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)

MONDAY, JUNE 23, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2967 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Lung Association meeting. Mr. Cocke –– 2967

Use of American tradesmen on B.C. Jobs. Mr. Howard –– 2967

Alleged fraudulent applications for BCRIC shares. Mr. Barber –– 2967

Appointment of Tom Butler. Mr. Cocke –– 2968

Alleged fraudulent applications for BCRIC shares. Mr. Barber –– 2968

Freight subsidy for Vancouver Island farmers. Mrs. Wallace –– 2969

Fort Nelson Indian Reserve Minerals Revenue Sharing Act (Bill 22). Committee stage.

section 3.

Mr. Howard –– 2969

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 2969

On the schedule.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 2969

Report and third reading –– 2970

Fire Services Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 25). Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Macdonald –– 2970

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 2970

Mr. Leggatt –– 2970

Report and third reading –– 2970

Home Owner Grant Act (Bill 31). Committee stage.

section 2.

Mr. Barber –– 2970

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2970

Mr. Mitchell –– 2970

section 3.

Mr. Cocke –– 2971

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2971

Mr. Mitchell –– 2971

section 12.

Mr. Barber –– 2971

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2971

Report and third reading –– 2971

Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 18). Second reading.

Mr. Levi –– 2971

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2972

Division on second reading –– 2974

Revised Statutes Correction Act, 1980 (Bill 33). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 2974

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1980 (Bill 34). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 2975

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

On the amendment.

Mr. Cocke –– 2975

Mr. Nicolson –– 2976

Mrs. Dailly –– 2976

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2976

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2977

Mr. Hanson –– 2977

Mr. Mussallem –– 2977

Mr. Lea –– 2978

Mr. Macdonald –– 2980

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2980

Division on the amendment –– 2981

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2981

Division on second reading –– 2981

Crown Corporations Borrowing Authority Increase Act (Bill 9). Second reading.

Mrs. Wallace –– 2982

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2983

Mr. Howard –– 2984

Mr. Lockstead –– 2985

Mr. Cocke –– 2987

Mr. Leggatt –– 2988

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2990

Division on second reading –– 2991

MONDAY, JUNE 23, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I'm very pleased to share with the House the knowledge that we have two

very nice visitors from the United States of America today. I would

like to ask the House to welcome Mrs. Sharon Scherexnayder and her son,

Tory Casanova.

MR. GABELMANN: I have two

introductions today. The first is of a group of students in the gallery

from Seaview School in Port Alice, accompanied by their teacher Mrs.

Kellas. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

The second

introduction I'd like to make is that of my campaign manager, Mr. Paul

Barnett. I'd like the House to make him welcome.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Bill Keeley, who is a small businessman from Richmond visiting Victoria today.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, we also have in the gallery today a business couple from

Smithers. I'd like the House to join with me in welcoming Mr. and Mrs.

Macrae.

Oral Questions

LUNG ASSOCIATION MEETING

MR. COCKE:

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

of Health recently broke an appointment with the Lung Association. Will

the minister advise the House why he misled the association by

indicating he was ill, when he was fit enough to play squash here in

Victoria?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the question

is very directly an argumentative one. The word "misled," addressed to

an hon. minister, is not in order. Would the member rephrase his

question.

MR. COCKE: Misinformed, Mr. Speaker. We're just interested in why he didn't attend the Lung Association meeting.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That question is in order.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, on the afternoon in question I felt unwell and sent my regrets.

USE OF AMERICAN

TRADESMEN ON B.C. JOBS

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister

given permission to an American firm called E&L Engineering, a

contractor for the United States–based Aspen Ski Corp. on the Whistler

Mountain project, to fly in American citizens as tradespeople to work

on the construction of the ski resort?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, to the member for Skeena, I know nothing of what he is

raising, but I will undertake to find out. I take the question as

notice.

MR. HOWARD: Was the minister contacted in the

instance of the Vernon Fruit Union at Winfield, where another U.S.

contractor named Van Doran Sales and Service has brought in some nine

or ten tradespeople who are American citizens? Was that brought to the

minister's attention?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That matter has not been brought to my attention either. I will take that question as notice too.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a further question. Could I ask the minister, when

he receives the information he is seeking, whether he will contact the

federal immigration authorities with respect to this general question?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll make inquiries on behalf of the member. I really can't say much more than that, Mr. Speaker.

ALLEGED FRAUDULENT APPLICATIONS

FOR BCRIC SHARES

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, in the

absence of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), I have a question

for the Premier. I wonder if he could inform us what the policy of his

government is in regard to prosecutions of persons alleged to have

forged signatures on British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation

free-share applications.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr.

Speaker, if the member would deal with specific cases, I could help by

taking the question as notice for the Attorney-General.

MR. BARBER:

Well, there is a specific case. But I'm asking, through you, Mr.

Speaker, what your government's policy is — not future policy; current

policy, which is in order — in regard to the prosecution of persons

alleged to have forged signatures on applications for free shares of

the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that the Attorney-General's ministry would review

any allegation of any law being broken — that being one of them — and

would take appropriate action after reviewing the circumstances.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs. Could the minister advise the House what report, if

any, he has now received from the superintendent of brokers, Mr.

Bullock, in regard to the alleged forgery of signatures by an employee

of Midland Doherty in regard to some — it would appear — 30

applications for British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation

shares?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of having received any report at this time.

MR. BARBER: Well, others are.

[ Page 2968 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, are they? From looking in my files?

MR. BARBER: I haven't received that file yet in the mail; but when it comes, I'll share it with you.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm sure it's on its way.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Do you initiate the receiving?

MR. BARBER: I'm always happy to open my mail on a Monday morning.

wonder if the minister is prepared to inquire of the superintendent of

brokers as to whether or not he has received advice from, among others,

the regional Crown counsel in Prince George, which indicates that

apparently a person in the employ of Midland Doherty forged signatures

on applications for some, it would appear, 30 persons who otherwise did

not apply for BCRIC shares, but by virtue of the fraudulent signatures

wrongly applied now seem to have applied for them in any case. Would

the minister tell us whether or not he's prepared to make an inquiry of

Mr. Bullock to find out the circumstances of these allegations?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, yes, of course we'll be in contact with the superintendent

and he will provide us with such information as he may have on the

particular case. I presume we're dealing with some form of a criminal

charge or possibility of a criminal charge but, yes, that information

will be made available to us.

MR. BARBER: A question

to the Minister of Finance. As fiscal agent for the free shares in the

British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation, can the Minister of

Finance inform the House whether or not he has received any other

complaints or charges of fraudulent applications for BCRIC shares from

any of his officials? If so, could the minister tell us something about

the disposition of these complaints as well?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, yes, I recall that there have been the occasional

complaints with respect to improper attempts to apply for shares. I

believe that the number has been very small and, although some of them

may have, in fact, occurred prior to the portfolio change of late

November last year, I'll take the balance of the question on notice.

MR. BARBER:

A final question to the same minister: can the minister advise whether

or not he has received information from the superintendent of brokers

in regard to the alleged signing of applications without authority by

an employee of Midland Doherty?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, as I stand here answering the questions, no, I don't recall any such instance, but I will check.

APPOINTMENT OF TOM BUTLER

MR. COCKE:

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

minister confirm that Mr. Tom Butler, formerly a PR agent for the

Premier, among others, has been hired to advise the government on the

new denticare program?

HON. MR. MAIR: Not

specifically, Mr. Speaker. He has been hired on a short-term contract

to help us with our public information facilities. I would assume that

he may well be called upon to advise us on the denticare program in due

course, but at this point in time it is not one of his terms of

reference.

MR. COCKE: Can the minister advise what qualification Mr. Butler has to consult on health care programs?

HON. MR. MAIR: So far as I know, absolutely none. I'm not asking him to.

MR. COCKE:

I wonder if the minister remembers the answer to the original question.

I would ask the minister to advise what qualification Mr. Butler has,

apart from his connection with Margaret Trudeau's disco hype and Bill

Bennett and the world belly-flop championship, which could make his

advice useful in relation to denticare in any way.

HON. MR. MAIR:

My recollection of my original answer is that Mr. Butler has been hired

on a short-term contract to help us with the information services of

the Ministry of Health. He certainly has many qualifications for that.

I think they are well known to all the people of British Columbia. That

answer stands. He can publicize denticare, I presume, if we ask him to

do so. So far I haven't asked him to. I've only asked him to help me

put together a better information service within my ministry.

MR. COCKE: I would then ask the minister: does Mr. Butler's appointment mean that the denticare program will be all hype and no substance?

ALLEGED FRAUDULENT APPLICATIONS

FOR BCRIC SHARES

MR. BARBER: I have a question to the

Attorney-General on the matter I raised earlier. I wonder if the

Attorney-General could advise the House as to the policy of his

ministry in regard to the prosecution of persons alleged to have

fraudulently signed names to British Columbia Resources Investment

Corporation free-share applications.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

It is not a question of the policy of this ministry. If activities have

been engaged in which constitute a breach of the criminal law, then

they will be dealt with accordingly.

MR. BARBER: We

are informed that regional Crown counsel in Prince George, Mr. Ewert,

in the case of the alleged forgery of signatures by an employee of

Midland Doherty in fact recommended that charges be laid, presumably

charges of forgery. One is further informed that that recommendation of

regional Crown counsel was overturned in the ministry. I wonder if the

minister could advise whether or not he has been made privy to the

reasons why the recommendation of regional Crown counsel was overturned

in this particular case of an alleged forgery in the specific case of

BCRIC applications.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is misinformed. The particular incident which has re-

[ Page

2969 ]

ceived some consideration in the press is one of a number which are continuing under investigation.

FREIGHT SUBSIDY FOR

VANCOUVER ISLAND FARMERS

MRS. WALLACE: My question is

to the Minister of Agriculture. It relates to the freight subsidy for

Vancouver Island farmers during the CPR work stoppage. On May 8 the

minister advised the House that this would range from $7 to $25 per ton

and that the federal government has a precedent for such assistance.

I'm wondering whether or not he can tell the House if the federal

government has decided to make this funding available.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, as of last week we haven't had a response to whether or

not the assistance is forthcoming. We have been in touch, as the member

knows, with Ottawa in looking at this type of assistance. For the

benefit of the member and the farmers involved, I'll follow up on it.

MRS. WALLACE:

In the event that you are not successful, Mr. Minister, in persuading

Ottawa to make some recompense to the Vancouver Island farmers, are you

prepared to consider making such an advance to them from the provincial

coffers?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, questions which are hypothetical are out of order.

MRS. WALLACE: Has the minister decided, then, to make such an advance to the farmers in the event that the Ottawa government does not?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, we are looking at the matter with regard to the federal

government's responsibility in this matter. I am hopeful that we might

be successful in having them provide the assistance that's required.

MRS. WALLACE:

My question was: has the minister decided to assist the farmers if the

federal government does not make a federal subsidy available? He didn't

really respond to that, so perhaps I will ask him if he has decided not

to make money available from the provincial coffers in the event that

the federal government does not pay the subsidy.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, we haven't addressed that question as yet.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 22.

FORT NELSON INDIAN RESERVE

MINERALS REVENUE SHARING ACT

The House in committee on Bill 22; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. HOWARD:

I'd like to pose a question to the minister with respect to a provision

section 3 on page 8 following subsections (1) and (2). It reads as

follows: "but if at any time an Indian agent is not appointed for the

reserve the powers and duties exercisable by an Indian agent under the

said agreement with respect to...." What is meant by Indian agent there?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You're referring to a

section of the act?

MR. HOWARD:

I'm sorry.

Section 3 is on page 8 of the bill, immediately following

subsection (2) thereof and just about an inch and a half or two down

the page. It starts to read: "but if at any time an Indian agent is not

appointed for the reserve the powers and duties...." What is meant by

Indian agent?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It would be an

official of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

of the federal government holding the responsibilities of Indian agent.

MR. HOWARD:

I don't want to quibble about words, but it's my understanding that

there's no such reference in the Indian Act of Canada to Indian agent.

It's an antiquated, obsolete term. The usage currently, which has been

so for many, many years, is to designate that person appointed to that

position of what used to be an Indian agent to now be called an Indian

superintendent under the federal act. I just wondered whether there's

any difficulty there.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I now have

the full import of the member's question and he's absolutely right. If

the member will notice,

section 3 of the agreement speaks of the Indian

Reserves Mineral Resources Act. As you know, that was a very old

statute which used the words "Indian agent." So in order to deal with

it effectively in this agreement we had to use the same terminology,

although it was pointed out to us by the federal officials that there

no longer was such a person. Indeed, that's why we went on to say "or

the alternative person who has the responsibilities."

Sections 3 to 8 inclusive approved.

On the schedule.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, I'd like it to be clear for the record. Scheduled to this

bill is the agreement and all of the schedules except

schedule C. It

had been made clear in

section 1 of the bill that the

schedule C

referred to are the maps, and they were tabled in this House with the

agreement on the day the bill was introduced. Therefore any person who

wishes to have the opportunity to examine this agreement and all of the

schedules will have to refer not only to the

schedule attached to the

agreement but also to the maps which are now in the custody of the

Clerk of this House.

Schedule approved.

[ Page 2970 ]

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill

22, Fort Nelson Indian Reserve Minerals Revenue Sharing Act, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 25, Mr. Speaker.

FIRE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MR. MACDONALD:

I have one or two simple questions here. My first question to the

Attorney-General is: has the Attorney-General read this bill? My second

question is: why is it left to order-in-council to design an appeal

procedure? As I understand it, for other fire decisions the appeal is

to the fire commissioner and after that the matter can be taken to

court. Why not simply set out that appeal procedure in the act so that

people would have a better idea of how the appeal can take place? I am

surprised that such a thing would be left to order-in-council. A

section saying that the appeal procedure shall be the same as in the

case of the other fire decisions might be far more appropriate than

leaving it to a totally undesignated appeal procedure in the act.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The answer to the first question is yes, I have read the bill. The

answer to the second question is that the National Fire Code, which

would be adopted by order-in-council, does contain provisions for

appeal. We believe that the system we are designing in this province

will be a more effective appeal mechanism and it will be instituted in

the regulations along with the adoption of the National Fire Code as

amended to suit the specific requirements of British Columbia in its

various regions.

MR. LEGGATT: I just wondered if the

Attorney-General would like to follow up his last answer by explaining

to the House what the defects are in the appeal procedure that is laid

out in the national code.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I am not

in a position to detail the defects that are in the fire code appeal.

With the institution of the Fire Services Act we have in the fire

commissioner himself a significant change in responsibilities, and we

will want to ensure that that is carried forward in the design of the

system of appeal.

MR. MACDONALD: Does the

Attorney-General envisage an ultimate appeal to the courts under this

section, and will that be spelled out by regulation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. MACDONALD:

I will just make this point again. That is why I am voting against the

section but not the bill. I think that kind of thing should be spelled

out in the legislation.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 25, Fire Services Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 31, Mr. Speaker.

HOME OWNER GRANT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 31; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. BARBER:

I wonder if the Minister of Municipal Affairs could advise us as to

approximately how many persons as provided for in 2(

b) actually receive

the

schedule 2 homeowner grant now. I am referring to handicapped

persons whose income is determined by the Guaranteed Available Income

for Need Act or war vets whose allowance is determined by the War

Veterans Allowance Act of Canada. Could the minister advise roughly how

many persons under each of those two designations receive the

schedule

2 homeowner grant?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, I don't have the figures. I will attempt to get them.

MR. MITCHELL:

I would like to add an amendment to

section 2. It would be an add to

line (b). Added to

section 2 it would be 1(a), (

b) and then (

c) by

adding a new paragraph. The new clause will read: "is the head of a

family and is disabled from full employment for medical reasons."

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, that motion in the hands of a private member is out of

order, because it does involve the expenditure of public funds.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

[ Page

2971 ]

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, are you saying that there is no debate on an amendment of that section?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment has been ruled out of order, hon. member, and the

section has been passed.

MR. MITCHELL: I would like to make the same amendment on a following....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, that amendment has been ruled out of order for reasons

that are before us in our standing orders. A private member cannot add

an impost to the Crown. That is what your amendment does. You can speak

to the section, hon. member, but not to the amendment. The amendment is

out of order.

We are on

section 3. The member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, we are particularly happy to see this and other sections

in the bill — this

section with respect to an apartment building. I

gather that the real impact of this, in terms of the needs of the

people within the apartments.... I would just like to ask the minister

whether this is a condominium or to do with the ownership of the

apartment.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm sorry, Mr.

Chairman, could the member pose the question again? I missed it. I was

in conversation about the numbers requested by the first member for

Victoria (Mr. Barber).

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I

gather the direction of this particular

section is with respect to an

apartment and the apartment dweller. I imagine it means an owner of an

apartment, in terms of a condominium or some other co-op idea.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's correct, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MITCHELL:

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for bringing an amendment that you tell me is

out of order, but I feel that if we had an enlightened government, when

they drafted this

section of the bill they would have realized there

are a lot of people out there, because of the stress of our modern-day

living and the pressure we live under, who have to take early

retirement because of heart conditions and nervous breakdowns — people

who are heads of families. In many cases they are single-parent

families and younger men in their forties or early fifties who have

budgeted through proper planning to retire at the age of 60 or 65. But

because of the stress of employment and modern-day living, people have

medical breakdowns and have to take early retirement. By taking that

early retirement, they can no longer participate in the workforce. I

feel that they have as much right to this particular

section as a

person who went through a normal life with good health and retired at

age 65 on an old-age or burned-out pension. I sincerely request that

the minister give some consideration to that group of people who,

through no fault of their own, are in that predicament and need the

assistance.

Sections 3 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

MR. BARBER:

I regret that I don't have my own notes from second reading in the

House. I wonder if the minister could advise what, in

section 12 or its

equivalent under the previous legislation, was the penalty for — as it is

put here — "knowingly or recklessly furnishing false information"?

The

proposed penalty is now $2,000, which seems to me to be pretty stiff

and thereby appropriate. I wonder if this is in any significant way a

departure from the previous penalty, and whether or not the knowledge

of that, together with the Attorney-General's very welcome and

tough-minded statement during second reading about persons wrongly

applying for the homeowner grant as 99-year lessees, or at least

purporting to be 99-year lessees, might go some distance to making sure

there is no abuse of this new principle introduced in the bill.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, the previous act read: "...$100 for the first

offence and a fine of not less than $100 and not more than $2,000 for

subsequent offences."

Sections 12 to 24 inclusive approved.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 31, Home Owner Grant Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 18.

LIQUOR CONTROL AND LICENSING

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

(continued)

MR. LEVI:

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to add very much to what I had to say last

Friday. We obviously have some questions that we would like the

minister to deal with in respect to the one area that we have a great

deal of concern about, which is the confidentiality section. In winding

up the debate perhaps he can give us some indication of why this, which

we consider to be a very drastic change in the act, is being made; and

if not, we will be able to get at it in the committee stage.

There

is one other thing that I would appreciate the minister's commenting

on, and that is whether over the weekend he has given any thought to

the idea that when next year they produce the annual report of the

liquor administration branch, they will give some consideration to

expanding that report to give both the members and the public a much

[ Page 2972 ]

better

idea of the operations of the branch, particularly in relation to the

kind of format that exists in the state of Washington annual report,

which, I'm sure, the minister can get hold of, which gives a great of

detail. Also, we will be able to have some better understanding of the

working of, for instance, the listing committee. I think all of this is

very important for the members and the public to understand in the

operation of that very vital revenue-maker for the government.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to hearing from the minister.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr.

Speaker, two areas of concern, apparently, in the amendments that have

been brought to the attention of the assembly by members opposite. The

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam raised the point of confidentiality;

and also there is the nature of the report. Mr. Speaker, I think it's

important that we understand that we're dealing with the Liquor Control

and Licensing Amendment Act.

Much of the information which the member was asking for comes under

liquor distribution, and I'm sure he's aware of that. But I would have

no hesitation in recommending to the general manager of the liquor

distribution branch that perhaps more information be provided, and as

detailed information as anyone may ask for, provided that in no way

would it interfere with general business concepts about information

which may be of a confidential nature and would not unwittingly provide

competitors within the field with information that they normally could

not obtain.

The Washington state system is somewhat

different, but I have no concern about making available to the public

through the liquor distribution branch gross figures by company, brand,

label, or whatever else may be available. That's of no significant

concern to me, as to keeping such information unavailable; but that's

under the Liquor Distribution Act.

Mr. Speaker, the

confidentiality aspect of the bill was debated somewhat on Friday. The

intent of the

section is to give employees of the branch some rules to

go by, as I mentioned in opening debate, in dealing with requests for

information. At the present time basically there are no rules. We

believe that with the amendments our files will be more accessible than

they are at present. For some time the tendency in the branch has been

to consider everything in the files to be confidential.

spoke to some of my officials on the weekend, particularly the deputy

general manager. He told me that when he made the suggestions for the

amendments, he did so with the policy, as I just mentioned, that more

information should be made available. But it's interesting, Mr.

Speaker, to recognize that this confidentiality aspect is to be found

in most of the major acts that come under the Ministry of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs. Just to illustrate to the House that such

confidentiality aspects are not unique to this one bill, under the

Motor Dealer Act,

section 18, it says, in part:

"A person employed in the administration of this Act, including

a person making an inquiry, inspection, examination, test or investigation under

section 15, shall maintain secrecy in respect of all matters that come to his

knowledge in the course of his duties, employment, inquiry, inspection, examination,

test or investigation, and shall not communicate information obtained under

this Act to another person not legally entitled to it, except...."

And then the exceptions.

Similarly under the Real Estate Act:

"All

replies and communications to the superintendent or to a member or

officer of the council, with respect to an applicant, for a licence, or

a licence under this Act, are absolutely privileged. No action shall be

brought against any person in respect of them."

In the Residential Tenancy Act it says:

person who is or has been employed under this Act is not

a) in his

official capacity, bound to attend in pursuance of a subpoena, order or

summons issued from a court, whether the subpoena, order or summons was

directed to him personally or in his official capacity as a witness for

examination, or to produce a document kept, filed or registered by him

in his official capacity under this Act."

Under the Securities Act:

"The

superintendent, each member of the commission, and every officer, clerk

or person holding appointments authorized shall keep secret all facts

and information obtained or furnished under this Act, or under the Act

repealed by this Act, except so far as his public is requiring him to

make disclosure of it or to report it, or to take official action on

it."

Similarly under the Trade Practice Act:

"Every

person employed in the administration of this Act, including a person

making an inquiry, inspection, examination, test or investigation,

shall preserve secrecy in respect of all matters that come to his

knowledge and in the course of his duties...."

There

are similar provisions under the Travel Agents Act. So the concept is

certainly not new. The concern within the branch was that there were

virtually no rules for the people employed, and an attempt was made to

offer them guidelines.

Mr. Speaker, the other aspect that

brought about the majority of debate had to do with the appeal

procedure. The member for Vancouver East, in speaking, recognized quite

correctly that the amendment we're dealing with is one of

clarification. The bigger argument, or the bigger question, was put

forth by that member as to whether these appeals should be heard. The

reason this amendment is before us is to make it very clear that

preclearance is part of the licensing process and that the minister who

has the capacity to hear an appeal also has the capacity to hear the

preclearance portion of the licensing process. That came about because

of a challenge — not really a challenge, but an appeal to the

commission. The commission found that they do not have the capacity to

hear the appeal, and this clarifies it in no uncertain language.

Mr.

Speaker, much was made about a specific instance. I might add that the

member for Vancouver East was incorrect in statements he made on Friday

last about appeals. Appeals are permitted under the act for licensing

purposes, to the minister within a prescribed time, and so on. These

are licences for licensed premises. I think the ones that probably have

been heard almost exclusively since the amendments were made deal with

neighbourhood pubs, although there's probably been one or two. The

majority of the appeals are heard by the deputy minister at the present

time, but the minister certainly has that capacity and can delegate

that authority to the deputy. To my knowledge, not one appeal has ever

been heard in the minister's office. All appeals are open to the

public, and I might say that it stimulates a great

[ Page 2973 ]

deal

of activity and interest with the media, who to my knowledge have

attended one such appeal. That was the appeal on the Penthouse, which

had some interest to some people. The appeals are heard, and when

they're heard here in the capital they're heard in the committee rooms,

and the doors are open. They're certainly not heard in the minister's

office.

The specific thing that brought so much attention

has been answered in this House several times by the former minister

and by myself in response to questions in question period or questions

on the order paper. That is the Grammas marine pub.

A couple

of years back an amendment was made to develop a new licence. I think

it's "F" for marine pubs — not a neighbourhood pub, but a marine pub

to serve the marine trade, apparently. This particular one was granted

in quick time by the officials within the ministry who are responsible

for granting such licences. Mr. Munkley was the gentleman specifically

responsible at that time. He is now retired. The area around Gibsons

where consideration was given to neighbourhood pubs, and subsequently

to a marine pub, had been very, very active for such premises. The

person responsible for the application was very persistent with the

officials of the ministry and when an order-in-council was passed

creating a new category of licence, the person responsible made

application for such a licence. It was considered by Mr. Munkley at

that time and was approved. I looked into this because of questions

which have been offered in question period previously and I am

satisfied that the officials responded properly in this particular

circumstance as they respond properly in other circumstances.

am not aware of nor do I have any information which indicates there was

any pressure whatever — I don't care what the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) may say or pretend to say or consider —

from the minister responsible at that time. As I said, all appeals to

the minister are open to the press and public. This particular Grammas

pub was not an appeal situation. It was an original application, and it

was processed, and free clearance was granted by members of the public

service.

I understand that the Janowskys in question, the

people who are the licence holders, are not from Kamloops but have

lived for a number of years in Gibsons and, I understand, operate the

general store. I am not quite sure if there is something you have to

carry around because your name is Janowsky. Perhaps we should consider

denying people licences because of their name, which I am sure not too

many people would support. There were several comments made by that

member for Vancouver East, who at times reminds you of a dropped

muffler or an old transmission. You put it in gear and it grinds and

makes noise and belches smoke and sparks but nothing moves. It just

remains where it is with lots of action, lots of attention but very

little substance and certainly no movement. This particular application

has been examined time upon time upon time and nothing improper has

been discovered at all.

The member for Vancouver East had

some comments about the conduct of the former minister, now the

Minister of Health. I've read the Blues; I've read correspondence and

I've read answers to questions which have been filed in the House.

There was a comment made that the Minister of Health is a law partner

of another Janowsky. My understanding and my information is that the

Minister of Health is not a law partner. The name is still part of the

partnership name of the firm of lawyers. I really don't have too much

control over that. I've spoken to staff in liquor administration and I

have been advised that at no time when the former minister was Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs did he influence any of their

decisions. I am sure there was no influence attempted or made under

this one but it is a good story to suggest and spread around simply

because a person's name is that of a former partner of a member.

Mr.

Speaker, citizens in our province, no matter what their name may be,

have the opportunity to seek licences from government. They are not

restricted from seeking a licence because of their name or because of

associations past, present and possibly future. We have members of the

Legislative Assembly who have licences from the liquor control branch.

I am not suggesting that any such person used their influence or inside

knowledge of the system or perhaps made use of former acquaintances who

may in some way be associated with the system to obtain such licences.

Any citizen has that opportunity and right to make application for a

licence. If they fulfill the obligations and have the qualifications

necessary, then the public service, which is responsible for issuing

such licences, I would suggest has no choice but to issue such a

licence provided it qualifies, as they must do.

I think it

would be quite inappropriate and very much in error for any of the

senior staff of liquor control or the minister, should he become

involved in an appeal, to deny a licence to a person simply because, as

I said, they were a former member of this House.

The

minister has the capacity and opportunity not to hear an appeal for

certain reasons. As minister responsible for this act and the appeal

process. as a matter of principle I will not hear an appeal if it's

from my own constituency of Richmond. The deputy hears all such

appeals. I would probably not hear an appeal if it were from a personal

acquaintance. The deputy, again, would be required to hear such an

appeal. I think that's pretty normal and I think most people would

respond that way. In no way would I attempt to influence a person

within the administration to grant or deny an appeal, simply because I

may be aware of the principle involved, who otherwise would qualify for

such a licence.

MR. MACDONALD: Strange kind of court of appeal.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I was thinking on the weekend that the comments made by

that former Attorney-General and now second member for Vancouver East

about appeals.... I suppose maybe it's a philosophical attitude

each member in the House may have about who you should trust in our

system. If I heard and read him correctly, I think he was suggesting

that when he was responsible for the act. It was determined at that

time that you could trust appointed officials, commissions or tribunals

without any hesitation. I would agree with that concept that, indeed,

the people we appoint as a tribunal, no matter what the act or occasion

may be, are trustworthy people. That's why they're appointed and they

have a difficult role.

I would also suggest that elected

representatives in our system and appointed members of cabinet are also

trustworthy people, and I have no hesitation in recommending to our

government that appeals indeed can be heard by elected representatives.

I have no hesitation in believing in the integrity of our elected

members, and I believe that they can hear appeals, receive information

and make decisions based on the merit of the case.

[ Page 2974 ]

some people in public life are somewhat hesitant about permitting

similar trust in people of their party, I can't be held responsible for

that. I have no hesitation in believing that the elected

representatives who sit on the government side and are appointed to

assume certain responsibilities in cabinet can be trusted to fulfill

their obligations. There may be some political organizations who are

sensitive and nervous about those who make up their party and perhaps

feel that they can't appoint them to a very sensitive position that

requires judgment without prejudice or political consideration. If

there are such organizations or parties, perhaps that is a weakness

identified. I don't believe that to be the problem within this

government and I have no hesitation in believing that an appointed

official, as a cabinet minister and an elected member of this assembly,

can be put in the position to hear such appeals and make wise, fair

judgments.

I know the member said: "Well, it's inevitable

that at some time something will go wrong with such an appeal

procedure." I'm not prepared either to condemn future elected

representatives or those who may be appointed to such positions. I

would rather that time answer that question, and that should violations

occur sometime in the future, they be judged at that time based on the

facts of the matter.

Mr. Speaker, I have interest, but not a

compelling interest, about what happened during the days prior to the

Great War. I know that the name of Gordon Wismer has been used

politically in this province for 25 years as an example of something —

usually as an example of Liberal association. I don't know all the

details, because I haven't got time to spend going back into old news.

I know there were certain examples given over the years about the

difficulties in administering liquor, but I would suggest to you that

the administration of liquor distribution and licensing in the province

of British Columbia is perhaps of the highest calibre in Canada.

One

of the members on the other side of the street suggested that certain

allegations — and, I believe, convictions — were made in Quebec based

on liquor distribution kickbacks, bribes, and so on. It was added that

certain information had been sent to the Attorney-General of British

Columbia, but what was not added at that time is that charges were

never laid in British Columbia. Certainly investigations take place on

a very regular basis across the country when it comes to liquor

distribution and licensing. It is and always has been a very, very

sensitive area, and those responsible must recognize that.

Mr.

Speaker, I would say from my investigation of the liquor licensing and

liquor distribution system in our province that we run a very clean

shop. I think there are many people who have that responsibility and

they should be recognized for conducting a very clean shop in a very

difficult business.

The

other charges which were made about

paying legal counsel for their efforts, I think, require no particular

remark. If the member for Vancouver East was suggesting that lawyers

are overpaid, perhaps he may be more intimately familiar with that than

I, but I don't think any partnership of lawyers in the province is

getting — I was going to say more than they're worth; I could be

checked up on that — more than they deserve; that may be over-generous

as well.

I heartily recommend the amendments which have been

put forward. It will assist the liquor administration branch in

fulfilling their obligations to our society. I know it's an extremely

sensitive area.

Finally, I would like to respond very

briefly to the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) and tell

him that I will very much take his comments into consideration and

speak with the general manager of the liquor distribution branch to see

if we feel it's necessary and desirable to come up with a more detailed

yearly report on the affairs of liquor distribution and so on in B.C. I

have no hesitation in taking that on as a project.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 20

Macdonald

Howard

Lea

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 18, Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1980, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 33, Mr. Speaker.

REVISED STATUTES

CORRECTION ACT, 1980

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I move second reading of Bill 33. I'm advised by the House Leader that

in discussion with the opposition — the House Leader and Whip — it is

proposed that the debate on this legislation will take place in

committee.

Motion approved.

MR. COCKE: On

a point of order, I wonder if the Speaker could direct the attendants

or whoever provides us with bills. A number of us don't have Bill 33 in

our book. Some do; some don't.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for bringing that to my attention, hon. member.

[ Page

2975 ]

Bill

33, Revised Statutes Correction Act, 1980, referred to a Committee of

the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Under a similar situation, Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 34.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 1), 1980

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move second reading of Bill 34.

Motion approved.

Bill

34, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1980, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on Bill 7.

SPECIAL FUNDS ACT, 1980

(continued)

On the amendment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No.

MR. COCKE:

I am absolutely amazed. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) stood in his place a few days ago to

speak on the amendment. I would like to remind the House what the

amendment is. The amendment states, to paraphrase....

Look

at the minister. He is weaseling around, as is his wont. He didn't want

to speak on the amendment because he can't speak on the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The term just used by the member is an unparliamentary term.

MR. COCKE: I will withdraw "weaseling" unconditionally and not try

to substitute anything in its place. Let me say this: he is very nervous. He

finds it very difficult to defend the government. I just want to remind you

what the amendment is all about. The amendment says that we have no confidence

in this government to spend $188 million, because of the way they conduct themselves,

because of their behaviour. This bill calls for giving to ministers, asking

for no recording, no accountability whatsoever, $188 million. My suggestion

is this: that we read that amendment very carefully, because the amendment says

that we have no confidence in this government because of its previous practices.

I'm not going to remind the House about the dirty tricks. I'm not going

to remind the House about all the situations that have arisen over the past

few months that have made the people in this province very, very suspicious

that the government is totally out of control. Their being totally out of control

advises us that we should not be in favour of giving them this kind of responsibility,

nor should we allow them to exercise that responsibility. I would hope that

those who are not responsible, the backbenchers — we know the cabinet members

have copped out — will vote solidly with this amendment. It is in keeping with

the needs of the people of this province to admonish this government, tap them

on the wrists, indicate to them that we're not satisfied with the behavior

of this government.

HON. MR. FRASER: Your leader has copped out. Where is he?

MR. COCKE:

The Minister of Transportation and Highways is nervous because of our

leader being in Japan. He might hear some rumours about your phony coal

deal.

Getting back to this bill. It's a hype. We're neither

for nor against it, because the minister will never answer a question.

We ask him how much. Anyway, I'm sure that by the time we're through

you'll all be against it.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

Oh, boring. Now the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development.... I don't think there's anyone in the world who

regards himself as a small businessman. Every businessman is a big

businessman, or at least potentially a big businessman.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Come on, you were too.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I said what? I don't understand them. They haven't even got Butler in here to hype them up.

any event, Mr. Speaker, that's the reason for the amendment. That's the

reason we expected the Minister of Energy to jump up and do his usual

routine. He didn't do it, and I suggest he didn't do it because he

feared to do it. He couldn't do it; he couldn't bring himself to do it.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order pursuant to standing order 41,

which says: "When the question under discussion does not appear on the

order paper or has not been printed and distributed" — that's the

case here; it does not appear on the order paper — "any member may

require it to be read at any time during the debate, but not so as to

interrupt a member while speaking." Pursuant to that I would request

that the question be read.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The

amendment to the motion on Bill 7 is that the motion be amended by

replacing the words from "that'' to the end of the question with the

words:

"unethical practices have been used to an extraordinary extent

in procuring the return of members to this present Legislative

Assembly: and for this cause this Legislative Assembly cannot be

considered a fair representation of the people. It is therefore unfit

that any system of public expenditure should be imposed by this

Legislative Assembly until all cause of complaint with regard to the

method of electing members of this Legislative Assembly shall be first

redressed.

Shall the amendment pass?

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I left considerable time at the end of reading the amendment, however....

[ Page 2976 ]

MR. NICOLSON: I kept my seat while the point of order was being taken. I don't think it would have been proper for me to rise at that time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The member for Nelson-Creston makes a valid point. It is the

responsibility of the Chair to see that members wishing to speak so do.

MR. NICOLSON:

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that this amendment is one that should pass;

it really encapsulates the major problem which has been sort of

typifying this new Social Credit or neo-Social Credit administration. I

think that not to recognize that something very wrong went on in the

last election in terms of election practices, which did definitely have

the result of altering the return of certain members — and there is no

doubt that had fully ethical practices been engaged in in the last

election, some of the closer contests would have been different....

must say that had my own election been a little bit closer and had I

lost by a small margin, the margin of victory or defeat would certainly

have been typified by about 20-odd phony and scurrilous letters that

were written in a cowardly fashion, posing as if they were valid and

signed with names that could not be located by the postmaster, nor in a

telephone book, the city directory or on the voters list.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON:

The hon. member over there interjects about a police investigation.

Well, let me tell you that for months the city of Nelson police were

not even directed to come and interview anybody in the city of Nelson —

until about a week before that report was submitted to the

Attorney-General. That's how thorough that investigation was; they

didn't even get the orders to do the investigation about it.

So,

as this amendment says, until this matter is redressed, we should not

be appropriating surplus funds in a manner and in a type of a bill

which is so rife with political advantage and political opportunism. To

do so would mean that there would be increasing atrophy of philosophy

and morality in politics — if we do not change direction, if we do not

not only stop bringing in such purely political bills but also stop

doing that at a time when some of the close contests of this House

could well have been tipped by, I think, unparalleled subterfuge, and

in some cases some very obvious, even illegal, acts. So, Mr. Speaker, I

would hope that members of this House would vote in favour of this

amendment.

MRS. DAILLY: I intend to be very brief, because we have spent many weeks

in this House elaborating our concern over the unethical election practices

which have come to light, unfortunately many months after Social Credit became

the government of this province. This is not a facetious amendment. This is

a very responsible amendment, which any responsible opposition would be bound

to place on the order paper, because, Mr. Speaker, we have asked questions throughout

the last three to four months, particularly of the Premier, to whom this motion

alludes specifically, and we have not received any answers to the questions

which we consider might clear up the many concerns of the citizens of British

Columbia that unethical election practices did take place before Social Credit

became the government of this province in the last election.

Mr.

Speaker, the problem is that the reports of these allegations of unfair

election practices have been put in the hands of various investigative

committees of government. To date there have been no reports brought

back to this House or to the people of British Columbia. The Premier

himself admitted that there were so-called phony letters used by Social

Credit Party supporters and members during the last election. He

admitted it and he actually had to set up, or try to arrange to set up,

an ethics committee within the Social Credit Party.

We have

also been made well aware that there was an affidavit placed before the

Attorney-General's ministry, specifically alluding to unethical

election practices, and perhaps political interference in the Eckardt

report. Yet we are still sitting here as opposition members being

completely ignored. We have heard nothing from the Attorney-General's

ministry, nothing from the Premier, to give us any sense that these

serious matters have been cleared up. That is why we have a

responsibility to place this motion on the floor. Because, Mr. Speaker,

if there's a cloud over this province put there by unethical practices

by someone, whether in high office in this province or whatever office,

and it has not been cleared up, a grave disservice is being done to all

the citizens of British Columbia who go to the polls and wish to

express their vote. Hopefully, they express their vote for the person

or the party that they believe should be elected.

But when

there is a suggestion that there have actually been "dirty tricks"

involved to bring about the election of a government in an unethical

manner, Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia are the losers, and

so is democracy. That is why we have put this motion before this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sore losers!

MRS. DAILLY:

I know that someone across the floor has said "sore losers." Mr.

Speaker, we got 48 percent of the vote. We have the largest number of

NDP members this House has ever elected. We are far from sore losers.

The problem is, I want to repeat, that the citizens of British Columbia

are the losers. If any government of this province can sit back and

allow even allegations of "dirty tricks" to take place in any election

in this province, and still not present to the people of this province

and the opposition and their own members the investigation

results.... We are still waiting. The people of British Columbia

are waiting, and that's why this motion is on the floor.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

I'm rather amazed to see this amendment from the opposition, and the

attitude which they've taken this afternoon as well. It is an attitude

of holier than thou, as if they're a great, clean party and everything

is above-board with the New Democratic Party. I want to remind the

members of the opposition that not too long ago their arm in Nanaimo,

the Nanaimo Friendship Society, made a contribution of $84,000 to one

Bob Williams to buy him off so that a seat could be sought for one Dave

Barrett. I think they have a responsibility to answer some questions.

That Nanaimo Friendship Society is now a great developer of

multimillion dollar high-rises in the community of Nanaimo.

I'm

wondering, Mr. Speaker, what the source of that $84,000 was, whether

that money has been filtered, laundered, through the government into

the Nanaimo Friendship

[ Page

2977 ]

Society to buy off one Bob Williams, because Bob Williams was hired

as a researcher in the NDP caucus shortly after the arrangement was

made. Were those funds that were paid to Bob Williams paid from the

government on into the Nanaimo Friendship Society or not? I mean, there

are a lot of questions that remain unanswered about that unholy group

over there that made an $84,000 arrangement to get Dave Barrett back

into the Legislature. I don't think they've answered these questions.

These possible rumours about the kind of arrangements and who paid for

that $84,000 seat, which is presently being occupied by the Leader of

the Opposition, are permeating the province. No, Mr. Speaker, those are

questions in the minds of the people of this province. I think they

have a right to know who actually paid for that seat which is being

held by the Leader of the Opposition. Was it the taxpayers' money that

paid that $84,000 for Dave Barrett to occupy his seat in the

Legislature? Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of unanswered questions.

want to suggest to you that after the failure of those people to

respond to very serious charges that have been made against them, this

motion is a very frivolous motion put forward by a very frivolous party.

HON. MR. MAIR: I, too, rise to oppose this amendment. It occurred to me as I heard the

members opposite talking that in order to make their case they must be

able to provide a squeaky-clean alternative, and until I can hear the

answers to one or two questions, I can't make that determination as to

whether or not they can provide that alternative. I'm wondering if one

of the members opposite, while this debate goes on, can tell the House

one or two things about their own election practices so we can make

that decision. I'd rather like to know whether or not the member for

Alberni (Mr. Skelly) made his constituency office available to his

brother during the last federal election and whether or not any

provincial funds that go to a constituency office and secretary were

thus diverted into a federal campaign.

I'd also like to know....

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR:

All right, or for the NDP candidate in the area; perhaps it wasn't his

brother. I change it to whoever ran in his area. I'd like to ask the

same question of the members for Victoria. Did Mr. Blencoe have the use

of your offices, your telephone or your constituency secretaries during

the last federal election? I'd like to ask the same questions of the

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). Did a Mr. Riis, now the NDP

MP for that area, have the use of any B.C. publicly financed offices in

Salmon Arm? And I'd like to know whether or not any letters were

written in the constituency of Omineca, for example, by people

purporting to be Socreds and actually being NDP. I'd like to ask about

some letters and I will bring this up a little later. Perhaps my

colleague from Omineca (Mr. Kempf) will bring up that concerning

letters from one Unruh in the last election, who doesn't exist and who

is, in fact, an NDP supporter writing under somebody else's name.

Actually, Unruh does exist, but he didn't write the letters.

I think before we make this judgment that any government is

disqualified from spending the public's money by reason of some

election practices, perhaps we ought to hear from the members of the

opposition as to their squeaky-cleanness.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Skeena's representative?

HON. MR. MAIR: Oh, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) couldn't possibly

answer the simplest question, Mr. Member. We know that. If you did ask him a

question, he'd threaten to beat you up. You don't want to get involved

with a heavyweight champion from Ottawa, do you? He's the one, of course,

that doesn't want to pair. Do you know why he doesn't want to pair,

Mr. Member? Because we should all be here voting. Have you taken a look at the

voting record of their party during the last couple of months? It's absolutely

unbelievable. You know, at one time they only had nine people here. Would you

believe that? You know where the others were. They were all up in Penticton,

probably drinking beer, playing golf and all that sort of thing.

Mr.

Speaker, in closing my few remarks on this debate, I hope that the

opposition will enlighten us as to their squeaky-clean tactics in

elections so that we can make an appropriate judgment on this amendment.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has made a very serious allegation

in saying that the federal NDP candidate in Victoria had the use of our

constituency office here in Victoria. This is untrue. If he has a

charge to make I would invite him to make that charge in the hall.

There was a federal constituency....

HON. MR. MAIR: Like Macdonald does.

MR. HANSON:

If you could defend me from the interruptions of the other

member.... He had his place and I sat quietly and listened to what

he had to say.

For our federal campaign we had a campaign

office at Bay and Douglas and that was separate. It was made clear to

our staff that it was a separate federal campaign and any work that

they worked on for the campaign was on their own time in the evenings.

That was clear from the start. That was the case. If he has a charge to

make, I invite him to make it in the hall.

HON. MR. MAIR: When Macdonald makes his charges in the halls, I will too.

MR. HANSON: You make your charge in the hall.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Speaker, some very serious charges have been made. I am at a loss

to understand why the question of the money that was allegedly paid to

a certain Bob Williams for his seat so that the Leader of the

Opposition could be elected.... This has been mentioned in this

House several times, and yet we've heard not one word from the

opposition, just dead silence. If they have anything to admit or say,

let's hear it. We're not going to be hard on them. We want to know what

happened. We would like to know about the Nanaimo Friendship Society.

We would like to know where the money comes from. I think we're

entitled to know those things. They played fast and loose with charges

against us, and we answered them on the floor of this House, but we hear

not one single word from them.

I think I agree with the hon.

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and the Minister

of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) when they make some very pointed, grave

sugges-

[ Page 2978 ]

tions

of impropriety. I do not think that their mistakes justified our

mistakes, if any, but when we ask these questions they should be

answered, and they have not been answered. The question of Williams has

been brought up on the floor of this House at least four times, to my

knowledge, and has been met with deliberate and stony silence. I think

we should know where this eighty-odd thousand dollars came from. We

should know why he was paid as a researcher in this House — I saw him

in his office myself — and what he was doing with that money and

whether he received money and from where, because it was public money.

These things have never been answered satisfactorily. There's been

broad-brush treatment but not one word from the floor of this House.

What are they hiding?

I oppose vigorously the amendment to

the motion. I've never heard anything so absolutely broad-brush useless

as this ridiculous motion. "Unethical practices have been used to an

extraordinary extent. " I have never heard in this House anything more

childish, more broad-brush, more ineffective without saying anything.

If they want to make a suggestion about an unethical practice, why not

say what it is? They come back to this silly, stupid thing of the

letters. I don't even want to mention it or come back to it, but here

is a party that have stamped themselves here as a totally negative,

backward party without a single constructive idea in this session. To

come up with an amendment like this disgusts even the member for

Dewdney, who is used to these kinds of things. I certainly could not

appreciate how they could make a statement of this kind: "Unethical

practices have been used." Extraordinary. What are they? There are none.

But

here is the tantalizing part. They are opposed to the method of

electing members to this Legislative Assembly. What is their method? Is

the socialist method different than ours? Does it call for another way

of election? Should it be imposed? "It is therefore unfit that any

system of public expenditure should be imposed by this Legislative

Assembly until all cause of complaint with regard to the method of

electing members...." They are suggesting a change in the method,

a change in the democratic system. That is what they are suggesting.

AN HON. MEMBER: We just want you to change the law.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Oh, yes. You brush off Bob Williams the same way. You brush off the

Nanaimo Society the same way. You brush off all the millions of dollars

of expenditure in buildings that party has. We have nothing on our side

to hide. We have no buildings bought with public money. Where else did

it come from? Don't tell me it came from $10-a-year memberships in the

society. It came from somewhere, and we're asking you from where. We

don't like to bring these things up. If you have the money properly,

spend it, but certainly you should tell. We tell about ours — every

cent. Always we are met with dead and stony silence.

I think

an amendment of this kind brings forward the question. I want to know

about Williams. I want to know about the Nanaimo Friendship Society. I

want to know about those things. We have nothing to hide. We've said it

all; we've laid it all bare. Tell us about yourselves. I brought it up

at least three, maybe four times in this House, and not a single word

was there in reply. Where did the $84,000 come from? Who got it? Who

paid it? How did you pay the researcher? I would like you to detail it

on that table and tell us, because I am completely dissatisfied. I

think there has been a misappropriation of public funds.

MR. LEA:

As they say, the best line of defence is offence, but it seems to me we

have an offensive here that has absolutely no proof. It is wild

charges. The member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) gets up and says the

NDP used some money that they got through government services for

political purposes, and sits down and expects it to end there.

HON. MR. MAIR: Answer the question.

MR. LEA:

Okay, if it's question-asking time I have a few questions I'd like to

ask. I'd like to ask why the member for Kamloops bribed four people in

his riding to vote for him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member.

MR. LEA: I have no proof. I'm just asking the question. What kind of dastardly...?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must ask the member to refrain from that type of language.

MR. LEA: Are there two rules, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, the member has indicated through his question that another

hon. member has directly bribed. As the member is fully aware, that is

not acceptable in parliamentary....

MR. LEA: I

know it isn't, Mr. Speaker; I'm just trying to show the ridiculousness.

I withdraw it absolutely, but I wish the member for Kamloops would do

the same thing and withdraw the unproved accusations that he's making.

If he has some proof, then let him bring a motion into this House —

make his charges in this House, as he should.

HON. MR. MAIR:

I think that the distinction is rather clear, and the member for Prince

Rupert ought to understand it. If he were to ask me whether I had done

something, that would be one thing. To ask me why I had done it would

be to imply that in fact I had done it. I have not asked anybody on the

other side of the House why they did anything; I asked them if they had

done it. There's quite a distinction.

MR. LEA: Now that we know the distinctions, I'd like to ask the member for Kamloops if he's still beating his wife.

HON. MR. MAIR: No.

MR. LEA: He's not doing that anymore. You did it before, but not now?

HON. MR. MAIR: No.

MR. LEA:

Okay. That's the craziness we're getting into in this House. If that's

the craziness we're getting into, then the whole House is going to

break down into disorder. The member for Kamloops cannot stand up in

this House and ask stupid, silly questions, and then get up on his feet

and say: "Oh, I have no proof. I'm not accusing anybody of anything.

All I'm doing is asking the question 'if'."

[ Page 2979 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: We'll see who's got the proof. Deny it.

MR. LEA:

You bring the proof, if you've got it. If you had it you'd have had it

in here a long time ago. But I'll tell you what proof we have, Mr.

Speaker. We've got proof that the Social Credit forged letters. We've

got the proof that campaign funds that never went through the Social

Credit Party have gone into the Premier's office. Why don't you answer

the questions on that? We've got proof that there was a redistribution

of the electoral boundaries, and we've got proof that "Gracie's

finger" is a reality. We're not making wild charges. We're asking this

government to come clean, and they don't dare come clean, because

they're filthy when it comes to electoral practices in this province,

and they know it. So instead of answering the charges in this

amendment....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon.

members, I must note with some regret that the language of the day —

particularly today — is straying far from the parliamentary guidelines

that we all try to use in this chamber. I would ask the member if he

would withdraw the word "filthy," which is certainly an

unparliamentary term. Remember that we have all taken upon ourselves

the responsibility of maintaining certain guidelines in our behaviour

in this chamber, and one of them is our parliamentary language. I would

ask all members to abide by those long-standing traditions.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, I'm not accusing anyone over there of being filthy. I'm

saying the practices carried out by the Social Credit Party in the last

election were filthy practices. That's not unparliamentary. There were

filthy practices by that political party that sits as government. They

are afraid to come clean and answer the questions that have been put to

them during the Premier's estimates and by this recent amendment.

They're afraid to come clean because they've got too much to hide, so

what do they start doing? Making wild unproved questions.

HON. MR. MAIR: Answer the question.

MR. LEA:

The minister says: "Answer the question." I'll tell you. We'll be glad

to answer any question that the minister has when these questions in

this amendment are answered. That's when we'll answer questions.

Interjections.

MR. LEA:

Oh, not prove themselves, eh? Is it not a fact, Mr. Speaker, if we're

down to questions, that out of the Social Credit caucus went letters

that were forged? That's a fact! Is it not a fact that money collected

by Adam in Vancouver and Taylor in Toronto found its way into the

Premier's office?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. LEA:

Oh, not a fact? Then if it's not a fact, how come the bills to be paid

out of those slush funds were sent to the Premier's office and

processed in the Premier's office? Why is that not a fact?

I'm going to ask the questions. If it's true, then why don't you get up

and say it's true? And if it's not, why don't you get up and prove that

it's a mistaken charge?

The fact of the matter is that the

Eckardt commission report was changed after it was submitted. That's a

fact. Yet, not taking that into consideration, this government — this

political party opposite — went to the polls with what has to seem an

unseemly report, one where there's question about its authenticity in

terms of political morality. Yet did it stop them from calling an

election and going to the electors on an electoral report that has

behind it all sorts of hidden charges and innuendos? No, it didn't stop

them a bit. They still went. And take a look at what's called Gracie's

finger on that political report that they called an electoral report.

MR. BRUMMET: Is that a fact or an allegation?

MR. LEA: Oh,

is it a fact! It's a fact. All you have to do is take a look at

Gracie's finger on the map, take a look at the number of votes that

went to the Social Credit, and then try to come up with some

reasonable, plausible excuse why Gracie's finger was there in the first

place. Not one person on that side of the House has stood up and given

any rational reason why Gracie's finger exists on that electoral map.

Not one! Oh, but there is a reason. All you have to do is to take a

look at the polls within Gracie's finger and you'll see that they went

overwhelmingly Social Credit, and they figured they might need those

few extra votes to win Little Mountain. So there's the reason

for Gracie's finger. There's the reason — pure filthy politics. For a

government and a political party to stand up in this House and talk

about dirty tricks on this side of the House is almost laughable if it

wasn't so sick. Campaign slush funds that have gone into the Premier's

office with no recourse even to their own political party were being

processed by a civil servant within that minister's office. And they've

got the nerve to stand up and say: "We're going to ask some questions

on our own. We're going to ask some questions about the NDP." I invite

you to come to an NDP council meeting. We do our business right out in

the open.

Even in your own party, the president of your

party, Mr. Keen, didn't even know that the slush funds were going from

Taylor and Adam into the Premier's office, nor what they were being

spent for. What about the thousand dollar bills that Dan Campbell was

passing out during the election itself? Should we ask the question or

is it true? Okay, the question is: did Dan Campbell illegally pass out

thousand dollar bills during the campaign? The answer is yes. Where did

the thousand dollar bills come from? The campaign thousand dollar bills

probably came from the Adam and Taylor slush funds that went directly

into the Premier's office. What was their answer when we start asking

questions about those thousand dollar bills after they'd appointed Mr.

Campbell to his new post in Ottawa? Apparently Mr. Campbell was

perfectly satisfactory to them over there until the thousand dollar

bills came up. Then all of a sudden, mysteriously, Mr. Campbell's

appointment to Ottawa was cancelled — for what reason if not the

thousand dollar bills? What is it that Mr. Campbell did that the

government found so offensive that they cancelled his appointment to

Ottawa if it were not the thousand dollar bills?

AN HON. MEMBER: He got caught.

MR. LEA:

He got caught. They got caught writing and sending out forged letters.

They got caught. They spent campaign funds illegally during the

campaign and they got

[ Page 2980 ]

caught.

They changed the electoral boundary lines and they put in Gracie's

finger. They changed it at the last minute and they got caught. What do

you do when you get caught with your fingers in the cookie jar? As I

said at the beginning, the best thing to do when you're under the gun

is to come out with your own offence. The best defence is offence, and

that's what the government plans to try to do on this amendment, but it

won't work. It won't work because everywhere you go in this province

questions are asked. Who forged the letters? Why won't the government

come clean? Where did Campbell get the thousand dollar bills? Why did

Eckardt change the report?

AN HON. MEMBER: Old stuff.

MR. LEA:

Old stuff, eh? It may be old stuff but we want some new answers to the

old stuff. We sat here for 16 days and the Premier didn't answer one of

them. The nerve of that government and that political party to sit over

there on the floor of this House with all these unanswered questions;

and then to think that they can get away from it by raising some

unproved questions of their own is absolutely ridiculous. As a matter

of fact, the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) made the charge in his

letter, or to his constituency. It's in print from the member for

Kamloops, and the day may come when he's going to have put his money

where his pen is and where his mouth is.

HON. MR. MAIR: Sue me then.

MR. LEA: Sue you! It will be more than sue you; it might mean the loss of your seat. That's what it may mean.

Since day one of this government we've had nothing but sleaze and corruption around politics in this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. member, I must again bring to the member's

attention — hopefully for the last time — that there are certain terms

he must guard himself against when he is speaking in this chamber.

There are certain terms that are parliamentary and acceptable and

certain terms which are not parliamentary and are unacceptable. The

last remark by the member certainly falls into the latter category. I

would caution the member once more.

MR. LEA: When a

government and a political party gets campaign funds from out of this

province and they come directly in to the Premier's office, when they

spend thousand dollar bills that are illegal during an election

campaign, when they change electoral boundaries — if you can't call

that sleaze and corruption then there is no such thing as democracy in

this province. It is sleaze; it is corruption of the worst order. It's

political corruption.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! The Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in the heat of debate members do use

phrases which I think other members find offensive. This member is

noted for that, regrettably. I would ask him to withdraw the phrase

"sleaze and corruption from day one," which I have already spoken

about. I find it personally offensive and I think the member would too

if the situation were reversed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Again to the member for....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LEA: If you sleep with dogs, you get fleas.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LEA: If there is sleaze and corruption on that side of the House and you don't like it, then get out of the party.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, when the Chair rises, it is incumbent upon

each and every member of this chamber to remain absolutely silent. I

have cautioned members on this matter before; I have cautioned the

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) on this matter before. The member

for Prince Rupert failed on this occasion, clearly, to adhere to the

rule of Chair when the Chair was standing. I now ask that member in his

disorderly conduct to leave the chamber immediately.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are currently on the amendment before us.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, the amendment calls up things that are not very pleasant

in the history of British Columbia, and I only want to say two things.

The first is that when the Premier's estimates were up and he was asked

frankly about these matters, he chose not to reply. He had a duty to

reply, not just to the opposition but to all the people of the

province. I think, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot fail to find an

admission of guilt in his failure to reply with respect to those very

important questions of public morality that were asked at that time.

The

second point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is this. It's a long time

ago, but I recall at the beginning of this session that the Legislature

as a whole voted to set up a fair elections practices committee — I may

not have the words exactly right as to what the intent of the

resolution was, but I think it's very close to that. Yet there is not a

member sitting in this House, a member in the gallery or a person in

the province of British Columbia who believes for one minute that the

Social Credit Party and government led by Premier Bill Bennett will

allow that committee to sit. The minister doesn't believe it for a

minute, does he? So I say there again, in the failure to set up the

committee which they themselves endorsed as a public relations measure,

there is an admission of guilt.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few comments on the amendment, because the opposition

[ Page 2981 ]

and

the member for Prince Rupert have, I think, caused quite a bit of a

stir this afternoon. He mentioned that the best defence is an offence.

First of all I find some of the comments he made regrettable. We've

dealt with and heard of the dirty tricks, I guess, and we've heard

about thousand dollar bills, etc., on numerous occasions. We went

through some 16 days of debate on the Premier's estimates.

Mr.

Speaker, there are two things that I would like to point out very

calmly and very rationally, if I can. What I consider to be political

dirty tricks were made during the election campaign by the opposition

party and by the Leader of the Opposition on a number of occasions. I

spoke about them before.

One deals with the natural gas

prices. The former Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, went around

this province during the election campaign and basically said to the

entire public that British Columbia wasn't getting the price it should

for its natural gas. He made statements — and they're reported in the

press — that we should have gotten at that particular time $3.20 U.S.

per 1,000 cubic feet as opposed to $2.65 per 1,000 cubic feet, knowing

full well that it's the National Energy Board that sets those prices.

That didn't deter him. That really upset me, Mr. Speaker, and made me,

I guess, try a little harder, even in my own riding, because I felt

that the comments he was making were a dirty trick to the utmost.

What

he said to all the people in my riding and across the province was that

the taxpayers of British Columbia were losing millions of dollars, that

hospitals couldn't be built and that social programs couldn't be

achieved because British Columbia and this government in British

Columbia were not getting the same price as Mexico was for their

natural gas. All the time he knew full well that the Mexican government

wasn't getting $3.20 per 1,000 cubic feet for natural gas. He knew it.

But you can pick up any paper published during that election campaign

and you can read his statements. If any member wishes them I can get a

copy and give it to you so you can read what he said in print. It

wasn't so much that he said it. It was the way he used it to mislead

the people of this province to believe what he said. "Elect me, Dave

Barrett" — I will use his name because he was a candidate at the time —

"and I will assure you that we will get these revenues and we will

provide all these social benefits and all the assistance," knowing

full well that he couldn't achieve it at that time. I call that a dirty

trick. It is unfortunate, I guess, that sometimes we get involved in a

heated debate and bring up things about letters and the use of thousand

dollar bills rather than cheques and receipts, etc. That was a dirty

trick. As far as I'm concerned it was perpetrated on the people of the

province of British Columbia.

The other dirty trick deals

with the uranium fiasco where the Leader of the Opposition and his

party members went around this province and took their firm stand on

uranium mining and exploration in this province, even though they knew

we had a commission set up, an inquiry to investigate uranium

exploration and mining in this province. Never once did he say that in

1974, I believe it was, under that administration, the first

exploration permit was issued to a company to explore for uranium in

the vicinity of Kelowna. Never once did he mention that.

Those

are the types of things I call dirty tricks. I hope the people of this

province will recognize that some of the statements that are made which

really are supposed to give an indication of party policy and party

determination as to where they are going.... The Leader of the

Opposition, on the campaign trail, made some of those statements and I

guess some of his fellow candidates at that time made those statements,

but that dirty trick was perpetrated as party policy on the public of

British Columbia. That is one of the reasons why I want to, for the

record, after the member for Prince Rupert's comments, indicate what I

think are really truly dirty tricks to the people of this province.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

Macdonald

Howard

Lauk

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Heinrich

Hewitt

Vander Zalm

Jordan

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very brief. I dealt with this matter at

length when Bill 7 was introduced many, many weeks ago. The debate has

strayed occasionally from a number of the items that are provided for

in here. I think we can deal with the specifics in committee.

draft form I liked the bill. When it was presented to the Legislature I

still liked the bill. Even today, after some acrimony, I like this

bill. I urge that it be supported. It reaches funds into all parts of

British Columbia for a variety of projects which help British Columbia

build for the 1980s and beyond.

I now move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

[ Page 2982 ]

NAYS- 17

Macdonald

Howard

Lauk

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill

7, Special Funds Act, 1980, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 9, Mr. Speaker.

CROWN CORPORATIONS BORROWING

AUTHORITY INCREASE ACT

(continued)

MRS. WALLACE:

It is some time since we last discussed this bill in the Legislature,

and I think that we should perhaps review the context of the bill,

inasmuch as we are again being faced with a request to support

borrowing in some rather sizeable amounts, this time for three Crown

corporations. The first point I would like to make is that this

government that seems to pride itself on what it says is a debt-free

administration still sees fit to come before the Legislature every year

with a borrowing bill which every year becomes larger and larger. I

would like to point out that in Public Accounts , in the

auditor-general's report, even in the report of B.C. Hydro, there is a

statement — and it is the same statement in every one of those

documents — that reads: "Guarantee by the province of British Columbia:

the government of the province of British Columbia has unconditionally

guaranteed the principal, and the premium if any, and the interest on

the bonds and debentures and parity bonds." What I am saying is that

while the government professes to be debt-free, they are far from

debt-free, and every one of these amounts of money that the Legislature

has been asked to deal with is really a direct debt to the province.

course, those of us on this side of the House during the last few years

have taken exception to the continuing increases in this bill and

similar bills allocated to B.C. Hydro. It has been our contention that

B.C. Hydro has been progressing in a direction that could leave much to

be desired, that it is perhaps not in the best interests of the

residents of British Columbia to continue voting vast sums of money to

B.C. Hydro to continue on their program of large-capital power

developments and high-cost transmission lines. The cost of transmission

is one of the major factors in these concentrated Hydro projects. When

we're obliged to blindly okay the billions of dollars we are talking

about for B.C. Hydro, I certainly have some concerns as to how that

money is being expended — not only the purpose for which it's being

used, but also whether or not it is being used with good

economic judgment.

I think that's a concern that was shared

unanimously by the members of the Crown corporations reporting

committee in the reports which have come to the attention of this

Legislature. Page after page and time after time they refer to inept

methods by Hydro, without the proper backup. In one instance, talking

about the Columbia, they say that no bids were received on contract No.

CA-1 because the basis of the specifications was considered

impractical by all those submitting bids. Hydro didn't do anything

about changing that. They just simply went about financing it in

another way, even though all the qualified contractors who might have

bid decided that it was not a practical way to proceed.

Speaking

about the Mica powerhouse, the same report goes on and says

that "since the original estimate was based on a very preliminary

design bearing very little resemblance to the power plant, no

comparison of individual items is meaningful." This is a quote from

B.C. Hydro officials. The report of that standing committee goes on to

say: "These statements are disturbing. Doing major-scale business on

an ad hoc basis is financially perilous." Yet we are being asked to

support a bill that's going to give millions and millions more dollars

to this same corporation.

The report goes on. It talks

about, in this same instance, the three-phase dam project on the

Columbia River. In response to the committee they said: "In 1964

formal sensitivity analysis of Hydro project sites was not required and

consideration of environmental subjects was limited to the mitigation

of specific features raised at the water licence hearing."

Going

on with the report, when Hydro was asked if comprehensive analysis had

been made of what the cost of delaying the completion of the Arrow Lake

Dam by one year would have been, their initial answer was $17 million

to $20 million, and then later they came up with $22.4 million. Even at

that the committee was concerned that the analysis was incomplete

because they did not estimate the savings that might have accrued had

they gone ahead earlier.

The report goes on with those kinds

of statements, and yet we find that this committee, which was

supposedly going to be reviewing all these problems and doing something

about them.... I'm not on that committee, but from what I hear in

this Legislature and what the members of the committee tell me, that

committee is not meeting; it's not doing its job of following up on

these recommendations that were brought down.

The report was

unanimous in its endorsation that some action should be taken. At the

end of the recommendations and conclusions, the report read:

"If there is one point on which the committee is not only

unanimous but adamant, it is that construction projects now being undertaken

by Hydro — projects which during the course of the next five years or less will,

in effect, double the size of the Authority — must be carried out in a very

different manner than that which the committee observed during the inquiry."

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, that kind of change has not taken place.

was certainly very interested in a little local problem that relates to

this whole business of how Hydro operates. This was the case of some

poor driver who fell asleep at the wheel, went off the road, and hit a

Hydro pole. Of course, he was responsible for the repair of that pole.

To repair that one pole, he was billed with a statement of $734.07. So

he queried the amount. I have a breakdown here of the charges. It gives

the straight-time hours for each person who worked, the length of time

and the rate.... Well, it didn't give the rate — I had to find that

out. It talks about, for example, one sub-foreman lineman: three and a

half hours — $85.51. Now

[ Page 2983 ]

was familiar enough with Hydro rates of pay to know that there was

something wrong with that. No lineman gets $85.51 for three and a half

hours' work. So I made some inquiries. What I found was that Hydro's

practice is to add something like 88.5 percent onto their bills to

cover administration and fringe benefits. That's for capital work. For

That's 81.25 percent to cover administration and fringe benefits. For

overtime it's only 28 percent because, I guess, management isn't

working overtime. When I suggested that that seemed pretty high, do you

know what the response was? "Well, this chap didn't have any

insurance. But when these people are insured with ICBC, ICBC doesn't

object — they think that rate's okay." So here we have two Crown

corporations who are apparently wedded to the idea that it's perfectly

all right to charge in excess of 80 percent for administration and

fringe benefits.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that

paints a very poor picture of the efficiency of Hydro's operations. Any

organization that manages to spend 88 percent of every dollar it takes

in on management fees is certainly not doing the job it should be

doing. That's far too heavy a percentage of our dollars going into the

management structure of B.C. Hydro.

A previous member on

this side of the House — I believe it was the member for Alberni (Mr.

Skelly) — talked about the executive dining room and the cost of that

dining room. I can remember, from the days when I worked at Hydro, the

salary scales for management, which were established on the basis of

how many employees they had working for them. The more employees, the

higher the pay — not only the higher the pay, but the thicker the rug,

the bigger the desk, and the more windows. If you had a really good

number of employees reporting to you you merited a corner office with

two or three windows. That kind of status symbol is paid for by the

people who consume electricity from a Crown corporation in this

province. Those are living examples of the kind of things that are

happening that cause us to have to pay in excess of 80 percent for

management and fringe benefits on any particular operation that's

undertaken by Hydro. I'm appalled at that. There is just no way that I

can support a bill to increase the borrowing power of an organization

that takes that kind of dollars just for its management function.

I'm

concerned about Hydro specifically, but I'm also concerned about the

B.C. Railway. I think it worthwhile to quote the auditor-general on the

B.C. Railway, where there was a very strong plea made that the B.C.

Railway was simply not in a position to handle its debt load. On page

18 of the report,

section 5.25, the auditor-general says.... Again

it's a reiteration of the fact that the province is responsible for the

debts of its Crown corporation. It talks about the total debt load and

it says that in fact there wasn't enough capital coming in to finance

even the existing debt load. They were something like $10.3 million

short of funds to finance their existing debt load, so they're having

to borrow to pay their interest.

Yet we find ourselves

increasing that debt load in this bill. Certainly that was not the

recommendation of the auditor-general. The auditor-general indicated

that where a guarantor of a loan has a corporation such as the B.C.

Railway unable to cope with its debt, then it's the responsibility of

the guarantor of that loan to ensure that steps are taken to relieve

that debt burden from that particular body. That's what the

auditor-general suggested. She said: "A guarantor of debt is

obligated to honour the terms of guarantee if the debtor is unable to

repay its debt from its own resources. Once this becomes apparent good

financial reporting requires that the obligation be recognized as a

liability in the financial statements of the guarantor. At present

there is no stated accounting policy in this respect." She recommends

that that be done.

During the year which she was reporting

about — during that last year — the situation did not change. The

railway made a small operating profit, but before the government grants

it experienced further erosion of working capital amounting to $53.4

million, due primarily to the cost of servicing long-term debt. As a

result of that they had the $10.3 million deficit on their financing.

So when they're overextended to that extent and there is no move being

taken to ensure that the matter of handling that debt is revised as

suggested by the auditor-general, then it seems very strange policy to

move on into increasing that outstanding debt without correcting the

problem that has put it there in the first place, without taking some

action, as has been recommended by the auditor-general.

Speaking

about debt servicing, Hydro is not completely removed from that problem

either. In their report for the year 1978-1979 they say that — just for

comparative purposes — their cost of providing services during the year

was $855 million and that during that same year the cost of servicing their

debt was $286 million, over a third as much as their total cost of

providing services. So you can see, in part, where we're getting this

88 percent management fee; included in that certainly is part of this

debt charge. I am just very concerned that we are now going to increase

their borrowing power without doing anything about putting some

controls on Hydro, without doing something about an unmanageable debt

for that company — because it is becoming unmanageable. It's going to

be economics that's going to change the philosophy about power supply

in this country and in this province. It is not economically feasible

to continue with this concentrated method of providing power at large

central locations and then transmitting it over longer and longer

distances in larger and larger quantities.

As far as B.C.

Buildings Corporation goes, I'm a little concerned about the management

of that particular corporation. I'm concerned about the dollars that

are involved. Certainly the increase in the estimates would indicate to

me that there is more than just inflation reflected in the dollars that

are being allocated to that company. I'm concerned that there is no

direct reporting to the Legislature. Certainly the management is one

that is open to criticism — how well buildings are managed. It's a very

obvious sort of thing that's out front. We've had a lot of concerns

expressed over the past few years, since B.C. Buildings Corporation

came into being. Until such time as we have a fuller accounting as to

how that corporation is handling our public funds, I'm certainly

opposed to giving it any further borrowing power as well.

for those three reasons I am opposed to borrowing for all three of

those corporations, although my major concern is certainly the

borrowing for B.C. Hydro, where sooner or later government is going to

have to have the courage to call a halt and re-evaluate the whole

concept of power production and supply.

MR. D'ARCY: I feel as though I could have this conversation with

the minister just as easily in his office, since there are very few people in

the House at the present time.

[ Page 2984 ]

However,

the minister possibly anticipates what I want to talk about. It's a

concern I have about allowing British Columbia Hydro to borrow a

substantially increased amount of money underwritten by the taxpayers

of this province. It's a concern that I have about the continuing

subsidy of B.C. Hydro by people in the Kootenays through property

taxation. I hope the minister will relate to this, because at one time

he was the minister in charge of municipal affairs and he is now the

Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, the British Columbia Hydro

and Power Authority, like the provincial government, pays taxes on its

property in the normal way — exactly as if they were privately owned.

They are assessed by the Assessment Authority, and the local municipal

authority or regional district, as the case may be, applies the

appropriate mill rate, and they get a tax notice the same as everyone

else — except on seven of their properties. It so happens that some

five of these are located in the West Kootenay area and two are in the

Peace River area. I couldn't give the Legislature a precise figure, but

the last time I did a detailed calculation, the amount of money was in

the neighbourhood of $5.5 million per annum in school taxes and general

purpose taxes in the Kootenays and it was about half that amount in the

Peace River area.

Were it the case that British Columbia

Hydro generating facilities paid taxes at no location in the province,

it would be somewhat more equitable; but unfortunately that is not the

case. The plants on Vancouver Island at Jordan River, John Hart, etc.,

all pay taxes in the normal way; the Bridge River–Lillooet area does

not have to subsidize B.C. Hydro through not receiving property taxes;

and, of course, all the facilities ringed around the lower mainland on

the tributaries of the Fraser River do not get any exemption from

property taxation. The only plants that do are the Arrow, Duncan and

Mica Dams on the Columbia River. Those three projects, along with the

Bennett Dam, get complete property tax exemption. We have three other

projects — the Kootenay Canal on the Kootenay River, Seven Mile on the

Pend d'Oreille and, most recently, the Peace Canyon Dam on the Peace

River — which receive general purpose property taxation exemption, but

are not exempted on the grounds of school taxes.

Mr.

Speaker, since the minister in this case is responsible for both the

finance bill involving the increased borrowing capacity for British

Columbia Hydro and for real property taxation, I would hope that he

would take this point under serious consideration, approach his

colleagues on Treasury Board and ask that these exemptions that B.C.

Hydro enjoys, which are clearly discriminatory against certain regions

of the province relative to other regions, be removed and these

inequities be relieved. I would like point out that in terms of a

percentage of total revenue of B.C. Hydro, we're talking about an

amount which is approximately one-half of one percent. But it is not

spread equally around the province; this exemption only applies in the

Kootenays and in the Peace River area.

MR. HOWARD: We

have had in the province for a long period of time a history of two

sets of books being kept by the government or by one of its agencies.

The purpose of that some years back was to permit the government, as it

did persistently, to argue that there was no debt owed by the province.

The late W.A.C. Bennett, when he was Minister of Finance, used that

argument consistently: no debt, debt-free. The facts of the matter were

that by having the Legislature, in the earlier days, set up a different

arrangement with respect to the keeping of books, the debt that

otherwise would have been direct debt of the province was transferred

and kept on somebody else's books. This permitted the late Premier and

Minister of Finance to be able to say there was no direct debt of the

province. He obliterated completely any thought about the debt that

existed in Crown corporations and other arrangements.

have a history in this province, since this government took office, of

adjusting the financial records to show a picture which was not a true

reflection of the actual state of affairs. We have the myth of a direct

debt of the province of initially some $261 million brought about by

getting rid of cash in advance of the normal times of making those

payments, as was enunciated by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) on

more than one occasion, in order to make it look like there was a

shortage of cash; payment of funds and the transfer back and forth of a

fair sum of money — I've heard $160 million or something of that sort —

to ICBC and receiving it back the next day.

We have before

us in this bill another situation which basically is an adjustment of

the financial records of the province to lead the general public to

believe that a certain situation exists when in fact it doesn't. I am

talking about debt, and I want to talk particularly about the B.C.

Buildings Corporation. The B.C. Buildings Corporation, to put it in

brief terms, is a Crown corporation established at the instance of the

Social Credit government in order that that corporation, by being a

separate agency, could become the owner of the public buildings of the

province, in order that it would no longer be the province itself which

had possession of the government buildings. If not all of them, at

least the great bulk of them got transferred and given to B.C.

Buildings Corporation.

B.C. Buildings Corporation now owns

what the public used to own directly. Then the government turns around

and rents space from the B.C. Buildings Corporation, knowing that there

are two sets of books: one the government's books and the other the

books and financial records of the B.C. Buildings Corporation. The

money we pay as rent shows up in the estimates, called building

occupancy charges. Each department has an item in there which is

basically rent that we pay to ourselves because we own the B.C.

Buildings Corporation. I think there is something in the neighbourhood

of $2.5 million-plus that the Ministry of Finance, for instance, will

pay out this year to the B.C. Buildings Corporation to rent space

basically from ourselves.

The B.C. Buildings Corporation has

a debt. It owes money. It borrowed that money from various sources,

probably from Canada Pension Plan money. It has borrowed money by way

of transfer directly from the treasury of the province. It owes — if I

can pick the figure out quickly from the 1979-80 financial report, note

10 to the financial statements — a long-term debt in the amount of $86

million; accounts and notes payable to the province of British Columbia

directly in the amount of a 10.5 percent promissory demand note, $46

million; interest-free promissory notes due March 31, 1992, $113

million; and then accounts payable on acquisition of real estate

investments, $44 million — for what looks to be a total of accounts and

notes payable to the province of $203 million plus the long-term debt

of $86 million, maturing — some of it — in the year 2001, 2002, 1998,

1999, and so on.

We all know that debt carries with it the payment of

[ Page 2985 ]

interest.

When BCBC borrows that money, they have only one source of income,

basically, and that's the people of B.C., who rent the space from this

government agency. So the debt of B.C. Buildings Corporation is an

absolute and direct obligation and debt of the province and people of

B.C. It's carried on a separate set of books, but the debt is there;

it's the obligation of the province and of the people; it's the

obligation of government to service that debt, to pay the interest on

that debt. How does BCBC get the money to pay the interest? They simply

adjust the rent, establish the building occupancy charges to each

department to reflect the necessary amount of money to come into BCBC

so that they can pay interest on the debt and do other things as well.

B.C.

Buildings Corporation pays dividends too, Mr. Speaker. They pay

dividends to the Minister of Finance in his capacity as custodian of

the books of the people of B.C. I see figures of $10 million one year

and I believe $15 million another year and so on in dividends from this

Crown agency flowing back to the provincial treasury, which permits the

Minister of Finance to say: "Look at this beautiful profit making

organization over here called B.C. Buildings Corporation. It's paying

us back dividends, the people of B.C." But where do they get the

dividends from? They get them from the building occupancy charges, and

the people of British Columbia are being bamboozled by this government

into thinking that there is no debt; that it's able to manage the

affairs of the province in such a fantastic way as to have created no

debt, when in fact here we have the B.C. Buildings Corporation up to

its ears in debt to the point where we've got to increase its debt

capacity and potential by another 50 percent, according to this

particular bill. They've got a limit of $200 million in there now; the

bill seeks to increase that to $300 million. As I read the act, that

$300 million limit does not include advances which are made from time

to time by the province, but only includes borrowings that the B.C.

Buildings Corporation makes from such funds as the Canada Pension Fund

and probably the superannuation fund too, although I'm not sure of

that. In any event, they borrow the money.

Mr. Speaker, it's

that kind of double-talk and that kind of activity in the financial

field, about the management of the finances of this province, that

makes the general public ask the question about the honesty and the

integrity of this government. It makes the general public query whether

in fact the straight case is being put to the public. I submit to the

Minister of Finance that the straight case is not being put to the

general public; that if the Minister of Finance would level with the

general public, he would say: "Yes, B.C. Buildings Corporation has a

debt; yes, it has to pay interest on that debt; yes, it pays dividends

back to the treasury, but the only place it gets its income is from the

rent it charges the treasury — it's the same money flowing back and

forth." But because they set the organization up this way, it permits

the government to paint a picture other than the true picture. That's

been the history of Social Credit in this province in terms of the

bookkeeping arrangements, telling the general public where it was

financially, and being honest and open with the people of this province

about the simple question of debt.

Apart from the fact that

$261 million, which I believe the government placed on the books in

1976.... Apart from the myth that that debt in fact existed and it

was necessary to borrow in order to satisfy a shortfall, and apart from

the fact that it was simply juggling the cash flow back and forth in

order to accommodate a fictitious figure, here we have, with the B.C.

Buildings Corporation and this bill before us, a direct and absolute

question of indebtedness. That indebtedness was caused by this

government; it was brought about by poor fiscal management, an

inability to be honest with the general public and a desire to flavour

the situation, to set up two sets of books and say: "Oh, no, that's

got nothing to do with us."

I'm not dealing with the

question of Hydro or B.C. Rail, which, as we all know, have borrowed

money from time to time. While they are separate organizations, there

is an endorsement and a backing given to the borrowings of B.C. Rail, I

understand. I'm just talking about B.C. Buildings Corporation, the debt

of which is an absolute and direct obligation on the part of the people

of British Columbia. That kind of chicanery and double-talk shouldn't

be countenanced. The more it is permitted, the more it is perpetuated,

the more this government delights in doing it, and the more they add to

the general public's feeling that this government really can't be

trusted to tell the full truth about the situation as it exists. That

is reason enough for not being able to support that bill.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave to introduce some guests.

Leave granted.

MR. HALL:

I'd like the House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Gilbert from Surrey. They

are in the precincts, having just left the gallery at the conclusion of

the member's speech.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I

wonder if I might also say to you that had I been here for the division

on Bill 7, I would have voted against that proposal.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order, hon. member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you get here on time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where have you been?

AN HON. MEMBER: Playing golf.

MR. HALL:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was just accused of playing golf. I

am not a Scots person. I believe that golf is a good walk spoiled. If

the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) is within the sound of

my voice, I wonder if he would like to know that I am in the precincts

of the building.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On Bill 9, I hope, the member for Mackenzie.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be reasonably brief on this particular bill.

I would expect that we'll be dealing at length and in depth with B.C.

Hydro and these other agencies under debate of the spending estimates.

But I thought it would be appropriate, since this is a borrowing bill,

to discuss some of Hydro's charges and costs to people in this

province, and a couple of other items which I will get to shortly.

The

press and everybody in this House are aware that we have a similar bill

before us every year. Hydro proceeds to borrow another $100 million or

$200 million — whatever the

[ Page 2986 ]

figure

may be. In fact, almost three-quarters of the current debt of this

province is because of the borrowings of Hydro. It places quite a

strain on this province and the people of this province. As of April 1

this year, we have had another 7 percent increase in our electrical

rates, in spite of the fact that the government, and the minister

particularly, tell us that they will be forming an energy utilities

commission — whatever that is. But that commission is not in place and

that legislation has not been brought before the House. So Hydro goes

ahead, increases its rates and proceeds with projects which, in my view

and the view of many people of this province, should not be proceeded

with. I can give numerous examples. I will give some of those examples

in a few minutes.

Of Hydro's total electrical sales for the

year ended March 31, 1979, about 27 percent were residential. About 73

percent of those sales were non-residential, such as industrial, bulk

and commercial export. However, about 98 percent of Hydro's net income

from electrical sales came from the residential users. Only about 2

percent came from the non-residential users, such as industrial, bulk

and commercial export.

What bothers me about this is that

Hydro's pricing policy should be reversed. What I am saying is that

those people who use less energy should be paying less, instead of what

we have now where those people using more energy pay less and those

people using less energy are paying the bulk of Hydro's net income.

Hydro

is now talking about building facilities all over the province. Site C

is a good example. It is currently involved in Revelstoke building

transmission lines. You are aware, Mr. Speaker, that just this morning

in my own riding there was a protest about the construction of a

proposed transmission from Cheekye to Dunsmuir. That peaceful protest

did take place with no altercations. People were not expressing their

dissatisfaction with the line so much as their dissatisfaction with the

government's and B.C. Hydro's unwillingness to hold proper public

hearings.

I am fully aware, and so are many members of our

caucus, of the future energy requirements of Vancouver Island. Three

years ago our caucus asked for a moratorium on the proposed

transmission line to Vancouver Island until we looked at all the

alternatives. There are many alternatives that should and could have

been looked at. It has been proven to my satisfaction that we have

enough energy to do us until at least 1990 without any further

expansion at this time. Be that as it may, the line is under

construction at the present time. The problem here is that B.C. Hydro,

in actions condoned by this government, is spending literally hundreds

of millions of dollars on projects that were not justified. You will

recall that the Ministry of Energy asked the Environment and Land Use

Committee to commission Mr. Marvin Shaffer and company to do a study on

the proposed transmission line to Vancouver Island. When that study was

finally released.... You will recall that for weeks the minister

denied having that study in his possession....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We are tal