze the

record of this government, its success has been in the private sector.

That means that it is a solid success with a solid footing and a solid

base which gives confidence to various parts of our economy. We know

about the results in the resource sector. You can't rewrite history on

that, Mr. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). The Leader of the Opposition

can't hide that fact with cheap theatrics, old tricks which are honed

to a fine skill after performing for 20 years here on the stage. You

can't rewrite that. Those things are solid; they're happening.

But

today unemployment is still too high. It will always be too high as

long as there is one person willing to work who wants to work and will

take the trouble and time to try to get that work. There are too many

unemployed as long as there is one person like that in this province or

in this country. So while our statistics show a record of moderate

success, we're not satisfied. We want permanent, lasting employment in

this province. That's what we came here to do: to try to provide the

climate. We know it can't be provided just in the resource sector. We

know that our resource sector is the cornerstone, and that it can be

the basis for increased industrial production, secondary production or

more value-added production which can provide jobs.

We know

that an important part of this is the training of our young and of

those not so young who go back for new training to give them the skills

to take on the new challenges developing in our economy. We know, too,

that we must improve there. In the throne speech His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor touched upon the renewed efforts by the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich) to deal with this problem. There's no sense creating jobs if

our own people don't have the skills to take those jobs.

We have growth in mining. It has been encouraged by coal development. We're

poised on the brink of major new development in the northeast. It's like

that, Mr. Chairman. But what's the good when our own people aren't offering

themselves or taking the jobs in that industry, when the companies in the Kootenay

say they can't find people to work there and are advertising in Great Britain

for miners? These are good jobs. What we've got to do is to give our people

the skills to take those jobs and to undertake the building that will take place

as we develop the infrastructure, the transportation links, homes, schools and

hospitals — to build in these new and growing areas.

haven't done the perfect job. We haven't even, by my own admission,

done the type of good job we would like to have done, because it hasn't

been resolved. We're making steady progress, but you're right: there's

a lot to be done. It's an area in which we could receive some pretty

good constructive criticism.

Along with my colleagues the

other Premiers, we discuss this. We'll discuss it again at the Western

Premiers' Conference, hopefully — how we can try to resolve this area

that none of us have found the final solutions to or the final programs

or have them in place. There we get cooperation; at those conferences

Premiers of various political views can get together. And do you know

what? It might come to as a surprise to the opposition. We try to help

each other, we try to give each other the type of help and suggestions

that will build a Saskatchewan, Alberta or Manitoba as well as a

British Columbia. We look for ways to cooperate in which we can serve

the people of the various areas. Sometimes a single facility is better

than competing facilities when it comes to some sort of skill-training.

We look for areas to cooperate there. That's what we have been trying

to do as a government.

I will say, Mr. Chairman, we don't

have all the answers. The answers aren't to be found in silly things.

The answer is yes, we'll talk about things we have accomplished. We'll

argue whether they should be there or shouldn't be there, but we're not

going to discuss…. I don't think it's our role to be sidetracked into

silly discussion. At least I don't feel it's mine, and that's the way I

intend to try to continue to lead this government. In the area of

development, as I say, we've made progress — not as much as we'd like,

but steady progress in creating employment, compared to the rest of the

country; steady progress in fighting inflation. All of us feel the

effects of inflation, but do you know that since 1975, a significant

date…. I don't pick it because of the political events that took place

then but because British Columbia became, instead of one of the worst

in cost price increase — that's inflation, in case you'd like to know —

year after year, by the same Statistics Canada measurement, among the

lowest each and every year since then. That's a record you can take

some pride in — still no pride, because we haven't got the cost price

increases to where they're manageable, but they went to the best from

the worst.

The member for Skeena might wish to try to

rewrite history in this area. His party might not wish to even discuss

it this year, although this was their battle plan, coming with their

greatly improved research

section into this session. The press has been

very impressed with that research group, but they haven't discussed it.

We talk about the other areas….

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, I inform the Chair that time is up.

[ Page 1891 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. That had escaped the notice of the Chair.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, there are people who wish to do business with the

government, and they want to know if the method of doing business with

the government is going to the Premier's office and making deals. I ask

these questions of the Premier. Did he on March 13 at 4:30 p.m. meet

with a group of business persons from Victoria to make a deal on the

jetfoil? We're not talking here about the minister who's responsible.

The responsible minister did not meet with these people; the Premier

did, and it is the Premier's estimates we are dealing with. As I

understand it, as the first minister you are answerable to this House

as you are answerable to the people.

I ask these questions

again. Would you tell this House who you met with? Would you tell this

House what kind of financial deal was made between those people and the

Premier using BCDC to finance the jetfoil service between Victoria and

Seattle with taxpayers' money? Would the Premier tell us how he

notified BCDC what business he had done on their behalf? Did he tell

them by telephone or by mail? Would the Premier tell us clearly the

names of the people with whom he met?

I think it would be

worthwhile for other people who want to do business with the government

if the Premier would tell us how they go about getting an appointment

to do business with the Premier and BCDC rather than the minister.

Because a pattern has been set, and if there's been a change in

approaching how to do business with the government, then every citizen

in this province should have free and equal access to this method of

doing business. No one should receive favour and no one should receive

any approach or benefit that the Premier is not prepared to give anyone

else. We all know that the Premier is a fair man, and if he's opening

his office to one group, then we want to know what group he met with;

what the circumstances of the meeting were; the deal that was made: how

many tax dollars were committed; and whether the notice was given to

BCDC in writing or by telephone.

The Premier spent his

allotted time of half an hour lecturing us on what he thinks is our

behaviour, lecturing my colleague, the member for Skeena and

chit-chatting about how hard he works. We all know that there's no one

who's more of a workaholic than our Premier, but I don't know if it

affects his memory or not. What are you working for and what are you

working with? You're working with the taxpayers' dollars, and this is

the one time of the year to account for the expenditure of those

taxpayers' dollars by your office. You have been having secret meetings

in your office with business persons, and we have a right to know what

has transpired in those meetings. How do other business persons get

secret meetings in your office? Is it a matter of policy, or do you

have a selection group for secret meetings in your office? Would you

tell us how you made the deal? Was it on a handshake? Is there a

written or verbal agreement? Would you tell us who was at the meeting?

Would you tell the taxpayers of this province how much of their money

you committed to this project? I will gladly yield the floor again, Mr.

Chairman, to suffer another half hour of a running stream of

unconsciousness, if necessary, but I intend to ask these questions, as

is my responsibility on behalf of the taxpayers. Why did the Premier

have such a secret meeting in his office? Was the minister concerned in

attendance?

I don't mind being lectured by the Premier about

how he thinks I should perform my role, and I don't mind the

observations or the insults. As a matter of fact, I understood the

Premier to say that the people are wondering why there isn't another

opposition and that they really want to get rid of us. Mr. Premier. If

you firmly believe that and you don't want to answer these questions,

call an election and we'll find out what the people really want. They

really want some answers to questions about their taxpayers' dollars.

Some people might call it arrogance. If we had television in here today

and the Premier were to swing around in his chair and give this

performance, some people who are paying taxes might call it arrogance.

I prefer to be far more charitable.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're just asking the questions.

MR. BARRETT:

We're just asking the questions. How you respond is your responsibility

Would the Premier tell us and the citizens of British Columbia who met

with him in his office on March 13 at 4:30 to discuss the jetfoil

service to Seattle? Will the Premier tell us how much money he

committed in his office to that service? Would he tell us the details

of the deal made in his office for that service, and would he tell us

when and how he contacted BCDC as to their role in this?

Mr.

Chairman, I want to thank you for your undivided attention. Perhaps we

should give the Premier a little pause to write the questions down.

Perhaps in the anxiety of his office and with the tremendous pressures

of all the meetings he has 24 hours a day, he can't recall the meeting

in his office on March 13 at 4.30. Maybewe should start at square one.

Does the Premier recall meeting with a group of Victoria business

persons in his office on March 13 at 4:30 p.m.? Does the Premier recall

whether or not he discussed with this group of business persons the

establishment of a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle? Does

the Premier recall whether or not he made a commitment to finance this

project on behalf of the government of British Columbia through the

British Columbia Development Corporation? Mr. Chairman, some candour

and sonic specific answers would be a welcome relief from bafflegab.

Well,

I've never seen anything like this. The Premier loves to refer to my 10

years in this House and my accumulated experience. Well, every day is a

new experience, as far as I'm concerned. I've never seen anything like

this. During seven days of the Premier's estimates, in lengthy speeches

by the Premier, he defines what questions he thinks are appropriate for

him, and then he gives a blanket statement about other statements he

made saying that whatever he said was "appropriate at the time." My

colleague yesterday raised the name of Gordon Liddy. Does the Premier

know who Gordon Liddy is? Well, if he doesn't know who Gordon Liddy is,

he's getting it by osmosis.

Mr. Chairman, I ask the Premier again: dealing with public funds, taxpayers'

money, could he tell us who attended the secret meeting in his office — still

secret, no public admission of what went on, dealing with taxpayers' money

— about a deal for jetfoil service between Seattle and Victoria? Would the Premier

tell us whether or not a meeting took place in his office March 13 at 4:30 p.m.

with a group of Victoria business persons to arrange financing for a jetfoil

service, through BCDC, between Victoria and Seattle? Did that meeting take place?

[ Page 1892 ]

Does

the Premier need some time to read, or perhaps consult with staff to

remind himself of the meeting? I'm certain that the House would gladly

give a time. Did the Premier make the deal with his own personal money?

Perhaps if the deal was made with his own personal money it's none of

our business to ask these impertinent questions. If it's not the

taxpayers' money, then perhaps the Premier could correct me on that. I

will gladly yield if he's gone to the bank and taken out some of his

money and put it up for a risk on this jetfoil project. That's fine;

then I won't ask the question.

Was the deal made with taxpayers' money or with your money? Mr. Chairman, that's a fair question.

Was the deal on the jetfoil made with the Premier's personal money or with the taxpayers' money?

Well,

Mr. Chairman, I assume that it was made with the taxpayers' money,

because I don't see any late amendment to the Premier's declaration or

statements.

Does the Premier feel responsible to the people

of this province to give an accounting of decisions made spending their

tax dollars?

Is the Premier familiar with the slogan called "not a dime without debate"?

Well,

Mr. Chairman, we'll just go over it again slowly. Maybe I should get a

blackboard and chalk it up so we can deal with it one by one.

it true there was a secret meeting in your office at 4:30 on March 13

with a group of Victoria business persons to conclude a deal, in

secret, over financing a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I think you will have to agree that the Chair has been most tolerant of

section 43.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, no question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the member to sit down for the moment.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm not yielding the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. I will read

section 43 for all members.

"Mr.

Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the

House, or of the Committee, to the conduct of a member, who persists in

irrelevance, or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of

the arguments used by other members in debate, may direct him to

discontinue his speech, and if the member still continues to speak, Mr.

Speaker shall name him, or, if in Committee, the Chairman shall report

him to the House."

With all due respect, hon. member, I

think you will have to agree that the Chair has been most tolerant of

this particular level of debate. While we can ask questions of

ministers under the votes, we cannot insist on answers. Being at this

particular stage, I would ask the hon. member if he could possibly not

shift his attention or his focus to another

section away from the one

that is really, at this point, most tedious and repetitious.

MR. BARRETT:

Quite right. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I'd like

to ask, continuing on the point of order, that this interruption does

not take away from my time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I hope not.

MR. BARRETT:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now that we've established that a point of

order does not take away from my time, I refer to your point of order

in standing order 43. That deals with argument, not with question. If

you will repeat the last line of the standing order, you will see, in

terms of a question, I am entitled to ask a question. Repeating a

question is my determination, and certainly answering the question is

the determination of the person who is being asked. There is nothing in

the rules that bars me from repeating the question; the rule applies to

argument and discussion.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, with my unlost time, because I know you're fair, this question to the Premier.

Is he prepared to tell us who was present at the secret meeting in his

office, dealing with the jetfoil proposal between Seattle and Victoria?

I ask the Premier questions under his estimates, according to the rules

of this House and parliamentary practice.

2) Will the

Premier tell us how much money was committed in these secret meetings

by him, through BCDC, to finance the jetfoil service?

You

know, Mr. Chairman, that accepting your ruling and your graciousness,

if the Premier indicates he wants the floor again I will gladly yield

the floor to him to answer the questions. I thought the last time I

yielded the floor to him he was going to answer these questions. Did he

try to fool or trick me to get the floor? I don't think so. He just

forgot the questions. That's why I have to repeat them.

Would the Premier tell this House that he had made a deal with Victoria

businessmen to finance the jetfoil service, and that, indeed, BCDC

would be financing it, and would he tell us how he notified BCDC of

this? Was it by letter or was it by phone call?

Mr.

Chairman, you pointed out to me in your ruling that this doesn't

detract from my time. You pointed out to me in your ruling that the

minister does not have to answer. That's perfectly correct, and I don't

argue with that at all. If he had to answer you would have called him

to order and asked him to answer. But I think that it should go with

your attention, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier has ample

time to answer these questions that perhaps wouldn't take four or five

minutes to answer specifically, yes or no. He could tell us how he's

dealing with taxpayers' dollars in secret meetings in his office.

There's nothing wrong with that that I can think of. I can't recall any

previous minister or premier in this province ever behaving in this

manner. I don't recall, in my 20 years that the Premier wants to talk

about, any minister ever, either when we were in government or when

Social Credit was in government, refusing to answer specific questions

in estimates. We usually got y-e-s, which means yes, or we got n-o,

which means no. Sometimes we got "yes, my friend" or "no, my friend,"

but we got answers.

Mr. Chairman, I have the undivided attention, again, of the Premier. Perhaps

he was distracted from writing the questions down by a rude interruption. I

would like to ask the Premier this question: does he understand the questions

that I'm asking? Does the Premier understand that we're discussing tax

dollars? Does the Premier understand that we're discussing his manner of

conducting business in secret in his office? Does the Premier understand that

if the public gets the perception that that's how people do business with

the gov-

[ Page 1893 ]

emment

of British Columbia, they too would like the same opportunity of

meeting, in secret, to make deals in the Premier's office? Mr.

Chairman, if one group of businessmen make secret deals in the

Premier's office about a project, would it not be fair for another

group of businessmen to be entitled to the same opportunity of making a

deal in the Premier's office? Would that be fair?

AN HON. MEMBER: How were they selected?

MR. BARRETT:

Well, we don't know how they were selected. We don't know how you get

into the Premier's office. We do know that the meeting took place on

March 13 at 4:30 p.m. with a group of Victoria businessmen to make a

deal on a jetfoil service involving taxpayers' dollars. The Premier

lauds private enterprise. Could the Premier tell all the private

enterprisers in this province, who may have a scheme involving jetfoils

or any other project, how they get into the Premier's office to sit

down and make a deal with him, so that he will instruct BCDC to make

public money available for their risk?

That's a new concept

in private enterprise: use public money for private risk. It's a new

challenge in philosophy, a whole new approach to doing business.

Private enterprise is to be lauded. Just come in to the Premier's

office and gouge a little bit out of the taxpayers' trough and throw it

on the table. "If you lose money, the taxpayers pick up the bill" — out

of a secret deal in the Premier's office — "and if you make money, we

might get a little of the profit back later on."

So I ask

again: will the Premier tell us who was at the meeting in his office on

March 13, at 4:30 p.m., with whom he made the secret deal on the

jetfoil service? Would he tell us exactly how many of the taxpayers'

dollars he committed to this deal made in his office? Would he tell us

how he informed the separate Crown corporation, the British Columbia

Development Corporation? This socialist instrument was started by the

NDP — which was negative under us but positive under you, in your

terms. How you could keep these socialist agencies, Lord only knows.

The British Columbia Development Corporation was started by the

socialists and is still here today — shocking! Why are you keeping

these socialist agencies? Is it so you can use them privately in your

office, Mr. Premier — through you, Mr. Chairman? When did you decide to

use this socialist agency privately in your office to benefit a small

group of business people acting under a society for jetfoil service?

Who's entitled to the benefits of socialism with your personal

intervention through the British Columbia Development Corporation? I

don't know. Is there a group of businessmen somewhere in this province

which wants to meet with the Premier to make a deal with him on BCDC?

Do you receive letters from businessmen who'd like to meet in your

office to make a deal about BCDC?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr.

Chairman, I can ask the question, but the minister is not obliged to

reply. But I think the shirking of one's duty, the absence of

responsibility, the lack of commitment to the British parliamentary

system and responsibility and advocacy are things that should be

measured by the silence of the Premier. Elected office means

accountability, elected office means responsibility for funds that are

collected from the taxpayers, and that accountability requires

answering questions about public funds related directly to the

Premier's office. I'm not asking about any other minister; I'm asking

about your office — not the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), not

the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), not the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. McClelland). I'm asking the Premier under his vote: will he

tell us who was present at the secret meeting in his office on March

13, at 4:30 p.m., at which meeting he made an arrangement to finance a

jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle? Will he tell us how many

people were there? Will he tell us what the financial arrangement is?

Would he also tell us how he notified BCDC of his decision on their

behalf to use taxpayers' money to finance this project?

don't think those questions are unfair, Mr. Chairman. I know you don't

think they're unfair. My colleagues don't think they're unfair. And if

I presume to suggest that the people of the province don't have a right

to know, then we have a king rather than a Premier. Then we have a

government that views its ascension to power as a consequence of the

natural unfolding of divine right rather than a responsible government

giving responsible accounting in the only final court for all the

taxpayers and the people of this province — this chamber. I think the

people have a right to know whether or not the Premier's having a

secret meeting. I think the Chairman has a right to know it. And I ask

these questions, Mr. Chairman, on your behalf and that of every other

taxpayer of this province. Would the Premier tell us who was at the

secret meeting in his office, March 13, 1980, at 4:30 p.m.? Would the

Premier tell us how much money he committed to this project.

To be fair, Mr. Chairman. perhaps I should ask the Premier: does he understand the questions?

Through

you. Mr. Chairman, does the Premier understand these questions? Does he

understand how important it is for people to know whether or not they

too have access to secret meetings in his office to make deals with

taxpayers' money out of the British Columbia Development Corporation?

Does he consider that to be a serious matter?

Does the

Premier consider it to be serious that other people in this province

who have entrepreneurial projects, be they private enterprises or

societies…?

Mr. Chairman, I think we should be gracious in

understanding the great strain that the Premier may be under. Perhaps

these complex questions are too much for him to handle at a time like

this. Perhaps the pressure is so overwhelming that these questions are

just beyond anybody's ability to grasp. They seem clear enough to me.

Does the Premier wish to get up and answer these questions now?

think, Mr. Chairman, we have had a little sample and study of

arrogance. I think maybe it would do us all good to pause for a few

minutes and reflect on each of our responsibilities.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

MR. BARRETT: Run away and hide. Run down to your office and think about it.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

[ Page 1894 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Public bills and orders. Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 7.

SPECIAL FUNDS ACT, 1980

(continued)

MR. HYNDMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to resume debate on Bill 7, a bill which

provides a series of special funds for projects for the benefit of

British Columbians, including a funding of $30 million as this year's

fiscal contribution to the new Annacis Island crossing, and also

including a capital contribution of $55 million towards urban transit.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr.

Speaker, if I may briefly recap the point I was making upon the

adjournment of debate last week, I was comparing within the same piece

of legislation the financial provision in respect of the Annacis

crossing and the larger financial provision in respect of urban

transit. I was pointing out, contrary to the impression left by some

critics of Bill 7, that there is no conflict between funds required for

the Annacis crossing and funds required for urban transit; that the

policy of the government is as stated by the Premier, and the financial

fact of the matter is as reflected in the bill; that planning by this

government for urban transit and the Annacis crossing, far from being

in conflict, in fact are complimentary and go hand in hand. Not only do

they go hand in hand, but the emphasis by this government on urban

transit is twice as great as it is on the Annacis crossing. The fact of

the matter is, in Bill 7, for every single dollar this government will

contribute to a new Annacis crossing, it will contribute two dollars

for urban transit. There is double the emphasis for urban transit in

Bill 7 that there is for the Annacis crossing. I would like to

emphasize that policy as laid down by the Premier, speaking for the

government on March 10 in this assembly, and pointing out that because

of sound financial management the government of the people of British

Columbia is in a position to proceed hand in hand on these two

important policy fronts. The Premier spoke as follows:

I'm

amused — maybe even distressed — to hear the specious arguments that

somehow this government, in trying to meet the needs of the people of

Delta, Surrey, Richmond and those areas, is hurting the opportunities

for transit by building and constructing the Annacis Island crossing.

Let me tell you that the two are not competitive; they must move together hand in hand....

Because

of solid management of the financial affairs of this government and

this province, we can proceed in both ways at once. Those people — in

the suburbs — will have the opportunity to travel over the Annacis

Island crossing, and I look forward to opening day and helping to cut

the ribbon as the first car crosses — just as I look forward, Mr.

Speaker, to cutting the first ribbon on an LRT and a transit system

that serves the people of greater Vancouver as well.

Mr.

Speaker, there we have it. It cannot be fairly or honestly argued that

in the government's policy planning there is conflict between the

Annacis crossing and urban transit, or that Annacis crossing takes

precedence over urban transit or prevents capital funding for urban

transit.

A further complementing of the Annacis crossing and

urban transit is reflected in the planning for the Annacis crossing.

Critics of the Annacis crossing have been careful not to point out one

of the important ingredients of the plan.

The design for the

bridge unveiled by the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon.

Mr. Fraser), along with the Premier, clearly provides two additional

lanes for light rail or light rapid transit. The fact is that under

this government the Annacis crossing, from day one of planning, makes

provision for two special lanes for light rail or light rapid transit.

Critics

of the Annacis crossing have spoken solely in terms of automobile

traffic. They have not been realistic, and they have not been fair in

recognizing the high volume of truck traffic today, which moves

much-needed goods to people in all parts of British Columbia. I pointed

out, Mr. Speaker, that the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), a

strong critic of the Annacis crossing, directed his criticism solely

towards the use of the private automobile. He apparently fails to

recognize the importance of truck traffic for Vancouver Island. During

the recent strike of the CP ferries, it was made known that CP alone,

apart from B.C. Ferries, carries 300 tandem units a day, carrying goods

onto Vancouver Island. The number of truck units moving into Vancouver

and carrying much-needed goods for our people is greater than that. As

population grows, practical accommodation must be made for the movement

of truck traffic.

The first member for Victoria, who spoke

strongly in opposition to the Annacis crossing, bases his criticism on

the profoundly mistaken view that it "will serve solely and exclusively

the private automobile." That is simply not fact. It is clear, first of

all, that the Annacis crossing will provide major service to commercial

truck traffic and, additionally, will provide two special lanes for

light rail or urban transit.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting

to listen to members of the opposition as they launch their critique of

Bill 7 and the Annacis crossing. If you read the Blues, they've been

very careful, with one exception so far, not to explicitly oppose the

Annacis crossing. To his credit, as he is an intellectually honest man

on the issue, the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) has risen in his

place and clearly told this assembly he will vote against the bill

because of the provision for the Annacis crossing. But, Mr. Speaker,

the other opposition members have not been so direct. They have worried

about the mode of planning for the crossing. They have worried about

the ultimate cost figure, but they have stopped short of stating a

clear yes or no on the Annacis crossing. The government benches are

going to watch the final vote on Bill 7 with great interest and listen

with great care to subsequent opposition speakers. We'll listen to see

if they will directly and clearly take a yes or a no position on the

issue of the crossing itself. If one reviews the history of the NDP

administration between 1972 and 1975 and its then view on the Annacis

crossing, one could understand the reluctance by present opposition

members to take a clear yes or no position on the Annacis crossing.

The

former member for Delta, Mr. Carl Liden, is on record as supporting a

bridge across the Fraser River — a third crossing. The Vancouver Sun ,

September 10, 1975, for example, clearly records that support. Mr.

Speaker, the previous NDP member for Delta is a member from the same

region that the current member for Delta comes and is the member who

led the charge for the Annacis crossing. His NDP predecessor supported

an Annacis crossing. It's most interesting that on September 10, 1975,

the NDP member for Delta was supporting the Annacis crossing. It is

interesting to learn that the first studies towards the Annacis

crossing were initiated by the NDP government.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was Minister of

[ Page 1895 ]

Highways

during the time when the first Annacis crossing bridge proposal was to

put to study by CBA Engineering. The then Minister of Highways had some

very interesting things to say about the Annacis crossing when that

first report, which his ministry commissioned, was released. Speaking

in 1974 the then Minister of Highways said that an Annacis crossing was

about ten years away, meaning 1984.

The member for Prince

Rupert, the Minister of Highways at the time, was either afraid of the

issue, couldn't afford the issue or had a do-nothing attitude, because

to attempt to deflect the decision-making process…. He indicated in

1974 that the Annacis crossing was about ten years away. Well, we're

approaching that ten-year period. If the bridge is started, as this

government plans it, hopefully it will be finished by 1984, about the

time the member for Prince Rupert, now in opposition, then Minister of

Highways, saw the need for the Annacis crossing would materialize.

There

was something of a do-nothing attitude by that former government on the

Annacis crossing, Mr. Speaker. This is what the then Minister of

Highways said when that first report on a proposed Annacis crossing,

which he had commissioned through his ministry, was released. In the

fall of 1975 the member had this to say to the Vancouver Sun :

" I don't know how long it will take for a commitment one way the

other. I would rather wait another year or so, so everyone can make up

their minds." There was strong and dynamic leadership from the then

Minister of Highways, who had a report commissioned, released it, and

said he didn't know how long it would take to make a decision. He would

rather wait a year or so, so everyone could make up their minds. Well,

that's a bit of an abdication of leadership, but it's not so hard to

understand in the context of the day if one understands that the policy

of the day of that previous government was really to wash its hands of

any responsibility for urban transportation problem-solving in the

greater Vancouver regional area.

This is what the previous

Minister of Highways had to say in this assembly. He spoke on June 12,

1975, and this is what he said about his responsibility as Minister of

Highways for possible assistance to the lower mainland with regional

traffic planning. The former Minister of Highways, the member for

Prince Rupert, now in opposition, said:

would like to point out at the outset that there is no way that this

department can solve the traffic problems of the greater Vancouver

area. There is no way. The responsibility mainly lies with the local

governments and the 14 municipalities of the Greater Vancouver Regional

District. We shouldn't be involved in the greater Vancouver area as

much as we are as a department, but it has evolved that way through the

years. I believe the concern of this department should be mainly with

those areas outside of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, and out

of Victoria too, like they do in other jurisdictions.

"Just pass the buck somewhere else. It's not my problem; don't bother me with that tough decision."

Mr.

Speaker, I am very happy to be a member of a party and government

benches which are prepared to face and tackle a problem, however large

or demanding. That's what our Minister of Transportation and Highways

has done. We are tackling the problem. We in no way are abdicating our

responsibility, and we aren't prepared to adopt the philosophy of the

previous NDP government: "Gosh, we had this study done on the Annacis

crossing, but we'd like to wait a year before we decide what to do.

Hopefully, with a good finger in the wind, we'll get an opinion from

the people as to what is the politically expedient thing to do. Anyway,

it's really not our problem to be involved in helping the lower

mainland.'' What a wonderful attitude of leadership, perhaps safe in

the short term.

This government is tackling the question of

the Annacis crossing. the question of urban transit. As I mentioned

last Friday in debate on this bill, there are conservation aspects to

the Annacis crossing. It is an interesting engineering calculation to

calculate how much gas and oil we are going to save by getting rid of

those intolerable morning lineups along Highway 10 and the George

Massey Tunnel — that waste of gas and oil from cars and trucks and

buses. The elimination of those lines of traffic is going to eliminate

that wasteful usage of gas and oil.

Additionally, if, as I

say, you look at the direct line along the proposed Annacis route

versus the wasteful looping into the city presently required along

Highway 10, there is a tremendous saving in miles to be driven by

commuters and commercial vehicles. Those tremendous savings by

thousands of automobiles every day are going to mean the savings of

thousands of gallons of oil and gas.

Mr. Speaker, for a few

moments I would like to speak about my home constituency, Vancouver

South, and some aspects of Vancouver South that relate to both the

Annacis crossing and rapid transit planning. I'd like to point out to

all members in the House that over the years I think Vancouver South as

a constituency has been a very fair-minded and good neighbour to all

parts of British Columbia, particularly the lower mainland, in making

its fair contribution to sharing the regional traffic burden. Most

members from lower mainland constituencies can properly argue that

their particular area, over the years, has seen a growth of roads and

streets. They've been busier and their particular neighbourhood and

community is contributing to the overall well-being by carrying its

fair share of regional traffic. In no place is a fairer share of the

regional traffic load carried than in Vancouver South.

Along

the south slope of Vancouver, between Burnaby and Angus Drive. over the

last 20 years we've seen a series of regional traffic routes utilizing

new bridges across the Fraser River. We've seen the Oak Street Bridge,

the Arthur Laing Bridge. the Knight Street Bridge, to name the three

major arteries that now link the south slope of Vancouver to Vancouver

South. Travelling along the shores of the Fraser River we have

Southwest and Southeast Marine Drive, a major regional traffic artery.

One of the positive aspects of the Annacis plan, which is going to

assist traffic routing through the southeast quarter of the Vancouver

South constituency, is the relieving of some considerable east-west

congestion, because the traffic studies show a number of the cars and

trucks which presently come in on Deas Island throughway, Highway 10,

George Massey Tunnel, and then Oak Street and Knight Street, hit the

south slope of Vancouver and then turn back toward the east side of

Vancouver or Burnaby or New Westminster, the area of their ultimate

destination. Under the Annacis plan, that wasteful looping in and then

cutting across Vancouver back toward the Burnaby–New Westminster area,

is going to be minimized. The tremendous east-west congestion through

southeast Vancouver is going to be reduced considerably, and those

vehicles will take a steady, direct path right in to their destination,

which is not only energy saving and mileage saving, but means a

reduction of congestion in the southeast quarter of Vancouver. And

that's a big benefit for Vancouver South flowing from the planning for

the Annacis crossing.

I want to emphasize to the Minister of Transportation and

[ Page 1896 ]

Highways

(Hon. Mr. Fraser) and to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm) that people in Vancouver South, I think, are largely

responsive to the needs of the eastern suburbs of Vancouver, because

they see in this same bill, for every dollar going towards the Annacis

crossing, two dollars going to urban transit. That's a pretty fair

balance. We also see a government which, after 30 years of lip-service

by various levels of government, has done something organizationally

with local transit to provide the framework to get the planning for

rapid transit going. They have created the UTA — the Urban Transit

Authority — and the Metro Transit Operating Company, and they have

funded it, not only with the $69 million this year to assist the

transfer of operating costs from Hydro, but also $55 million for future

capital requirements. So we're pleased to see that urban transit

planning is in fact a priority of this government. People in Vancouver

South — and my seatmate, the first member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr.

Rogers), and I underline this — stress that urban transit planning be

continued as a priority. We'd like to see the same kind of greater

emphasis on urban transit planning and on the Annacis crossing

continued; let them both continue, complementing each other.

Before

concluding my remarks I would be remiss if I did not contrast the

balanced and responsible view of this government with the remarks made

by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), who is, I believe, the

chief opposition critic on the Annacis crossing. This government, as

I've shown, unlike its predecessor, was not prepared to duck the

Annacis issue, was not prepared to sit around and say, "Well, that's

somebody else's problem," and is now prepared to face the issue and get

the ball rolling. If we listen to the first member for Victoria, the

chief critic of the Annacis crossing, we get a further understanding of

the NDP opposition's alternative approach to regional planning. The

government's approach is clear — a balanced approach, a commonsense

approach, which sees the immediate need for a solution to the Annacis

crossing problem met with the provision of an Annacis crossing balanced

in a commonsense way with a larger capital contribution towards urban

transit planning, both going together hand in hand. It's a balanced,

commonsense view, which recognizes the immediate and urgent need for

something to be done about the Annacis crossing issue and couples that

with a constructive plan and financial capital assistance for urban

transit planning.

By contrast, what is the approach of the

opposition'? Well, presumably it was first seen in 1975 in the words of

the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), the previous Minister of

Highways, who said that Victoria really shouldn't be involved in

traffic and urban transit planning for the greater Vancouver area. That

was somehow the problem of 14 local governments over there, and he

really thought the Minister of Highways shouldn't get involved in that

kind of thing. Our response is clear. Regardless of the challenge,

regardless of how apparently hard the problem is, we're prepared to

tackle the challenge. And that's what we're doing with the Annacis

crossing. Equally, we're providing substantial capital funding for

urban transit.

Now what is the alternative of the

opposition? The alternative of the opposition is the following: it is a

declaration of war on the private automobile. We see more of the NDP

policy in the statements from the first member for Victoria — a

guarantee of gas rationing for our people in the future, and a

guarantee that under an NDP administration private cars in our cities

will be forbidden by law. That's the kind of harsh and Draconian

declaration-of-war approach to the problem which the first member for

Victoria would suggest — the typically negative and pessimistic view of

a member who has no optimism and no faith and no hope that British

Columbians, with spirit and working with technology, can solve their

modern transportation problems in a modern way. If you read the Blues

it is very interesting to see that whenever the first member for

Victoria speaks of the automobile, he speaks of the private automobile.

You get the impression that the first member for Victoria and,

presumably, the NDP opposition are really bothered by the concept of

private property rights — once again.

We've heard the

scenario; we've had the comment in this assembly some sessions ago from

the then member for North Vancouver–Seymour, who is now the member for

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), with his oft-repeated, well-remembered

views against private property rights. Private property rights, a

negative aspect — it's right in Hansard .

The party

whose MLA, now the member for North Island, advocated in this assembly

an assault on private property rights…. He has a colleague, the first

member for Victoria, who assaults the rights of private car ownership.

More private rights are being assaulted. We then couple that attack on

private rights with the pessimistic, negative views of the first member

for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). What did the first member for

Vancouver Centre advise British Columbians last summer when he spoke to

the Young NDP convention? He predicted a depression was coming for

British Columbia in 1980; sell your stocks and bonds, sell your homes.

And now the first member for Victoria says sell your cars. That's the

advice of that group, and that's how they solve the problems: "Sell

your stocks and bonds, sell your homes, sell your cars; we're against

private property; we're against the private automobile." It's negative

thinking.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we're going to look with

interest on how the members of the opposition vote and continue

speaking on this bill. As I've indicated, the member for Atlin (Mr.

Passarell), to his credit, has clearly said he will oppose the Annacis

crossing. We watch with interest the position which will be taken by

the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), remembering that the previous

NDP member for Surrey, Mr. Liden, supported the crossing.

conclusion, can I make this observation? If the opposition wanted a

constructive speaker on the Annacis crossing, with the greatest of

respect I think they might do better than somebody who told us Friday:

"The private automobile simply cannot be tolerated as it is currently."

There are a lot of British Columbians who have to drive to work, who

need a car for their business, who rely on automobiles. If the

opposition had a spokesman on Annacis who either lived in Vancouver's

eastern suburbs or had some experience living there or had gone through

the process of commuting to work through the road network as it

presently is, there might be some greater understanding by those

negative opposition benches.

The world isn't black and

white. You can't have it all one way. You're going to get nowhere with

the hysterical approach which attacks private rights and advocates gas

rationing and the abolition of automobiles. You have to have a balanced

and commonsense point of view. In its approach to transportation

planning, I think this government shows a balanced and commonsense

view. In one piece of legislation

[ Page 1897 ]

we see a contribution of twice as much money for urban transit as for the Annacis crossing.

don't believe that you help the people of Surrey, Richmond and Delta by

declaring war on their private automobiles, or by telling them that

their private automobiles cannot be tolerated. We don't think it's fair

to our people to predict the abolition of cars, gas rationing, and dire

consequences. We believe that in the future British Columbians on the

lower mainland who work together with a positive spirit and with

technology can enjoy a balanced regional transportation program,

including the kind of urban transit and rapid transit which the Premier

has predicted and a modern, sophisticated urban road network. We

believe we can have a balanced view and a balanced amount of both.

MR. LEVI:

That was a delightful speech by the second member for Vancouver South.

If I could, I would ask him if he lives in Vancouver South, but I don't

know whether I can ask him that from the floor. He has a lot of

knowledge about Vancouver South.

It looks like the bill of

the Minister of Finance is turning into a surrogate bill on

transportation. We really should get into some other items. It's the

luck of being the Minister of Finance. Most of the debate is concerning

the Annacis crossing.

The previous speaker was concerned

about where some of us stand on the bill. I made my position very clear

in the budget speech. I was opposed to it, and I stated at that time

why I was opposed to it. But the member would have us believe that,

over the period of four years since the report was made available in

1975, what actually took place in the development of the Annacis Island

bridge was a continuum of planning and thinking about exactly where the

bridge should go and how it should be done. The government has been in

power for four years and, presumably, from time to time they've

addressed themselves to this problem. This is what they would have us

believe. After all, they had a report in 1975 which made certain

recommendations about construction and the cost. At that time the cost

was of the order of almost $200 million. Now if we multiply it by

inflation, what are we looking at in terms of the cost of an Annacis

Island bridge? Presumably it's not $130 million, as the Premier tells

us, but something of the order of between $200 million and $300

million. That's if they were going to build the bridge they talked

about in 1975, but that's not the bridge they are going to build at all.

The

previous speaker in the government would have us believe it was always

their intention, once they got their agenda straightened away, to build

an Annacis Island bridge. Were they completely oblivious of what was

going on in the Greater Vancouver Regional District in terms of all the

planning and research, in terms of traffic patterns, in terms of light

rapid transit and what people in that area wanted to do through their

elected representatives in the GVRD?

We had a great deal of

discussion about light rapid transit from the member who is now the

Minister of Finance. Yes. we're going to do something about light rapid

transit. That was the hope that was held out to all I of the people in

the lower mainland in the first instance. That was the hope that was

held out to people in Coquitlam, Burnaby, Richmond, Surrey and Delta.

That was the development of the idea of having a transit system where

the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs came up with the Urban

Transit Act and started to breathe some life into the idea of light

rapid transit. Yes, to his credit, he did this. We have to recognize

the present Minister of Finance, because the poor guy isn't getting

very much recognition these days. He introduced the bill and indicated

that was where the government wanted to go in terms of moving people.

There

was no discussion at that time, as the second member for Vancouver

South (Mr. Hyndman) would have us believe, about the preservation of

the motor car. No one said there was something special to be addressed,

that we were Going to preserve the automobile. He never talked about

that. He said: "We've got to move all these people." All of a sudden he

has become the saviour of the automobile and the saviour, again, of the

right of everybody to own his own piece of property.

Those

people over there are going to have to tell us how a young couple in

their early twenties is even going to be able to afford to get the

mortgage to buy a piece of property. It's very nice to stand up and

mouth some of these nice little platitudes. The reality is that some

people who eventually wind up here are not going to be able to afford

that kind of option — not with 17, 18 and maybe 20 percent mortgages.

terms of the kind of planning that's gone on in this Legislature for

rapid transit in greater Vancouver — not for 1 or 2 years but for 20

years it has been discussed. There was a test of moving people by an

expansion of the bus system, which took place in 1974-75, which

attempted to demonstrate that it's possible. If you have sufficient

buses, to take away some of the pressure that exists on major arterial

roads in terms of getting into and out of the Vancouver area.

The

second member for Vancouver South — who has been the member for a few

months — wasn't down in Vancouver South recently, talking to people

about the way they feel about that Annacis Island crossing and what

they feel are the eventual implications for their lifestyle. They are

concerned about having Boundary Road as a quasi-freeway. That is right

down in the member's riding. I can remember the debates 11 years ago,

at the time they built the Knight Street crossing, about the kind of

dislocation and the long period of adjustment people went through

because of that. Here they are going through the same kind of

threatened dislocation in terms of the development of Boundary Road and

the possibility that it will be widened to six lanes to take up some of

the slack. That is what they are worried about down there, but he

doesn't know that — he rarely goes down there.

I was down

there six weeks ago and met with over 100 people at a meeting who were

concerned about what was going on. They are members of the NDP, but

they also live there. They had a resolution: they were very concerned

about it. They have been in touch with the member, but the member

doesn't note that. He tells us that everybody in Vancouver South is

prepared to make his contribution to the transit system. Yes, it's

true, but they worry about the kind of ad hoc planning in respect to

this particular bridge which is going to have a direct effect on them.

The

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) presumably

will tell us when we get into his estimates — unless he participates in

this debate — that all along it has been their plan to build the

Annacis Island bridge. If that is the case, what were they doing

spending money two years ago on the Pattullo Bridge utilization study,

a joint study of his ministry and the Greater Vancouver Regional

District transit people? They were interested in looking at some

options, and they looked at that option.

[ Page 1898 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: We still are.

MR. LEVI:

Oh, you're still looking at it. Which is going to come first? If the

minister says they are still looking at it, what's the Premier doing

making announcements in February about an Annacis Island bridge? What's

he doing? What kind of planning is that? Integrated, balanced planning

the second member for Vancouver South talks about? The Minister of

Highways heard about the Annacis Island crossing on the radio or read

about it in the newspapers. He didn't know what was coming, because he

has just said the Pattullo Bridge option is still there. What's he

talking about — that we're going to have an Annacis Island option and

we're going to have a Pattullo Bridge option?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Pattullo Bridge is still there. What are you talking about?

MR. LEVI:

Yes, it sure is. But the study looked at the possibility of some

restructuring of the bridge and some high-level care for highways.

That's what the study looked at. The minister tells us that it's still

in the works. Well, what happened to the Annacis Island one, if this

was in the works? All right, that's the kind of balanced planning you

talk about. You look at one option. You're not making decisions for

next year and the year after. You're making decisions 20 or 30 years

down the road. So you take your time. You don't get a report in 1975

and decide to throw the bill up in 1976.

I am informed, Mr.

Speaker, that if the Annacis Island bridge is built the way it's

presently designed, in three years — and this is from officials in the

GVRD — they will need something else to take up some of the pressure.

That bridge does not envision in any way, as the 1975 report did, all

sorts of arterial roads and that kind of thing. What you have is a

bridge that goes from one side to the other, and it will take the

traffic that's coming down. It's literally an extension of the highway,

but it does nothing about looking at feeder roads or the arterial

structure. It does nothing at all about integrating it into the

planning in terms of moving people. But part of the objective with

light rapid transit was that wherever possible you would integrate

light rapid transit with the movement of cars. There is no such

integration in this at all.

We can't have those people, Mr.

Speaker, telling us that what we have is the direct result of some

skilful planning on the part of the Ministry of Highways. It's not that

at all. What it is is a classical knee-jerk reaction by a Premier who

was told by the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson): "If I don't get my

bridge, I'm going to resign."

HON. MR. FRASER: Rubbish!

MR. LEVI:

That's what he said. He said: "If I don't get my bridge, I'm going to

resign." And I'll tell you over there that you can't take too many

resignations. My gosh, you get two more resignations and you're really

in trouble. Most of you are going to be on unemployment insurance.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Except for our bolt manufacturer over there. He can always write columns in The Columbian .

Here

is the Minister of Highways feeling a little prickly because he's

probably sitting on a thorny rose there. He says "rubbish." Do you mean

to tell me that the member for Delta did not say publicly in the last

election: "If I don't get that bridge, I'm going to resign within six

months"? Now that's a heck of an ultimatum to give to the Premier of

the province. So what does he do? The Premier of the province goes to

the Minister of Highways, and he says: "Look, that jerk there is going

to ruin us. What can we do for him?" So Alex just pulls out his little

tinker toys and says: "Well, if we put a bridge across here, we're

okay."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member, the Chair will have to ask you to withdraw the term you used. That is not showing courtesy to another member.

MR. LEVI: Yes, you're quite right, Mr. Speaker. I shouldn't call him a jerk.

DEPUTY SPEAKER . Perhaps you should remember that members in this Legislative

Assembly are not addressed by their Christian name but by the riding they represent

or the portfolio that they hold.

MR. LEVI: Right. Well, I apologize. I withdraw. The member for Delta is not a jerk.

The

Minister of Highways…. He's pretty quick on his feet. Did you notice

how quickly he got out of his chair? I am amazed. That's how quick he

got out of his chair when the Premier walked into his office and said:

"Look, build a bridge across there from Delta to the other side or

we're going to lose him." So he jumped out of his chair and he got a

piece of wood, and said: "Simple, Mr. Premier. Here is the map. Let's

put it across here. You know, anywhere. Let's just put it across so

that he'll be satisfied." If that's not the case, then we might have

the minister tell us exactly how it was planned, because I don't know

anybody in the Greater Vancouver Regional District who agrees with the

location of the bridge or with what you were talking about in terms of

just what it's going to serve three or four years after it's built.

HON. MR. FRASER: They'll catch up.

MR. LEVI:

You won't be here then, Mr. Minister. You won't know; you won't be

here. He says: "They'll catch up." Only we know. We can ignore it. You

know, this is the great freedom-fighting party, Mr. Speaker, who talk

about local autonomy. Let's have the people make some decisions.

It's

like the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). He's

going to make some decisions about the municipal structure; he's going

to create counties. Has he backed away from that now, having done a

poll and realizing that people don't want counties? Because if you have

counties, like in England, you have to have cricket teams, and they

don't play cricket over here.

We have the Minister of

Highways. He told us just now. Here it is. I can ask him, through you,

Mr. Chairman, is this it? This is a nice, beautiful report. It's called

"A Review of Methods to Improve the Utilization of the Pattullo

Bridge." It's a joint study, and he tells us it's still in the works.

Well, what are we doing debating this particular bill at this point in

time? This

section of the bill deals with Annacis Island. What are we

dealing with this for if this is part of some ongoing planning that's

going on? What are we doing? How much do we spend on the utilization?

Has the Highways ministry rejected it? No, the minister says they

haven't rejected it. So it's still in the works.

[ Page 1899 ]

We're

having a great debate here. We know that by the end of the fiscal year

they won't have spent any money anyway. It's going to take some time to

get this bridge moving. You know, if you don't get the footings in,

that member may very well resign, Mr. Speaker. You know, if you don't

make a hole in the ground, he can precipitate a general election in

this province. I mean, after all, if he leaves your party, how much

more can you take? It's very tight over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who else will take him?

MR. LEVI:

Yes, who else will take him? That's the point. We'll have to find him

some accommodation over here. Then maybe somebody else will come

across, and the decisions won't be theirs to make anymore.

Mr.

Speaker, in the constituency that I represent, they had some

expectation down the road — five to seven or even ten years — that they

could look forward to some kind of relief in terms of moving about, in

terms of some beginnings of a light rapid transit system, some

beginnings in terms of expansion and improvement in the bus system.

After all, there are a large number of people living out there. Almost

6,000 people a day are commuting into Vancouver from Coquitlam, because

they work there. They spend a long time trying to get through that

traffic on the highway. They had some expectation, in terms of the

announced plans of the GVRD, that down the road there would be some

relief. That was fair enough. It takes time to get what you want.

Suddenly, out of the blue, injected into this is this bridge, which

departed completely from the principle that had been discussed for the

past three or four years in this House and in the Greater Vancouver

Regional District. That principle is that there will be a strong

attempt, first, to move people, then to move cars.

Now we

haven't heard from the government over there, except for today. We

heard from the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman). Was he

enunciating the government policy, that that government is committed to

the movement of cars and not to anything else? Because that's what we

heard from him. We haven't heard from them over there. We got some

inklings two and three years ago from the previous Minister of

Municipal Affairs that perhaps they were moving in the direction of

talking about moving people — moving people in terms of the development

of a rapid transit system. Now there's been a complete departure from

that, because we've now got an enunciation that what's on today is

"we're going to move cars."

It's the basis on which the

decision was made that makes us cynical. You don't take all of that

planning, all of the money that was spent, all of the expectations and

hope that people have in that area, and suddenly slap them in the face

with an enormous piece of ad hockery. There was no planning, no

pre-thought to it; it was simply a straight political decision to bail

the Premier out of a very difficult situation. In terms of political

situations, those are the kinds of decisions you have to make. There is

no care about how it affects people; you simply make it for the

business of survival. That's how crucial that decision was in terms of

the future survival of that government, in terms of being in power.

It's down to the numbers game, that's what it is. So we've got that

kind of cynical decision made that we're going to build an Annacis

Island bridge. There was a suggestion by the Premier at the time, until

he was contradicted, that somehow that was the bridge that was talked

about in 1975. It is not. That is not the same bridge that was

envisioned in 1975. He has not been forthcoming on just exactly what it

is going to cost. The only thing we can say is that it was done to bail

him out of a political problem. No amount of waving the bill around and

saying how much money you are going to spend on it is going to convince

anybody on that particular question.

Mr. Speaker, I want to

deal with some other aspects of the bill. I want to trust the minister,

when he is summing up the bill and we get into the committee stage, to

talk about some of the things that appear to be missing from the bill.

When we look at where the special funds are allocated, we are looking

at Barkerville, B.C. Place. downtown revitalization. energy

development, a Fraser River crossing, the Lower Mainland Stadium Fund,

northeast coal, provincial computerization, and an urban transit fund.

Nowhere in this bill is it envisioned that you could take money that

would be available specifically for projects that would assist people

directly on the human level. I have in mind. when I talk about this,

Mr. Speaker, that if there's a special funds act, because we have this

amount of money that is surplus…. We've gone through the arguments that

all of this could have been adequately put into the estimates of the

ministries — that's the way it could be done — but this is quite a bit

of window shopping, so they can get in a bill about special funds.

Everything

they do is with a bill. Well, that's the way they play the political

game. But nowhere in this bill do they talk about specific projects for

people, in terms of directing themselves at a particular problem area.

After all, if they've taken the option to provide programming through

the Minister of Finance's department in no less than six different

ministries. I would have thought he would have gone one or two steps

further and made an allocation of money in the human services area. I

would suggest to the minister that he might have addressed himself to

the very serious problem that exists among some of our children, that

there might have been in this bill something which directed itself to a

specific problem in terms of children. If the minister was lost about

what he might do, we might give him a couple of suggestions. They

talked before about balance. Well, if you want balance let's do

something specifically about certain target groups that have some

problems which are not specifically being addressed by the departments

that have their budgets.

We were told earlier, for instance,

about under expenditures in the Ministry of Human Resources, but what's

missing here is some concern about a specific target group. I’ll

mention one target group where the minister might have exercised some

real feeling of humanism about what he was doing and said: "Yes. not

only are we building roads and stadiums and restoring heritage

buildings, we are also interested in target groups who have specific

problems." It could have been specifically in relation to the

handicapped; it could have been specifically in relation to problems

existing in the area where children are involved. We could talk about

the need, for instance, for broaden the existing programs for the

abused child. He could have addressed himself to a report which we

recently were given. Oh, we've got that groaning minister over there,

Mr. Speaker. My God, what a contribution he's made since he's been here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member, during second reading great latitude is allowed…

[ Page 1900 ]

MR. LEVI ; Yes, we're allowed to discuss principle.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: …on the principle of the bill, but on the bill, thank you.

MR. LEVI: The allocation of surplus funds.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI:

That's what you're looking for — the principle in the bill. Yes, we

know about the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker. I just talked about

it. You've got all this money. Instead of putting it through the

estimates you put it in a bill. What's the principle? Politics. That's

what it is. That's the established principle. Nobody has stood up and

said anything else. That's the principle. I'm suggesting to the

minister that the bill would have had more humanity in it if he had

addressed himself to a few more human problems, if he had said we're

going to allocate $30 million or $40 million to specific areas of

problems with children. Everybody presumably has received the report on

the sexual abuse of children. A study has been done and that's a

problem to address; that is a particular target group that needs to

have some assistance. It would have been well to have it in this bill

because, after all, we're dealing with surplus funds.

But

all the minister could do was to tell us that it's necessary to do

something about Barkerville and B.C. Place and an energy development

fund. Yes, all of those things are quite necessary, but they could have

been very adequately handled within the departmental estimates. But

having gone this route it's fair to ask: why is there missing from this

bill a particular address to the problems that people have as

individuals — not because they have to get a car across a bridge or

because when they're tourists they have to look at something up in

Barkerville — these specific substantive problems that exist in our

society? That's my position with respect to the way this is being done.

One would have thought that had they been able to give some thought to

what they were doing they would have created a balance in here, but

they haven't created a balance at all. It's all directed to some

high-flown projects which are not going to get off the ground this year

or next year.

We don't think for one minute that next year

there won't be surpluses, because there will be surpluses, because we

are told by various resource ministers that there are going to be big

revenues. Perhaps there will not be as much as they expect in the

forest industry, but nevertheless the revenues have been increasing.

The question is, where are your priorities? What do you address it to?

Nowhere in that government have we had any discussion or any point made

in a bill with respect to addressing itself to a target group.

Everything is done in terms of the hardware; nothing is done in terms

of software and people. That's the problem that exists here; it's the

problem that exists with the bill.

We really are used to

this kind of bill. We've been getting them for the last four years, but

they still haven't learned that there are more things out there than

the suggestion that you're going to do something which will satisfy

particular target groups. If you're going to do that then you're

addressing yourself to other target groups that have equally pressing

problems. You go beyond the car and the buses and address yourself to

some of the problems that government has decided are not so urgent, and

so they don't address them. I named one here today. If you want to

bring in a bill like this, then balance it and address it to people as

well as to hardware.

I have no trouble in terms of the way

this bill is done, Mr. Chairman. In the years I've been in this House

I'm used to voting for or against allocations in terms of expenditures

in the estimates, and I'll make those decisions in exactly the same way

that I've always done. There's no problem about that, no problem about

voting against particular votes in the estimates that I don't agree

with, that don't represent what I think are the interests of the

people. I won't have any problem voting against it, because I think

simply that what we've got here is a piece of window-dressing. I've no

problem about that at all. I'm quite prepared to go, as I did in my

riding, and talk about the thing that they call the Annacis Island

crossing, and there is general support for being against that kind of

thing because they've been disappointed.

One might very well

ask whether, had the political arrangements in the lower mainland area

been somewhat different, had the Socreds represented Burnaby or

Coquitlam or New Westminster, they would have done what they just did.

We wonder about that. We know the way you make decisions; we know the

kind of options that you have; we know that you've given up on

Vancouver Island and you've given up on the coast. If anybody suggests

that the only reason for the Annacis Island crossing is other than the

preservation of one government seat, then they better get up and

justify it, because so far, Mr. Speaker, they haven't justified

anything at all.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker,

again we've heard a great deal of negativism today, and certainly when

this very bill was being discussed earlier there was a great deal of

negativism then also. It's just unfortunate that we can't hear at least

a few positive comments or some good suggestions from the opposition

with respect to this or any other piece of legislation.

the community of Surrey and in Langley and Delta, all the people I've

spoken to are extremely grateful for the very positive things which are

being done by this government with respect to transportation and

transit. Frankly, I'm not so sure that the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) is really aware of how the people in

his area feel, because they, too, will benefit considerably from this

new traffic artery which will assist the whole of the system.

MR. LEVI: They don't believe that, Mr. Member.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

This member for Maillardville-Coquitlam suggests that perhaps we can do

all things with the Pattullo Bridge. Well, the Pattullo Bridge happens

to be across from Maillardville-Coquitlam, or certainly very close to

it. The member should recall that when he was electioneering there he

obviously might have seen it from time to time.

Mr. Member,

I would be very pleased to meet with you one day in your constituency

and talk to some of those people, because I think they too would be

very proud of what's happening in the a