1986 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8529 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Teachers' Investment and Housing Co-op. Mr. Blencoe –– 8529

Bud Smith's expenses. Mr. Stupich –– 8530

Aquaculture. Mr. Hanson –– 8530

Forest fire fighting. Mr. Howard –– 8530

Nuclear accidents. Mr. D'Arcy –– 8531

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services estimates. (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

On vote 65: minister's office –– 8531

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Barnes

Mr Cocke

Mr. Williams

Mr. Hanson

Health Improvement Appropriation Act (Bill 5). Second reading.

On the amendment

Division –– 8536

Mr. Cocke –– 8536

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8538

Division –– 8538

Education Excellence Appropriation Act (Bill 4). Second reading.

On the amendment

Division –– 8538

Mr. Nicolson –– 8538

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 8539

Mr. Cocke –– 8539

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8540

Division –– 8540

Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 3). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8540

Mr. Stupich –– 8541

Mr. Rose –– 8542

Mr. Cocke –– 8544

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8544

Division –– 8545

Motor Fuel Tax Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 9). Committee stage –– 8545

Third reading

Insurance Premium Tax Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 10). Committee stage –– 8545

Mr. Stupich

Third reading

Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 11). Committee stage –– 8546

Mr. Stupich

Third reading

Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1986 (Bill 23). Committee stage 8546

Mr. Stupich

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates. (Hon. A.

Fraser)

On vote 72: minister's office –– 8547

Hon. A. Fraser

Mr. Lockstead

Ms. Sanford

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1986

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. PELTON: Seated in the members' gallery this

afternoon are Mr. and Mrs. Sam and Dolly Dunn, who are visiting from

Edmonton in Alberta. Sam and Dolly are the brother and sister-in-law of

our Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms, Mr. Jack Dunn. I would like to ask the

House to make them welcome here today.

MS. SANFORD: Seated in the galleries today are a group of

people without whom most of us on this side of the House would not

survive, Mr. Speaker. We have in the members' gallery the constituency

assistants for the MLAs on this side of the House. I hope that everyone

in the House will make them welcome.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery visiting Victoria and

Vancouver Island, playing some instruments and entertaining the people

of Vancouver Island, are a group of students from Guildford Park

Secondary School, with Mr. LaBonte. There are 48 of them. The second

member and first member for Surrey would like to welcome them and have

you also welcome these people to our chamber.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join me in

welcoming some visitors to the capital city: Mr. David Midwinter of

Vancouver; Mr. Dannie Santos, who is a graduate architect from the city

of Vancouver; Dick Finlay-Jones, who is with the Australian pavilion,

and will be enjoying our province and the city of Vancouver until the

fall.

As well, I'd like to have the House welcome back Mr. James Hall and

his daughter Cathy, and son-in-law Mr. Ray Mehler from Montreal. I

understand they are very pleased to be back, after leaving in 1952.

They're now living in Esquimalt. Just as an added note of encouragement

for this side of the House, they are NDP supporters. I would like the

House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like all hon. members

to acknowledge that I am present with them today. I would ask them to

take perhaps judicial notice of the fact that I am alive, and I am well

and safe, except perhaps for a wretched summer cold. I am a Canadian

citizen. I was born in Banff, Alberta, some 61 summers ago. But the

these rather uncomplicated and few and salient facts, for I have not

received a census form.

I made some inquiries this morning, and I would like to pass these along to

hon. members who perhaps may be in the same boat, or anyone else in the province.

Inquiries have disclosed that I am not the only British Columbian who has been

missed. I would urge all others who are among the living and the missing to

do the following. If they live in the greater Vancouver area, dial 666-6655.

If they live outside of that dialing area, use the long-distance Zenith operator,

Zenith 1986, and the very courteous census staff will, I am told, have the forms

delivered within four days, with the hope that they do not go by the post office:

we'd never receive them.

MR. D'ARCY: In a very quick response to the government House

Leader, I have heard of members of this chamber being accused of being

an invisible MLA. It is the very first time I have ever heard one get

up and admit it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the government House Leader in fact is not here. That was a recording.

Oral Questions

TEACHERS' INVESTMENT AND HOUSING CO-OP

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs. A number of investors, as the minister is aware,

in the Teachers' Investment and Housing Co-op, are petitioning the

provincial government for an inquiry into the regulation of financial

institutions in the province of British Columbia. They wish to prevent

further unfortunate calamity in respect to investment by the general

public.

Has the minister decided to address this serious matter through a

public inquiry, thereby trying to look at returning some confidence in

some of our financial institutions? The minister is aware that there

have been a number of failures, and this inquiry could help to return

some confidence.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I thank the hon. member for the question.

What he is referring to is the Teachers' Investment and Housing

Cooperative, and it requires under the act that 10 percent of the

members of a cooperative petition the minister, and the minister may at

that point ask for an inquiry. I have not yet received that written

submission, hon. member. When I do, we'll look at it and consider it.

MR. BLENCOE: I thank the minister for his comments. However,

the minister is aware — and maybe he can respond to this — that they

have already asked for an inquiry. That's my understanding. They have

on a number of occasions asked for your inquiry under the act. Would

the minister, even today in this House, admit that a general inquiry of

this nature would indeed be useful in terms of public confidence? Take

a look in general at financial institutions, because there have been

some problems in the province of British Columbia, and this way we can

get to the bottom of some of these problems and thereby have people

retaining some confidence and bringing back some investment to the

province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Unlike the hon. member, I have extreme

confidence in the financial institutions of British Columbia; they are

sound institutions. And we're doing everything in our power to ensure

that that confidence is extended even further, hon. member. In fact, we

have several initiatives underway at this point in time.

I was approached by two individuals asking for an inquiry.

Unfortunately, even the hon. member, I am sure, would admit that that

is not enough to instigate an inquiry or put it in place. When I

receive the necessary petition, if indeed it is received, then I will

look at it, and I will act accordingly at that time.

[2:15]

[ Page 8530 ]

BUD SMITH'S EXPENSES

MR. STUPICH: I have a question to the Minister of Finance. It

has been widely reported that the Premier in the month of March sent

Bud Smith around the province to find new members for the Social Credit

Party. Can the Minister of Finance confirm that Bud Smith was being

paid a salary by the government and travel expenses during the month of

March?

HON. MR. CURTIS: My colleague the Minister of Education (Hon.

Mr. Hewitt) took that question as notice on Monday, I think. The

question might be posed to the Premier in his estimates or in question

period. I have not had an opportunity to review the question, which was

identical to that posed on Monday.

MR. STUPICH: The Minister of Finance is usually so quick at

responding to questions that I assumed something had happened to the

message-bearer. But was the second question as well put to the Minister

of Finance by that message-bearer?

HON. MR. CURTIS: We're very well organized on the government

side of this House. The acting minister's offices informed me

immediately upon my return to Victoria of the questions. That's two

days. Well, I think my record in taking questions as notice and

responding to them is pretty good — much better than that of the second

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), who managed to go through a

brief time on the government benches from 1972 to 1975 answering very

few questions. The question was taken as notice earnestly and

sincerely, and the answer will be brought back, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm being invited by a has been to put a question to him. I don't bother with has-beens.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, better to be a has-been than a never-will-be.

AQUACULTURE

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture

in his responsibility as being in charge of the aquaculture industry of

the province of British Columbia. A recent trade seminar sponsored by

the Norwegian trade commission in Vancouver was told that the secret of

the Norwegian aquaculture industry is that it relies on a large number

of locally owned enterprises. Has the minister considered implementing

this approach in the development of B.C.'s aquaculture industry?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, that is not what the Norwegian group told the conference on aquaculture.

MR. HANSON: The minister is rather ill-informed, Mr. Speaker. The government

here in British Columbia seems bent on attracting large amounts of foreign capital

for the development of the aquaculture industry, handing out licences in a way

that doesn't address the question of B.C. ownership and development of small

and medium-sized enterprises. Because we have such tremendous potential in this

regard, will the government look at having small and medium-sized enterprises

controlling the B.C. industry?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member again is quite

wrong about what was said at the aquaculture conference. The Norwegians

who hosted the conference actually said that in their country they have

restricted the size of aquacultural enterprises and that their

aquaculture industry is quite successful. They did not say it is

successful because of the small size.

I happen to think, Mr. Speaker, that those who want to invest in

that business in British Columbia, including those from other lands,

can determine through the economics of it the most appropriate size and

distribution of size, rather than have it dictated by government. I've

never been against investment in Canada by people from any country, as

long as they play by the rules here when they invest and are good

corporate citizens. I think this country needs to try to attract

foreign investment into all enterprises.

MR. HANSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister is

confusing the size and number of the farms. They have a number of small

and medium-sized locally owned enterprises, and in Norway they have a

coastal management plan. My colleague for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) has

introduced a resolution to this House, because as the licences

proliferate and the size of farms is unrestricted, conflicts are

developing. It's a serious problem.

Question two: as there are no restrictions on the use of chemicals

and drugs with respect to the fish farms, has the minister decided to

address this serious problem?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that the

Norwegians have a large aquaculture industry. They also have limited

the size of their farms, but that is their decision in their country.

Who knows how large their industry would be had they not had these

restrictive measures in place.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, together

with the Ministries of Health, Environment, and Lands, Parks and

Housing, in cooperation with agencies of the federal government, will

be looking to all aspects of the production of good-quality food

through aquaculture in British Columbia.

MR. HANSON: One final supplementary on the issue of the

proliferation of licences. Why don't we have a coastal management plan

that avoids the conflicts developing on this coast?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: My feeling about plans.... Of course, we

should do what we can to make sure that various enterprises do not

conflict with others, but by putting a plan in place — a

well-articulated, confining plan — we may very well be inhibiting the

expansion of what can be a very exciting industry in British Columbia.

FORE ST FIRE FIGHTING

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if I could fire off a question to the

Minister of Forests. I'd ask the minister whether he has had an

opportunity to analyze the report of the inquiry into

[ Page 8531 ]

forest wildfire-fighting activities. If he has, can

he advise the House what the additional cost will be of implementing

the 310 recommendations that the inquiry committee made?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Part of the question has been asked

before. The number of recommendations was something in the order of

300, but as the member fully realizes, they were compressed into about

30 because many of them were very similar. With respect to the cost of

implementing those particular changes, I don't have that answer. I

think it's a touch early to get that information, because many of them

involve standby duties. I won't know what the cost of overall

implementation will be until we're further into the season. I will make

further inquiries to know what the initial costs were to make available

the additional attack crews and some of the additional equipment.

MR. HOWARD: Inasmuch as the ministry has let out tenders for

private contractors to engage in firefighting activities, doesn't he

have any idea what the expected costs will be? Is this a blank cheque

we're dealing with?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: To my knowledge, the costs to date are

probably something in the order.... I'm going back to a report which I

received a week ago, a fire report which makes reference to a number of

costs which have been incurred, the amount of the costs, at somewhere

between $8 million and $10 million. That cost to date is being

amortized over the full breadth of the possible fire season. In other

words, some of those costs which were incurred were the initial

outlays, for example, for aircraft. The amount in the budget is

something in the order of $50 million, as I recall. Let's just hope

that we don't have to use it.

Interjection.

NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS

MR. D'ARCY: To the highly

visible Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. Yesterday the minister

reported on correspondence which he'd had with Mr. Clark regarding a

concern over the operation of nuclear power plants adjacent to British

Columbia borders. Today I would like to express to the minister a

concern that I and my constituents have located due north of Hanford,

over the tonnes and tonnes of temporarily stored nuclear wastes which

are distributed throughout the United States of America, and which the

American federal government proposes, for one chance in three, to

permanently store on the Hanford disposal site just south of Spokane,

Washington.

I would like to ask the minister to convey the concern that we have

to the federal government. I would ask him, if he has done that, or if

he has decided to do that, to convey the concern that we have over the

establishment of a permanent nuclear waste disposal site very close to

the borders of British Columbia, and in particular very close to

Rossland-Trail.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's a very valid question, hon. member.

That aspect of the matter was not discussed between myself and Mr.

Clark. I did have a discussion with Mr. Clark concerning the other

item, about which I corresponded with him. I'll take the question as

notice, look into it and be back to you.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for North Vancouver–Capilano seeks leave for an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REE: I have pleasure today to stand here on behalf of my

colleague, the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), who regrets he

cannot be present, to ask the House to welcome 35 grade 9 students from

Timothy Christian School, near Rosedale in his riding, They're under

the guidance of their teacher, Mr. Vandeweg. I'd ask the House to

welcome them to Victoria and to the chamber.

Orders of the Day

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

[2:30]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL

SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

(continued)

On vote 65: minister's office. $194,140.

MR. D'ARCY: To the minister, yesterday we had considerable

discussions in this chamber regarding transit services and cultural

services. About 40 percent of my constituents, those living in greater

Castlegar, do not have any transit to get to cultural services or to

anything else. I would like to ask the minister this afternoon if she

can give some indication as to when even a very limited transit service

may well be established in greater Castlegar.

There has been an application in by the city for the best part of

ten years, if not for ten years. I would note that the population that

would be served by this transit service would be over 12,000, which is

in excess of the population served by the city of Nelson's transit

service. That city has had a transit system since the early years of

the century. Of course, the city of Trail, which is much larger, has

had a regional district operated transit service for about ten years

now.

I'd like to note to the minister that Castlegar, as I am sure the

minister is aware, has some unique topographical and geographical

features. It has two distinct commercial areas; it has decentralized

services such as hospitals, long-term care facilities, libraries,

schools and recreational facilities. In other words, there is not a

central core which is easy for people to locate and. If they live in

apartments, to get to. I'd also point out that in the unorganized part

of the valley, across the Columbia River, there is a community college

and there is an airport.

All of these facilities would be greatly facilitated in terms of

public access if a transit service, even a very limited one, was in

effect. I would like to ask the minister how soon even a very limited

service would go into effect. As I stated earlier, the duly elected

municipal authorities there for some time — for a number of years, in

fact — have been ready, willing and able to meet their responsibilities

in terms of funding of that facility.

The other transit services which we have in the West Kootenay are not in communities which have a regional

[ Page 8532 ]

airport or a regional college facility separated

from the downtown core, so I think there are a number of excellent

arguments as to why transit service should have been established at

some time in the past.

Perhaps the minister and her advisers can correct me, but I was at

least under the impression that when the SkyTrain service was fully

functional — at least functional in the New Westminster to Vancouver

section — this was going to take some people out of buses who might

otherwise have been in buses. I've made a layman's presumption that

this would make some buses available for other parts of the province

without the transit authority having to go out with a lot of new

capital to provide new buses for the province. I've made a presumption

that some buses somewhere are available, and with the long-standing

request of the municipal authorities, perhaps the minister could let me

and the people of that area know when we may expect a transit service.

One other point I want to make is that everyone in the province pays

just under one cent a litre in transit tax every time they fuel up

their motor vehicles. Obviously the people in Castlegar pay that

transit tax too, but they're not getting the transit services. If we're

being taxed for a service, we certainly would like to have the benefit

of that service.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member's presumption regarding the

release of buses when SkyTrain was initiated is really quite accurate.

It's true that we move the buses from the service of the greater

Vancouver and Victoria areas into the other areas when other buses are

brought on or when they become unsuitable or are not needed. However,

the success of SkyTrain and the success of Expo has precluded that

opportunity for this year.

However, the decision to initiate a new small community service in

any one of the seven communities that are now outstanding — having gone

through their application and so on — is really not predicated on the

availability of buses but on the availability of operational costs.

There are six others, along with the Castlegar–Central Kootenay service

that has been requested, and they have been in various stages of

agreement with the B.C. Transit board to be funded when funds become

available. We've not been able to act on all of them at once, and

that's simply because there has been the recession and the restraint

program, not just from the provincial side but also from the

municipality side.

We have been able to proceed with two community systems this year.

The two-bus conventional transit system will be put in place in

September of this year in the Abbotsford-Matsqui area, and in addition

a one-vehicle handyDART custom service for the handicapped will be in

operation by mid-July in Prince Rupert.

Additional systems will be considered, such as the one that you

speak of which I think has been given approval by the board already,

but they will only be given as agreements are reached between the

various communities and the necessary funds are made available. I

believe your community and B.C. Transit are in agreement, if I recall —

I'm simply going by memory. Some of the other six communities do not

have agreements between the municipality and the B.C. Transit board as

yet. But just as soon as moneys are available and agreements are in

place, that's all that's holding some of those seven communities from

getting initiated into the transit service.

It's a great service. The small community service has been very,

very successful. We're very proud that we have some 26 services now

throughout the province.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I had never thought of that

minister as one of the city slickers that perhaps the member for

Cariboo (Hon. A Fraser) was referring to, and yet I note in her reply

how there was this tremendous priority to sink these hundreds and

hundreds of millions of dollars of borrowed money into SkyTrain. I'm

not opposed to that here. What I'm suggesting to her, though, is that

the people in the west Kootenay, like all the rest of the people

outside of the lower mainland, pay taxes to general revenue on exactly

the same basis. If the minister has ever been aware that there is

occasionally some resentment from people of the interior and the north

against what they see as an incredible amount of their money — their

tax dollars — going into projects on the lower mainland, with no

benefit to them, I think this perhaps could characterize that. People

in the west Kootenay and in the Castlegar area, I repeat, have not only

been paying all regular taxes; they've also been paying the

one-cent-a-litre transit tax ever since it's been in effect.

I don't think there are too many other communities that have had an

application as outstanding for as long as this particular community,

and indeed there are smaller communities which in fact do have a

transit service. I would ask the minister to do everything she can in

approaching Treasury, or whatever offices she uses, to get that

operating funding in place, because let's remember the sharing formula

is set not by the municipality but by government, and the municipality

and the regional district have for many years now said that they would

pick up their share of whatever is required to be picked up by the

local taxpayer which isn't generated at the fare box.

I would also like to suggest to the minister — it's only a

prediction on my part — that when this service starts, I think that the

B.C. Transit Authority is going to find out very quickly that the — I

don't know what term would be used — occupancy rate or the ridership

figures would be one of the highest in the province of British

Columbia, because there are a large number of senior citizens, young

people and people who don't have cars or find it convenient to use cars

who would be using that transit facility, because of the airport and

the community college and because of the dispersal of professional

services, recreational services, hospitals, libraries, schools, etc. In

that community, an even greater dispersal than you find in most

communities, even those suburban areas such as you mentioned in the

Fraser Valley. So I would hope that the minister would take that to

heart and do everything she can to get this service started as soon as

possible.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I can assure the member that I will be

pleased to do that. I also want to assure the member that the

government's commitment to producing services for small communities has

truly been not just a commitment in words, but also in action. It has

only taken six years to produce some 25 services throughout the

province — that is, services that were never there in most communities

before.

So the formula has worked, the partnership with the municipalities

has worked well, and we are committed to making sure that communities

such as the ones you mention, as well as others in other parts of the

province, will have that service as well.

[ Page 8533 ]

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, just to reflect back on a question

raised yesterday to the minister, I've been advised that the meeting

held with the Vancouver multicultural society was not in conjunction

with other societies from the AMSSA organization. Will the minister

undertake to meet with the umbrella organization? The society she met

with is really just one of the 35, so the umbrella group would like to

meet with the minister if possible.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes.

MR. BARNES: I am very pleased to hear that. They did suggest

a date. I don't suggest that the minister has to take that date, but

June 21 is a time they have available just in case you're available for

that.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a

couple of questions about transit. I'm not an expert on transit, but I

have ridden the ALRT. We had a good deal of warning before it happened

that it was going to be expensive, and of course that's proven true.

Aside from that, it's now a fact.

I would like to ask the minister whether the thought has been

countenanced at all of extending the stations so that they can look

after six cars. From the first day that I looked at transit, I was

amazed that the present stations can only accommodate four cars. With

the estimates in terms of traffic, that seems pretty restrictive. Now

that the traffic has proven to be just exactly what people suggested it

might be, with lineups three blocks long in New Westminster and

elsewhere, I just wonder what the minister has in mind in terms of

improving access to that transit service.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: As I mentioned yesterday, Mr. Chairman,

the SkyTrain has been such a success that we are suffering from all of

that great success. It has been so embraced by the people in the lower

mainland and the visitors to Expo, and is so much of a tourist

attraction beyond the regular transportation — meeting the

transportation needs of the lower mainland — that we have had pressures

put on us.

There's a plan which will, I hope, be in place by this weekend for

the Expo crowds so that there will be designated cars for Expo which

will relieve those others. They will simply turn around at Expo and go

back to pick up other Expo passengers. That should take some of the

Expo people off the regular designated line which carries people to

work and to the other appointments that they need to go to. That's

being undertaken at the present time. My staff tells me that that will

really meet the biggest part of the concern right now. That is not to

say, and certainly not to make any commitment that when the height of

the Expo crowd comes.... We know we haven't seen it all yet because the

youngsters are not out of school; the bulk of our tourists are not in

British Columbia as yet and will not be until after the school date. I

do believe that we will have some problems with SkyTrain's capacity.

[2:45]

The possibility of putting on more trains at the present time....

They're running four trains now, and I'm told that putting more trains

on the system is not possible at the present time simply because of the

normal maintenance that has to be done to keep them to their safety

level. Some of the trains have to be out of service. The full

complement of trains is not used at all times, because they're always

working on something on the trains, particularly in the run-in period.

So what I'm saying to you is that we're daily on top of the problem.

The problems are those of success. I'm most appreciative of the member

for New Westminster's concerns, because New Westminster station is the

one that we have the very biggest problem with. That is because of the

park and ride that we built over the bridge. But you can be assured

that the bridge has already been tendered for and the decision is being

made on the contracts for that bridge and the further extension of the

line to Whalley. Also the park and ride in Coquitlam that's already in

place will relieve some of the problems, I hope. But of course those

aren't going to be happening during the 1986 year.

So I guess on the one hand we're very pleased it's successful; on

the other hand we're working daily to overcome the problems and we'll

adjust. We'll do shorter routes and do the Expo turnaround as has been

suggested. We do believe that will relieve a great many problems in the

present system.

MR. COCKE: The minister failed to understand the question

that I originally asked: why didn't we have the forethought to build

stations that would access a larger train? That strikes me as being one

of the answers to the present situation, and certainly the future. We

cannot accommodate a train longer than four cars. I looked at it

myself. I've been in a number of stations, and a four-car train extends

from one end of that station to the other. Therefore a six-car train

could not be accommodated.

Now I agree that if you're going to have six-car trains, and you're

going to have a lot of them. you're going to have to buy a few more

cars. So what? That strikes me as being a real handicap in the future,

because obviously we're stuck. We've spent a billion dollars; we'd

better be able to have something that's going to provide for

transportation well into the twenty-first century. I'm told that to

extend those stations so that they would accommodate a longer train

would be as costly as building them in the first place. Is that true?

I'm just wondering what we have in mind in terms of the future.

Look, I'm not here to say that we should tear SkyTrain apart. We've

got it. Frankly, it does embrace the best corridor, in terms of

satisfying Burnaby's and New Westminster's needs. It does satisfy that

by going down the old Central Park line, which was laid out by our

forefathers lo these many years ago and is just as serviceable today as

it was then. Having said that, what are we going to do in terms of the

future of SkyTrain?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm sorry, I didn't understand the first

question. But let me set the record straight. The member for New

Westminster has made an allegation that the stations will have to be

reconstructed to take care of more than four trains. I didn't know....

MR. COCKE: Four cars.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: More than four cars, or four trains, as

we call them in the system. The stations as they are built now will

accommodate seven trains.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Seven, not four. The reason that we're having some difficulties with the system as it is

[ Page 8534 ]

now in terms of accommodating is exactly as I told

you: the success of the SkyTrain. The shuttle service between Expo and

Canada Harbour Place, with the Canadian pavilion — that designated line

— does take some of our cars out of service and has been a very

excellent connection between Canada Harbour Place on the waterfront and

Expo site itself.

We can move more people faster with more four-car trains than with

fewer six-car trains. So if the member is trying to make the....

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: If the member would please just let me

finish. If the member is trying to make the point that we should have

six-car trains on just so it looks as though we're moving more

people.... Let me tell you that we move more people faster with

four-car trains than we would if we were to put on six-car trains. We

can accommodate more people on that whole system as it is built today

by simply adding more cars, or as you want to call them, more trains.

We can carry more people on that system in the lower mainland than can

be carried on the Toronto subway, and it will be good for a very long

time. It's built for the future. It's built for expansion by simply

adding cars, not, as you are trying to suggest, by reconstruction; not

by adding to stations, not by adding to the guideway, but by adding

trains, by adding cars to the system.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver East.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: There's the guy who's still pouting about not being Minister of Forests.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Waterland) will come to order, and the member will deal with

the estimates.

MR. WILLIAMS: If he'd quit his pouting, he might do something in Agriculture.

The minister advises the House that the stations were designed for

seven trains. We're presently using four, and the minister tries to

explain this by saying that it will really all work better with the

four-train system. The question is: are there problems, when you have

six or seven trains, in being able to locate them in terms of stopping

precisely at the station, in terms of passenger access, facilities and

ramps? Are there problems once you get beyond four cars?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The answer is no, it works just as well.

MR. WILLIAMS: They're absolutely precise, and you have no problem whatsoever. Is that correct?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the advice I'm given is that we have no difficulties at all; it works just as well.

This gives me an opportunity to introduce to the House the builder

of SkyTrain. Mr. Michael O'Connor, who is with me, has been an

outstanding builder in the Ministry of Highways and then in the

building of our light rapid transit system.

I would like to pay tribute to his service to our province. It has

really been a tremendous service to have brought the best ALRT

system.... It's better than any in the world — the most cost-effective

system of moving people.

MR. COCKE: I'm delighted to hear that, and I'm sure people

all over the world will be interested in that news. It may be an

excellent system, but it has had its problems.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Have you been on it?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, I have. It has its problems.

I'd like to ask you another question. Incidentally, the

accommodation is really a revelation. We're going to have to go back to

a lot of people who've totally misunderstood the four- and the

seven-train propositions. I'm still from that place where people have

difficulty believing every statement made....

MR. WILLIAMS: Missouri.

MR. COCKE: In any event, I would also like to ask the

minister about the changes in bus routes. The buses now flip in and out

of the SkyTrain terminals all the way along Kingsway, all the way

along.... You get into New Westminster.... For instance, if you catch a

bus that used to take you somewhere, it now takes you to SkyTrain

whether you need to go there or not. There are people who have

complained to me about, for example, having to go to work on a Sunday

morning in a private hospital in Champlain Heights. Their work requires

them to be there at 7 o'clock; now they can get there at 8:30. I wonder

if any of that has been changed in order to accommodate these people.

The buses were the only way to get there, and the buses used to go

there; but then the buses were rerouted so that they would hit SkyTrain

every few blocks, and that has been a bit unsatisfactory for some

people. I recognize that the early part of Sunday morning is tough to

accommodate, because that's the one day that transit doesn't come close

to paying. I don't think it pays any day, but that day particularly....

Somehow or other, people have to be transported to work.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: All of the changes that have been made

were made to integrate the total system. It's a totally integrated

system with the SeaBus and the buses and even the handyDART, because

the SkyTrain is fully handicapped-accessible. All of the changes are

being reviewed, and where adjustments must be made, adjustments will be

made. Those are all being reviewed, and they will be made where

necessary to provide the best service that we can. I think this is an

ever-evolving thing with transportation, at any rate, and it will be

continued with the new service. I'm glad the member is so interested in

the answer.

MR. COCKE: I'm sorry, you gave your answer in the first

couple of words. You said it's fully integrated, and I guess I

to listen to a

preamble after you've already given the answer, I still

say the integration is a bit of a problem and will continue to be a

problem. I just hope that

[ Page 8535 ]

the minister and her advisers keep on top of it because there are people who can get hammered by a new system.

There is also a good deal of concern over the zone charges for

SkyTrain. My understanding now is it's three zones from Surrey to

Vancouver, two zones from New Westminster to Vancouver and one zone

from Burnaby to Vancouver. Is that correct?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It is correct, yes. The disparity between the

zonal fares I've heard a number of complaints on. My last complaint is

vis-à-vis the addition to the hydro bill. Has there been a decrease?

It's been rumoured that there has been a decrease in the amount that is

allocated for rapid transit to the hydro bill in recent weeks, or has

it stayed up at the major increase that it was? It went to, say, $5 and

so on.

[3:00]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It went up on April 1, and there hasn't been a subsequent change.

MR. COCKE: I had hoped that maybe there had been some thought

given to that being reduced. Victoria doesn't happen to have all the

senior citizens in the province; New Westminster has its share. There

are a number of letters that I've had from seniors, and I bet you $50

that the minister has had a number too, and so have her colleagues.

People who are beyond the age of utilizing transit, who are living on

low income as a result of some of the decisions around adequate income

for seniors that have occurred in this province, are paying an

extraordinarily high percentage of their bill to rapid transit or to

transit as a result of this new policy.

I just feel that it's most unfortunate that people who are so close

to poverty — as a matter of fact, not only close; they are in poverty —

are continuing to pay a disproportionate amount toward our transit. It

strikes me that money can be found elsewhere. I realize that it's a

very expensive system to run. I might ask the minister: is it still $16

a ride for ALRT?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member will have to make that question a little clearer. Are you asking is it still $16 a ride subsidy?

MR. COCKE: Including fare.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It never was $16, although I recall when

the members of the opposition made that plain and continued to use that

figure, I guess. It never was beyond $5; it was around $5, and it

remains about the same. In other words, what a person pays in the fare

is not what the cost of the ride is, and it never was on the buses,

either. In a fully integrated system, the the SkyTrain portion of it is

around $5.

MR. COCKE: If it's $5, then we must be really ripping off

those seniors, because their bill went up $5 every hydro bill, just for

transit. Now something seems to be wrong about this. As far as I'm

concerned, I don't mind; I don't use transit. Nor do I mind paying the

addition to my hydro bill. But I tell you, there are an awful lot of

people out there who do, who are on the borderline. I don't know, it

just doesn't make sense.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Let's not let that go by without just a

comment. You mentioned seniors. First of all, if the seniors qualify

for the bus pass, they can go all the way from White Rock to North

Vancouver. They can go on the bus; they can go on SkyTrain; they can go

on SeaBus. They can go on the bus to Horseshoe Bay, and they can go to

the ferry and come over to Victoria and ride the ferry free of charge

three days a week. They can get all of those services and many more

other trips for $28 a year for a bus pass.

Then for the seniors who do not qualify for the bus pass, the others

whose income disqualifies them from GAIN for seniors, in comparison to

the Vancouver charge, for instance, of $1.15, they only pay 60 cents,

because they have a preferred rate by virtue of their age group. That's

just one comparison. In the Richmond downtown area, that price would be

comparable to the $1.55 that everybody else pays.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, my colleagues over the last couple

of days have canvassed a number of issues in the minister's estimates

to do with multiculturalism, cultural aspects, sports and recreation,

and so on.

In concluding, I would like to express, on behalf of our side of the

House and the ordinary people of British Columbia, concern about the

way in which this ministry has been transformed into a political

artifact. If George Orwell.... If we could blow life into his bones and

bring him here to Victoria and take him to the Ministry of Provincial

Secretary, he would say: "You know, I'm right."

Here we have an ad agency for Social Credit polling at the

taxpayers' expense, doing partisan political advertising at the

taxpayers' expense; the disbursal of lottery funds not adequately

disclosed, a year behind — an absolute disgrace, a year behind in terms

of the disclosure of the proceeds. I see in the Vancouver Sun

today the 6-49 sales are booming with a $10 million jackpot. Those

people who are buying those tickets don't know that Social Credit is

taking those proceeds and disbursing them on a partisan basis. They

want those proceeds to be distributed fairly for the public benefit on

a non-partisan basis. That doesn't happen in this province.

We have a government information service which functions as an

apparatus to promote Social Credit. The taxpayers pay the bill. They do

advance work; they coordinate travel. They do all kinds of activities

of government that are not duly their responsibility. That is a misuse

of taxpayers' money to perform those functions.

This ministry controls the most vital functions of a democratic

society, and that is the apparatus of the vote. Here we have on June 4,

1986, 500,000 eligible British Columbians not on the voters' list, not

registered, and today I am advised that the New Democratic Party is

taking this issue into the courts to ensure that every eligible citizen

can appear at the polling place in their neighbourhood whether they are

on the list or not, swear an affidavit, and have their vote taken into

the ballot box and counted, as a free and democratic society should

ensure for all its people.

George Orwell would have found his predictions had come true here in

Victoria in the Provincial Secretary's ministry of this government. It

is not going to be too many months until the people of this province

are going to give this government what really is long overdue, and that

is the clean launch that they have coming to them. They want a

government that cares for ordinary people, that isn't bent on

manipulating them and their attitudes through advertising. As Mr.

Kinsella so ably pointed out, that is the job: find the nerves. It's a

kind

[ Page 8536 ]

of political acupuncture performed on the body politic of the people of this province.

Here we have gerrymandered electoral boundaries that are a disgrace.

The United Nations should send observers here. We should have people

here to examine the processes that are in place.

So I think we've indicated our displeasure. We feel that the change

is long overdue. It is coming. There's a wind of change for fairness,

for a government that has the people's interests at heart. And central

to all of their behaviour, no longer will we have a political artifact

that is bent on manipulating the public for some partisan purpose.

Vote 65 approved.

Vote 66: ministry operations, $53,928,862 — approved.

Vote 67: government information services, $15,338,028 approved.

Vote 68: pensions and employee benefits administration, $10 — approved.

Vote 69: pensions and employee benefits contributions, $10 — approved.

Vote 80: transit services, $162,145,000 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you call them in the order we were given them?

HON. MR. GARDOM: The order given this morning from myself to my hon. Whip was 3, 5, 4.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. This business

is normally conducted off the floor of this chamber, but this is the

piece of paper given to me by your Whip.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Please read the order.

MR. HANSON: Five, three, four.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We're satisfied with that.

I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 5.

HEALTH IMPROVEMENT APPROPRIATION ACT

(continued)

On the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Minister Of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) adjourned debate on the amendment. Are you ready for the question?

HON. MR. GARDOM: What is the amendment?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's a reasoned amendment, Hon. House Leader, dealing with Bill 5.

[3:15]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 12

Dailly

Cocke

Howard

Stupich

Nicolson

Sanford

Williams

Hanson

Rose

Lockstead

Mitchell

Blencoe

NAYS — 23

Brummet

Waterland

Kempf

Heinrich

Veitch

Pelton

Passarell

Michael

McCarthy

A. Fraser

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Ritchie

McGeer

Hewitt

Chabot

Reid

Johnston

Strachan

Ree

On the main motion.

MR. COCKE: I have spoken on the amendment. Now I will speak on the main motion, Mr. House Leader, if that will be all right with you.

He wants leave to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker. I'll yield for the leave.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're a great yielder. I appreciate that

very much. Hon. members, I'd very much like all members to bid a

special welcome to a number of students in the gallery today from

Crofton House School in Vancouver.

MR. COCKE: The sense of humour is just the greatest.

I would like to say a few words about the main motion, which is that

we give second reading to a bill giving the Minister of Health $720

million to distribute any way he wants at any time he wants in any

geographical or any other kind of physical area in this province that

he wants to. The reason for this Legislative Assembly, and the reason

that from time to time we meet in committee to provide ministers with

dollars, is so that they can account for the use of those dollars

before the fact. Now the Minister of Finance, who authors this bill or

at least presents it to this chamber, tells us that we have a right to

vote for the amount that is on the estimate this year, for example.

Well, that is really something, because it's not debatable. It's not

debatable because that money is in the minister's hands to account for

it as best he can one and a half years later.

The way we interpret this bill is that the $120 million isn't where

the minister is restricted. He can blow the whole $720 million if he

wants. What a slush fund! And would anybody of sound mind in this

province give any minister in the Social Credit cabinet $720 million to

play with? Without accountability? That's what we're talking about.

Mr. Speaker, this is an absolutely new venture. This government has

circumvented the Legislature on any number of occasions. We have more

legislation today that provides this government opportunity to regulate

without ever coming back to the House, without ever having to debate.

This

[ Page 8537 ]

government, whose leader went around this province

screaming at the top of his lungs, "Not a dime without debate," now

asks us not to give him a dime but to give him $720 million in one fell

swoop to spend anywhere he wants.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not political.

MR. COCKE: One of my colleagues says: "not political." Well

I'll tell you, if you've been around British Columbia, even with

blinders on, you know that practically everything that's done over

there is political. I'm here to tell you that this money, this trough

full of money, this truck full of money, is being provided to a

minister to go out there and spend it as he will.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He could, if he were interested in the debate, get

up and debate it. But he has ignored the debate both before in second

reading and when we had the amendment before us — that amendment which

would have restored the power of the committee to deal with this money.

Oh, no, he's not here. There is no interest in all of his colleagues

except the minister responsible for the bill. He just knows that when

the vote is cast, he's going to have $720 million to spend any way he

likes. If there were no other reason on earth to turf these people out

of government, this by itself stands as enough reason to turf that gang

out of office.

AN HON. MEMBER: Turf them out.

MR. COCKE: My colleague says: "Turf them out." Call an election and, by George, you will turf them out. And they deserve to be turfed out.

They ride this thing like a little motherhood horse: this is money

for health care. Could anything be more delightful than providing some

money for health care? The average person out there feels: gee, they've

got an extra few dollars to go into the health care system; $120

million announced for this year. They haven't spent any of it yet. Mr.

Speaker, what the average person out there doesn't understand is that

the whole precedent for our system has been set on the basis that you

answer for your commitments. They're voted upon in this Legislature;

they're voted upon in the Committee of the Whole House; at least then

people know where that money is earmarked to go.

We asked a question — where all of those areas were cut. The

ambulance service was cut. Is something going to be restored to the

ambulance service, the emergency service? We don't know. They're not

accountable. They don't have to tell us. After the fact, we can pick up

the paper. The place is adjourned or recessed. We pick up the paper,

and the minister has shown some largess in the constituency of X. I

won't name any particular constituency, but you can be darned sure what

the flavour of the politics will be.

MS. SANFORD: SC, not X.

MR. COCKE: SC, my colleague says. No doubt.

This is not the way to run a government. Theoretically if we went

this way to its practical conclusion, there would be one vote. That

vote would be on the total budget from the province, handed over to the

Minister of Finance, who would then divide the spoils among the

ministers. And that would be the end of the session, in terms of

finance.

This is an awful lot of money to be spent this way.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: My colleague says it's the Queen's money. It's the

taxpayers' money that we're spending: $720 million unaccounted for, and

will never be accounted for. You watch: when that minister gets up to

close debate, oh, he'll say there are so many ways you can make him

account. A couple of years down the line, when we have Public Accounts , we can examine where that money went, after the fact.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, and after the election. That's not the way to

run a trim ship. This kind of thing is unknown — was unknown in this

jurisdiction, and is unknown in other jurisdictions where we have

democratic governments.

Mr. Speaker, this kind of money isn't just a little ministerial

discretion fund. This kind of money, Mr. Speaker, makes the whole

system work at odds. Everybody's short. We've had restraint in this

province for the last four or five years. Everybody's trying now to

position themselves in order to get at this money. They're spending

time, Mr. Speaker, that they should be using on other productive acts.

They're doing a lot of conniving and a lot of work just seeing how they

can get around to get some of these dollars. It is counter-productive;

it's a foolish way to do business. I would have hoped that the

minister, having been given the time to think this whole question over,

would have gone to his colleagues and said: "Colleagues, the NDP are on

the right track. We don't have to have a matter of any kind of

confidence here; we can amend the bill ourselves." You know what the

opposition would have done? The opposition would have accepted that

amendment. We would have withdrawn our amendment and provided that

minister the opportunity to put some accountability into Bill 5.

[3:30]

There is no accountability now, nor will there be. Thankfully, it

has an end to it. I wish the minister would instruct one of his

colleagues, rather than he get up to close debate when the opposition

is through, to get up and adjourn debate on this bill, providing him

with the time to come forward with what this House demands, to come

forward with an amendment to this bill which would put it back in the

accountable ledger, so that this money would be properly accounted for,

properly spent and properly voted upon.

They're asking us to give a carte blanche. They're asking us to

stand up and vote aye for a bill like this? Well, colleagues, they'll

never get my vote. I hope the people in British Columbia, who get such

a large amount of information from the press, who are about as

interested in $720 million as I would expect....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh. I'm sorry; I understand they're fooling around

with the Premier out in the hallway. Well, that's very important. When

$720 million is being spent in here, they're out in the hallway fooling

around with the Premier.

In any event, this is a bill the opposition will not under any circumstance support, a bill which really puts a veil of

[ Page 8538 ]

shame over this assembly, a bill which establishes

a new precedent, and that precedent is to hand a minister millions or

multi-millions of dollars and say: "Go spend it wherever you want." I'm

here to tell you that those of us who vote for this bill have to walk

out of here with a great flaming red face in shame.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I spoke on introducing the bill

and then on second reading and then when we debated the amendment. I'm

not reflecting on that vote, but I find it unfortunate that a former

Minister of Health in this province who served with distinction in that

portfolio would characterize a bill which offers significant amounts of

money for the improvement of health care in all its forms in this

province as one which would provoke red-facedness among members who

vote for it.

I think that is hyperbole of a most unfortunate kind. We've

indicated it is a three-year fund; we've indicated that this is year

one; we've indicated that the health community, in all its forms and

facets and in all parts of the province, is welcome to come forward

with a host of ideas with respect to utilizing the fund.

It is also unfortunate that in their rush to question this

particular bill, members opposite have inferred that which is not

correct. I don't suggest that the House has been misled, but they have

neglected in this area alone, Mr. Member for Surrey (Mr. Reid).... What

do we have in the city of Victoria, which is hardly, Madam Member for

Comox (Ms. Sanford), SC — to use the term which was used earlier by one

of the members opposite interjecting? We have a new food services

building announced in the city of Victoria, in a constituency that is

not held by the governing party — a major facility. We also have a new

cancer clinic in the city of Victoria. The member for New Westminster

(Mr. Cocke) also knows that there have been significant major

improvements for the health care community in his home city of New

Westminster. Insofar as I have been able to determine in discussing,

not only with my colleague, the present and previous Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Nielsen), but also with senior officials in the Ministry of

Health.... What do they do in allocation of dollars? They look at

priority needs without regard to whether that is a constituency

represented by a government or an opposition member.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of Bill 5. I am proud of the fact that we

have been able to allocate additional dollars to an extremely important

activity of government in the province of British Columbia. I'm

confident that the health care community — doctors and nurses and so

many individuals involved in health care — will not be blind-sided,

will not be misled by the comments which have been made in this chamber

in opposing a bill which I believe in and which I continue to support.

Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 5.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Brummet

Waterland

Kempf

Heinrich

Veitch

Pelton

Passarell

Michael

McCarthy

A. Fraser

Nielsen

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Ritchie

McGeer

Chabot

Reid

Johnston

Strachan

Ree

NAYS — 13

Dailly

Cocke

Howard

Stupich

Nicolson

Sanford

Williams

D'Arcy

Hanson

Rose

Lockstead

Mitchell

Blencoe

Bill 5, Health Improvement Appropriation Act, 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 second reading of Bill 4.

EDUCATION EXCELLENCE APPROPRIATION ACT

(continued)

[3:45]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

Dailly

Cocke

Howard

Stupich

Nicolson

Sanford

Williams

D'Arcy

Hanson

Rose

Lockstead

Mitchell

Blencoe

NAYS — 21

Brummet

Waterland

Kempf

Heinrich

Veitch

Pelton

Passarell

Michael

McCarthy

Fraser, A.

Nielsen

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Ritchie

McGeer

Chabot

Reid

Johnston

Strachan

Ree

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I don't think that anyone could

say it more clearly than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of

Canada said it the other day. He said that we are going down a very

dangerous course in Canada, and he made the remarks in British

Columbia, where they could not have been more appropriate. He pointed

out the fact that if we continue to look to the universities as a

source of funds, a source of revenues to be transferred into other

purposes, we will end up very shortly not with excellence in education,

not even with mediocre education, but with second-class education.

We do see a brain drain from our universities, and it is a twofold

brain drain, Mr. Speaker. We see that some of the brightest young

students are leaving this province and undertaking their education

elsewhere. We see that other parts of this country are sending out

recruiters to British Columbia and into such school districts as West

Vancouver to extol the virtues of such universities as Western, Queens

and others back in central Canada. So not only are we losing a lot of

the brightest and best young professors and academics, we are also

losing some of the student body.

The Chief Justice was quite right in making those comments and

sounding the alarm when perhaps those of us in the opposition who have

been making these remarks, certainly for the past three years, in which

we have pointed to the

[ Page 8539 ]

widening gap in terms of the participation rate of

non-metropolitan students, in which we have been pointing to the fact

that while other jurisdictions are spending more per capita, we are

spending less, while we pointed to the fact that in spite of the fact

that university enrolments have increased, the amount of money that we

are spending on universities, even in inflated dollars, has dropped,

and in terms of constant dollars has dropped drastically....

It is very significant and helpful, I suppose, and very responsible

of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, when perhaps

people have listened to the words of my colleague from Coquitlam-Moody

and I, and of other members, and of our party's leader, the leader of

the official opposition, and of almost every member of the NDP caucus

who has made these points over and over again. It was therefore very

welcome that such a leading figure in Canada did make that comment, I

think, as appropriately as he did in the most appropriate province in

which he could have made that remark.

This is not excellence in education. This money will not even begin

to restore education to levels of funding and so on which existed three

years ago. One can go to the campuses and just take a very close

critical took at the maintenance of the buildings, which is suffering.

Mr. Speaker, you will see moss and grass and weeds sprouting out of

cracks which have not been repaired and such at the University of

British Columbia in some of those old buildings. Every kind of

costcutting measure has been taken. I think that Dr. George Pedersen

said it very well when he left the University of British Columbia. The

current president of UBC, maybe in somewhat diplomatic terms, but very

clearly, has expressed the same kind of concern. For the very

short-term political gain of a government that wants to retain another

four or five years in power, we are jeopardizing the future. We are

punishing our children for life. We are punishing British Columbia, and

we are condemning the future of British Columbia by this very callous

attitude.

You cannot begin to have excellence in education until we are

committed financially, as well as philosophically, to at least keeping

up average standards. People are working very desperately to do that.

They are being spread very thin. You are not going to be able to

replace the vacancies that come open. You are not going to get the best

productivity out of assistant and associate professors and so on, who

have taken positions at lower pay scales and been frozen there for

several years now, when you continue to give them the back of the hand.

It is very counterproductive.

Mr. Speaker, it's obvious that this government took the approach

that our basic resource industry, the forest products industry, was a

sunset industry. They said that. Certainly by the way they've

mismanaged that industry for the past three years since the first

signals went up, when people in the Premier's office didn't even know

who the Governor of Oregon was, we've turned our back on the resource

industry of this province. So if there is any future it is in the human

capital of this province.

We have bright young people as students. We have bright young people

in the academic field. These people can lead to the economic spinoffs

that will assert British Columbia's place in the economic spectrum of

Canada, North America and the world. These are the people who will help

us to achieve our destiny. But the short-sighted political manipulation

of funding that pretends that we are even beginning to maintain a

mediocre standard is really a political hypocrisy.

I'm certainly glad to say that I'm not intimidated in terms of the way that I'll be voting on this particular bill.

HON. MR. McGEER: I take it, Mr. Speaker, that the members

opposite have, in their wisdom, decided to vote against this bill. Is

that a correct

interpretation? I intend to vote in favour of the bill,

Mr. Speaker, because it seems to me that having $600 million dedicated

to the principles of excellence in education is not bad. It is a signal

from the government that priorities are of the essence in times of

restraint, and that the institutions themselves should give thought to

what things are more important in the future than the current list of

priorities in their order of expenditure.

The members opposite say that this is an incorrect way to proceed. I

take it that they are opposed to the spending of money on excellence.

It's always been hard, with the New Democratic Party, to find a

commitment to excellence in anything, whether it's education or

industry. Competition of any kind is a no-no for the members opposite.

I suppose the fact that there must be competition for scarce funds,

that we must try to permit excellence to be encouraged and to

emerge.... Excellence sometimes has its problems emerging in our

institutions. This is a strong signal to those within our institutions

who have the capacity to bring on new programs and see things flourish.

It's a signal to them to be recognized by their own institutions and by

the government.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for this bill. I

would be disappointed, but not surprised, if the members opposite once

more sunk to their values in judging both the programs and their

responses to government programs.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased that for one of

these bills the Minister of Finance has some support. There are strings

over there. Mr. Speaker: a bunch of puppets. That's not what I mean

when I'm talking about support. Somebody at least got up and said

something in support of this bill. One member!

[4:00]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Do you support it now?

MR. COCKE: I do not support this bill. I do not support this bill and I'm ashamed of anybody who would support this bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You don't mean that.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Trade

and Investment, who incidentally was the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications, should know better, but anyway, he got up

and said he intends to vote in favour of $600 million for excellence.

By heavens, isn't that motherhoodish! He doesn't at the same time tell

us that the $600 million should have been allocated in the budget where

it belongs, should have been in the estimates where it belongs, so that

it could have been voted upon properly by the Committee of the Whole

House. Oh, no, $600 million for excellence.

I have never heard that minister from Point Grey give such a short

speech in my life. Never. That's how strong his support was. He didn't

even give his old historical speech, Mr. Speaker. He just got up and

said it's $600 million for excellence. That $600 million was deprived

of the budget,

[ Page 8540 ]

and then suddenly their largess shows. "Here we are folks; we've come to meet your demands." Well, I'll be darned.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I'm going to vote against it. You better tell the

people of New Westminster that I voted against it and I'll tell you why

you better tell them. Because they will rejoinder. They will say to

you: "Thank goodness we've got an honest member who demands that we

continue with the democratic process in this province. We want a member

representing New Westminster who calls for votes." Remember the "not a

dime without debate"?

Then that minister says that anybody voting against excellence...and

that the NDP are noted for voting against excellence. What a crock of

nonsense. The fact of the matter is the NDP have been voting against

all of these "excellence" ideas which this government has come up with

and which have got us into the terrible state that we're in today.

That's what we're voting against. We're voting against it, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: If I supported the lowest common denominator I

would be supporting the Minister of Energy. But I don't support the

lowest common denominator. All that talk about a competition for scarce

funds, it's the old divide and conquer syndrome. These people are noted

for that. Now they can stand up with sheafs of money and say: "Come our

way, do our bidding and you get a part of it." That isn't the way it's

supposed to be at all. It's supposed to be the legislators of this

province charged with the responsibility of coming into this chamber

and voting on expenditures that are estimated for the future. Those

expenditures are allocated to certain areas and then we know what we're

voting for. Right now we don't know what we're voting for, and that

government doesn't know what they're voting for either.

What's the Minister of Finance going to do with these funds? He's

going to turn over these funds to two people: one a neophyte minister

who hasn't even been around long enough to know where the universities

are, let alone have very much to do with them; and the other minister,

a minister who has been recently appointed to the education portfolio.

And what was one of his first contentions? That a teacher doesn't work.

He asked one of our members who was a former teacher: "Why don't you

get a real job?" That's the kind of.... These are the people who are

going to be distributing that money.

Mr. Speaker, need I say more? How could anybody in their right mind

in a democratic body say yes to this kind of largess, this

unprecedented way of distributing money to a starved system? We can't

say yes. How could we? It would be abdicating our responsibility. I

contend that anybody on any bench in this House who votes for this bill

is abdicating their responsibility. They had a chance; they still have

a chance to amend this bill and put it back where it belongs in the

budget. Without reflecting upon a vote, seeing what they did with the

past one I doubt if it will be any different with this. I say that

sadly, and probably there will be great regret over this system of

handling taxpayers' money in the province of B.C.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Having spoken at length in introducing second reading, it's with pleasure that I call the question.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 20

Brummet

Waterland

Kempf

Heinrich

Veitch

Pelton

Passarell

Michael

McCarthy

A. Fraser

Nielsen

Gardom

Curtis

Ritchie

McGeer

Chabot

Reid

Johnston

Strachan

Ree

NAYS — 12

Dailly

Cocke

Howard

Stupich

Nicolson

Sanford

Williams

D'Arcy

Hanson

Rose

Lockstead

Mitchell

Bill 4, Education Excellence Appropriation Act, read a second time

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

next sitting of the House after today.

[4:15]

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 3.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move second reading of Bill 3, and I have a few remarks to make.

This bill contains a number of what we might call technical

amendments to the Compensation Stabilization Act. The purpose of these

changes is to clarify certain provisions and to make the day-to-day

operation of the CSP more efficient.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

There are really four main areas in the amending legislation. First,

the Compensation Stabilization Commission Act's definition of

compensation plan is amended to make clear that a compensation plan may

arbitrator or by an arbitration board.

Secondly, three sections of the act — that is, the main act which is

being amended — are amended here to clarify that if the CSP

commissioner finds a compensation plan consisting of an arbitration

award to be outside the compensation stabilization guidelines or

regulations, he has the option of returning the plan either to the

arbitrator or to the parties for revision. This then codifies the

commissioner's long-standing practice and ensures that the parties have

every opportunity to bargain successfully together, whether under the

guidelines or under the regulations.

In this regard, the House will recall that the CSP program has a

two-track system for considering compensation plans. If the

commissioner determines that a plan is outside the guidelines, and if

the necessary changes are not made, then the commissioner can place the

plan under the binding CSP

[ Page 8541 ]

regulations. I'd like to point out that it is an

important — I think a very satisfying — point that with more than 2,800

settlements approved by the CSP, now in its fifth year, not once has

there been a need for the commissioner to resort to compulsory

regulations. I note this in passing as a clear indication of the

success of the program.

The third main amendment adds a provision to the

section of the act

which currently states that no compensation plan can be implemented

until the commissioner has reviewed and approved it. The additional

subsection allows the commissioner, on application by the employer, to

permit an increase in compensation prior to final approval of a plan.

This authority gives the commissioner the latitude, for example, to

approve provisionally a multi-year compensation plan where the first

year is set but the second year is subject to some proviso, perhaps a

wage reopener. This provisional approval feature is of course still

subject to the employer's ability to pay.

Finally, the fourth amendment brings two more public sector

employers under the program. They are the British Columbia Rapid

Transit Company Ltd. and the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Taken together,

these amendments represent minor adjustments to a program which, as I

indicated earlier, has been in place since February 1982.

I move second reading of Bill 3.

MR. STUPICH: I don't intend at this point in time to deal

with the details of the sections. I appreciate the minister's

explanation. Rather, my concern is with the process.

You will recall that Bill 3, when it was first introduced and

debated in the House, was one of the contributing factors to what was a

very hot fall in the province, the fall of 1983, when it was apparent

that the government had introduced a budget and some 26 pieces of

legislation not to achieve restraint but rather to develop

confrontation and to show that cooperation was not going to be the

route in the province of British Columbia. That seemed apparent during

the four or five months that we debated the package of bills and the

budget. There was further evidence of the fact that the government was

seeking confrontation in a presentation by Norman Spector, when he said

that the purpose was not to achieve restraint but rather to prove to

everyone within hearing that the Premier was a tough man. That was the

message that people were supposed to get from it, and it's the message

people did get. So to that degree at least the program, including the

compensation stabilization program, including Bill 3.... It's Bill 3

now; I think it might have been then, but I'm not sure what the number

was. In any case, it was successful in proving to people that the

Premier, the leader of this Social Credit administration, was a tough

person and was leading a tough administration, rather than in achieving

restraint.

There was evidence introduced, and there has been evidence since

then, that restraint indeed was not achieved. The budgets have gone up

every year. In one year it was 18 percent; I recall using that figure

during a budget debate to show that the government has been spending

money at rapidly increasing rates, very large projects, very large

amounts of money. Without any reflection on legislation currently

before the House, we've gone so far from the idea of restraint that we

are now debating in this House allowing two ministers to spend $1.3

billion between them without coming to the House with any explanation.

Restraint has been abandoned totally. It's still preserving the image

of the leader of the government as a tough person, although he talks

cooperation and consultation.

Mr. Speaker, you'll recall that the first mention of these

amendments — not specifically but the proposal that there would be

amendments — was made public in a speech by the Premier when he said in

a television address on February 5, 1986, that the Minister of Finance

would be announcing some changes in the compensation stabilization

program in the coming days. This was at a time when tough negotiations

were going on, serious negotiations between representatives of the

BCGEU and representatives from the government side. They were

negotiating in good faith, only to be told in a television address by

the Premier that the legislation that was hanging over all of their

heads in their negotiations, the legislation that the minister talked

about, permits parties to bargain.... I don't think he used the words

"in good faith," but we've heard many times that it's supposed to allow

parties to bargain in good faith. While they're at the bargaining

table, the legislation hanging over all of their heads, they're told by

the Premier that it's going to be changed. Is that bargaining in good

faith?

It came at a very critical point in negotiations between the union

and the government. Of course that set back the bargaining process, set

back the meetings. The whole process was damaged terribly by that

statement by the Premier. Negotiations were suspended. While one of the

parties at least.... I'm not sure about the government negotiators, but

certainly the people on the other side of the table sought some

clarification from the Premier. Just what was he talking about? Were

there going to be minor changes of the kind that we see today,

important in some areas but nevertheless relatively minor compared with

the total program? Was the program going to be thrown out totally, as

we had been promised at one time? What was going to be done?

The Premier was asked publicly a few days later, on February 9, on

the CHEK-TV program "For The Record." The Premier said that

communications were going on regarding CSP changes, but he wouldn't

give any details. In response to the Premier's address after that, the

Leader of the Opposition said that in presenting that program

originally the Premier promised that new jobs and improved services are

dependent upon wage freezes in the public sector and that's why the

program was brought in. But there's been no evidence of new jobs, no

evidence of improved services. Indeed, quite the opposite; there are

more people unemployed and on social assistance, and education and

health services have deteriorated terribly. So from that point of view

the program has been a total failure — not just that program, but

everything else that the government embarked upon attendant upon that

July budget in 1983. Thousands of jobs were eliminated. New jobs were

not created.

In the province of Manitoba a deal was made. The government did

bargain with government employees, and they agreed not to ask for a

wage increase on the condition that their jobs be protected, that there

not be massive layoffs as there were in the province of British

Columbia. Mr. Speaker, that government kept that promise. The

government in the province of British Columbia did not keep the many

promises that were made during the fall of 1983.

The money that the Premier did save by firing people in the public

service — by the so-called restraint program, the program that

admittedly since then has been described as a program simply to give

the Premier a tough image — was not saved to the taxpayers, because

deficits have increased and

[ Page 8542 ]

our borrowing has increased year after year. All it

has done is that the money instead of being saved was redirected into

massive public works projects which have provided some employment, a

lot of it for people outside of the province, and provided some

increase in the economy, again benefiting people from outside of the

province more than those within the province.

With that budget in July, the Premier, the Minister of Finance and

the government promoted confrontation and have done nothing to change

that since. The Premier talked about consultation. To this day there

has been no consultation between the trade union side of the table and

the government about the amendments until the amendments were tabled in

the House. That was the first knowledge they had of the details of

those amendments, from everything I have been able to find out. When

the Premier offered consultation, the BCGEU tried to approach the

Premier to ask what was happening. He was not able to see them. They

tried to see the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance suggested

that they talk it over with the deputy minister of Finance, who was

instructed publicly that he could attend the meetings if he kept his

mouth shut and his ears open. That is not consultation; yet that was

what they were offered, consultation. There has been no attempt to get

any meaningful level of cooperation from government employees or from

any of the public agency employees, and there never has been from the

time that budget was introduced early in July of 1983.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The commissioner, by this legislation, does have some further

authority, but from where does he get his advice in exerting this

authority? You recall, Mr. Speaker, when a couple of appointments

raised eyebrows so much that one of the members for Victoria asked that

the commissioner review these two appointments and the salaries that

were offered. One of them was a person by the name of Doug Heal; the

commissioner did review that. Another one that he was asked to review

was a Michael A. Bailey. The increases or the salaries that were being

set for these two people were very high compared to other salaries that

were being offered at the same time. But wonder upon wonders, the

commissioner found that in one case it was quite reasonable and in the

other case a few dollars knocked off it would make it very reasonable.

I can only suggest that when the Premier said that he felt these were

reasonable figures the commissioner found it in his interests to accept

the Premier's advice. There are other examples of increases that have

been awarded, and in some cases not awarded, where the Premier has said

in advance what he thinks the answer should be, and in every instance

where that has happened, to my knowledge, the commissioner has found it

reasonable to agree with what the Premier suggested.

Mr. Speaker, the whole thing is a farce. The whole thing has

developed confrontation rather than cooperation. If we are to recover

from the sickness that we are in in the province of British Columbia —

and we were brought there to a large degree because of the actions of

this government, in particular the actions started with that budget of

July 1983 — we have to follow the advice of the Leader of the

Opposition, which is to start cooperating with people rather than

browbeating them and telling them, after the decisions have been made,

exactly what are going to be, their conditions of employment and their

remuneration.

This is not free collective bargaining by any stretch of the

imagination. There has been no attempt to do anything other than prove

that the government is boss. Mr. Speaker, that is bound to create

further confrontation. It is bound to build up walls of dissatisfaction

that people are waiting to jump over. We're building up a lot of

trouble for the future by deciding that it's in the interests of the

Social Credit Party and the Social Credit government to continue

showing that they are boss, that they are tough and that they will run

this province to suit themselves.

I'm departing from the minor changes in the Compensation

Stabilization Act that are before us now. Because it's the process

itself, the way in which these amendments were first talked about when

bargaining was going on. The ground was suddenly whipped out from under

them, because they were told that the goal-posts were going to be

moved, without being given any details, without being promised that

there would be consultation, and then were given no consultation, no

opportunities for consultation. It's the whole process.

[4:30]

The only way to show our dissatisfaction with the way in which the

government has handled this particular program is to vote against the

bill before us now. I wish there were some other way. I think there

will be another way sometime. Within the next two years there will be;

I'm not sure when there will be. Certainly I'll do my best to make sure

that that message is brought to the voters of this province at that

time. But in the meantime we can only say that we're dissatisfied.

We're opposed to what the Social Credit administration has done to the

people of British Columbia since July 1983 and will express it at this

particular moment by voting against Bill 3 in second reading.

MR. ROSE: I'm always a little bit skeptical when a minister

gets up and introduces what is so-called housekeeping legislation: it's

a minor amendment; it's a minor housekeeping amendment. He belittles

his own bill, which I think he should; he has a perfect right to. I'd

just as soon belittle it. We'll see what you said when Hansard

is printed. We'll have a look at the tapes. I wouldn't want you to

condemn yourself out of your own mouth. I wouldn't want you to mislead

the House, or anything like that.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Are you suggesting I did?

MR. ROSE: No, I'm suggesting it would be inappropriate for a

minister of your stature to be caught misleading the House; that is, to

be caught would be inappropriate.

Mr. Speaker, we live in a kind of fantasy land here when we talk

about free collective bargaining, and freedom in our society and in the

economy. I hope that the minister doesn't suggest that somehow this

particular compensation commission is enhancing our rights under free

collective bargaining. When he says there are 2,800 settlements that

haven't been challenged, and that somehow this ensures that we have

democracy in labour and bargaining rights in this province, it's an

absolute fantasy. It's an absolute fraud; I think that anybody that's

had any experience with it will know that. Even the ability-to-pay

question surrounding this whole thing is, I think, distorted. If you

believe in free collective bargaining, then you cannot see the

imposition of extra powers by the compensation commission as

contributing to that. It's just a lie. It just doesn't work that way.

This is not free collective bargaining at all.

[ Page 8543 ]

Under the School Act, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, teachers and

their employers are required each fall to undertake negotiations which

will ultimately, if not completed to the satisfaction of either or both

parties, end in arbitration. Once an arbitration award is made, then it

goes to our friend Mr. Peck to rule upon. What's that got to do with

the employees and the employers getting together and settling some

agreement, when the power is all in the hands of the government?

When the school boards, a number of them, defied the government on

its total framework, who walks in but the Minister of Finance? On the

last day of the teachers' convention last year he issued a directive.

The myth is that school boards are free, autonomously elected bodies

with certain kinds of rights. They've been stripped. Never mind the

teachers' rights for the moment; the school boards' rights have been

stripped.

When they did come to settlements with them that required the layoff

of teachers, then the government began to feel the heat. So the

Minister of Finance walks in and issues a directive to all boards: "You

can't fire anybody." This was called the teacher employment saving

strategy, or some other gobbledegook dreamed up by somebody like Norman

Spector or some other word merchant. What happened? It was challenged

in the courts, and the minister lost. He was told that he had gone

beyond his powers. My God, his powers are considerable, but that even

wasn't enough for him; he went beyond even those. So that's a lot of

nonsense.

All right, what's happening now? First of all, we've got this

three-tiered educational finance system, which again we've discussed on

many occasions, and this isn't the time to do it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Tiers are not enough.

MR. ROSE: Well, three tiers are not enough anyway. Not enough for a famine in educational funding.

MR. WILLIAMS: Great line!

MR. ROSE: I know it is. I was quoted for that line.

What's happening now in many school districts is that they've gone

to arbitration and they can't even agree on the third arbitrator. The

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty), now in nine school districts

that I know of, has been asked to put in the third arbitrator, and

because of their Social Credit connections some of them are not

acceptable to the teachers or the trustees. But what difference does

that make? There's no money for education, but there's all kinds of

money for lawyers, for arbitrators, for people like that. We can

squander thousands of public dollars on that. For what purpose? Because

when the arbitration award comes down, if Peck doesn't like it, it's

out the window anyway.

All this nonsense about going through and enhancing and protecting

the general public and all this is absolute tommyrot. What do you think

forced the teachers into a position now? Teachers, who are normally

very cooperative people, who wouldn't raise a fuss, wouldn't carry a

picket sign, wouldn't do anything.... The confrontation by this

minister and other ministers of this government has forced their

general membership to accept the recommendation of the right to strike.

They don't come under the Labour Code, so they don't have that right at

the moment.

Are you up on another point of order?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Just stretching.

MR. ROSE: Oh, I see, you're having a stretch. I thought I'd

aroused you sufficiently out of your somnolence that you might get up

and debate with me on this subject, but you've spoken once on it anyway

and you can't do that now. Or the Speaker will get.... Now he's coming

over here to threaten me. He's gone.

Mr. Speaker, teachers have been forced to take what, for them, are

extreme measures. Without this government there would be.... Now this

isn't the so-called pinkos in the teacher executive — the BCTF. Not

those irresponsible lefties. This is the rank-and-file teachers by

referendum, because they have been stripped of their bargaining

rights....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Convention. What difference does it make? It will be in. You'll hear about that one, too.

MR. REID: What are they doing in Cowichan-Malahat?

MR. ROSE: I'll tell you what they're doing in

Cowichan-Malahat. The teachers in Cowichan-Malahat were given this

option. I'm glad you brought that up. I wish you knew as much about

Surrey as you do about Cowichan-Malahat. Sorry — Surrey. I'd like the

members for Surrey, instead of sitting there sniping all the time, to

get up and make a speech. Are you speechless?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. ROSE: All you do is kibitz.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment, please. I'll ask the member

now taking his place in debate to address the Chair — that will help —

and the members for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston and Mr. Reid) not to

interrupt.

MR. ROSE: Jekyll and Hyde over there, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the bill, please.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, Jekyll and Hyde over there seldom make speeches.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no.

MR. ROSE: They hide in the weeds, and they're....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no.

MR. ROSE: And they're cheap-shot artists of the first....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. We're now on Bill 3. Please proceed.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 8544 ]

MR. ROSE: May I proceed, Mr. Speaker?

The confrontational approach of this government has forced many

people who have never thought of themselves as being militant, or even

being employed other than as professionals, to seek a labour solution —

the right to strike, the right to free collective bargaining — because

it has been stripped from them. That's what this has done, and that's

what Mr. Peck's little commission has done. When the Finance minister's

directive was thrown out by the courts, what did they do? They changed

the direction of educational financing, stole the autonomy from local

school boards and urged teachers to break contracts.

Let's talk about Cowichan-Malahat. Here was the option in

Cowichan-Malahat. I believe it was 25 teachers who were given the

choice of either taking a cut, not taking their increments or losing

their jobs, right? What Cowichan-Malahat tried to do was to break its

contract with the teachers. And this bunch over here will be breaking

contracts all over the place whenever they can get away with it. What

do they substitute for it? Some slush fund, some pork like Bill 4, or

some other little stunt. You haven't got any credibility at all anymore

with teachers or trustees. Even your friends in the trustees, even

members of your own party, have had it up to here with you. You're in

really bad shape in educational matters. Do your own polling. As a

matter of fact, you're in bad shape all....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: You know it. That's why we have this big retirement party coming up.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, please don't interrupt. I'll

ask the member if he could return to the principle of Bill 3,

compensation stabilization.

MR. ROSE: It makes a joke out of any kind of arbitration

award given in school districts because it has an override power.

That's a basic objection that I have to it. It makes it lunacy for us

to be spending money, whether it's the teachers' own money or public

money on behalf of the trustees, to pay more lawyers to come to an

arbitrated settlement when it can be overridden. It makes no sense at

all. That's my basic objection to it. That's why I'm voting against

these so-called housekeeping amendments.

MR. COCKE: I'm utterly amazed. I thought the member for

Surrey (Mr. Reid) was going to jump to his feet and defend the Minister

of Finance in his hour of need.

MR. REID: When he needs me, I'm right here.

MR. COCKE: That's right. "When he needs me, I'm right here" — for the vote. Silent Sam they call him, except as a rejoinder artist.

I have very little to say about Bill 3 because it doesn't deserve

very much comment. Right from day one, right from their 1981 statement

vis-à-vis restraint and all the rest of it, this government has been on

a number of courses which from time to time collide. They tell us there

should be this stabilization, etc., etc., and Ed Peck has the last

word. Then you'll notice that when a group is bargaining — the BCGEU

I'm commenting on at the moment — right in the middle of that

bargaining the hon. Minister of Finance gets up and tells the world

through the press that there's no money, so why bargain?

Why then have compensation stabilization? If anybody is going to

make a comment after the bargaining has come to a conclusion, why have

them if the minister is going to do that beforehand? That's exactly

what happened.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not relevant to this bill, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: It's totally relevant to compensation

stabilization. Don't forget, Mr. Speaker, when you open up a statute

with an amendment, the whole statute is there for debate. You know that

as well as I do. That's really what I'm commenting on. Why do we have

the statute when the minister stands as a buffer to that very statute

that he authors? Really, the whole thing is a mockery.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and the member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) said it all. It has created chaos, which we

don't need in tough times. I'm not going to blame the government for

all of the tough times. I'm going to blame you for plenty, but

certainly you're not the author of all of it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Fifty-fifty.

MR. COCKE: My colleague says fifty-fifty. That's really the

most generous thing you've said for a long, long time. That's the most

complimentary thing I've heard about the Socreds in lo, these many days.

In any event, through this kind of activity we have created a

schizophrenia out there that's beyond belief. Nobody really knows where

they're supposed to go, how they're supposed to get there. They do

their bargaining, and if it gets by the minister, then it gets to this

other level in the Compensation Stabilization Act, and it may have been

all in vain.

[4:45]

I just think there should be a lot better way of organizing our

whole economic outlook. Certainly there should be a better way of

dealing with the valued employees of government. They have really taken

it in the neck. Not only have they been drawn and quartered in terms of

numbers, but they've also been drawn and quartered in terms of knowing

what to expect, where to go and how to get there. It has created

confusion, and at this time we should be talking in terms of something

other than confusion.

I thought these were the great freedom fighters, the great free-enterprisers who believe in...

AN HON. MEMBER: Reason.

MR. COCKE: That too.

...the right to negotiate, the right of people to uphold their

views. But obviously these words of mine are all in vain. The

government will do what it feels it has to do, and it'll do so without

my support.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised that the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I certainly accept the statement of the

member for New Westminster that when a bill is amended it is open for

debate. The member for Coquitlam-Moody is

[ Page 8545 ]

not here, but I did not say these were housekeeping

amendments — which is an overused word, it seems to me. Rather, they're

fairly narrow amendments to a bill which has been on the order paper

for quite some time.

It's a program which has worked extremely well in restoring a

balance between the private sector in B.C., and its ability to pay, and

the public sector. It has been examined with great interest and in a

very supportive fashion in a number of other jurisdictions. It has

flexibility with the times, whether the treasury of the province is in

good or excellent condition or rather less than we would like. That

flexibility has been shown time and time again.

I cited the fact that over 2,800 plans had been settled under the

guidelines rather than by the full force of the legislation and the

regulations. I think that all thoughtful British Columbians should be

proud of that, and I think they are. I think they recognize that it

introduces an element of fairness into an area where frequently there

is confrontation. You may not agree with the principle, Mr. Second

Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). Admittedly some of them were

for very small bargaining units — a handful of people. Others were for

very large units. But not one since the program was introduced was done

under the more stringent regulations. It's a record to be proud of, a

program to be proud of, a program which I believe will remain in place

in B.C. for quite some time to come — and so it should.

Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 3.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 18

Brummet

Waterland

Kempf

Heinrich

Veitch

Pelton

Passarell

Michael

McCarthy

Fraser

Gardom

Curtis

Ritchie

McGeer

Chabot

Reid

Johnston

Strachan

NAYS — 13

Dailly

Cocke

Howard

Stupich

Nicolson

Sanford

Williams

Hanson

Rose

Lockstead

Mitchell

Blencoe

Lauk

Bill 3, Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1986, read a

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

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 9, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR FUEL TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

The House in committee on Bill 9; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 9, Motor Fuel Tax Amendment Act, 1986, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 10.

INSURANCE PREMIUM TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

The House in committee on Bill 10; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MR. STUPICH: During second reading I asked the minister

whether there is any evidence at all — I believe there was evidence at

one time — that the companies with head offices outside of British

Columbia do a better job of investing in B.C. than do the ones with

headquarters in B.C. I believe the minister was interested in that

enough to say that he might respond during committee stage if he had

any figures.

[5:00]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, it is correct that in second reading

debate the member for Nanaimo commented that it might be that insurance

companies with head offices in British Columbia had not done quite the

same quality of job of investing their funds in the province. So we

examined that. I don't know that I have numbers as such, but certainly

we have some information which I think might be helpful.

The details of investment by type and by jurisdiction are not

available. I think you would appreciate that. But the indications are

that the nature of investment by B.C.-headquartered insurance companies

is a function of company size more than any other factor. It will also

be known by all members of the committee that by insurance industry

standards B.C.-based companies are relatively small. They perhaps

cannot afford some of the investments that might be categorized as a

little more risky than others. Their investments therefore tend to be

conservative. Many eastern-based companies or central Canadian

companies with significant sums of money and assets can better afford

risk.

That perhaps may not be the definitive answer the member seeks, but

we do not sense that B.C.-headquartered companies have avoided on a pro

rata basis investing in British Columbia.

MR. STUPICH: I thank the minister for that. I would have

thought the same thing, that the B.C.-based companies must be very

small, or relatively small. Yet I notice that the revenue impact, as I

recall, is $3 million a year. So it would seem to be that they must be

of a fairly substantial size if the difference in revenue is $3 million

a year.

[ Page 8546 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Small by what standard? Yes, the revenue

number is correct. I suppose it's another indication of the size of the

industry in the nation as a whole.

MR. STUPICH: Again I recall from second reading that the

minister said that this is the sort of program that they could watch

and that if they felt that there were abuses or if they felt that the

industry were not conducting itself in a manner that was in the

interests of the people of British Columbia, then regulations could be

changed so that they might be persuaded. I would certainly hope that

the minister will recall that, and maybe one day he'll be reminding

somebody else on the other side of the House.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I hope the latter doesn't occur, but

obviously these regulations, as must all others, must be consistent

with the legislation. But I can tell the committee that the exemption

will require certification by the commissioner of income tax on the

basis of guidelines which flow from the regulations. I don't expect nor

did the member suggest in his comment that there would be abuses. But

in the event that we find there are, or something that is not quite in

tune with the intent of the legislation and the ancillary regulations,

then certainly we will move to correct them.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 10, Insurance Premium Tax Amendment Act, 1986, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

TAXATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

The House in committee on Bill 11; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I must confess I haven't done my

homework on this. I'm just wondering, the commissioner may now make

refunds. Is there a limit on that? If a person is entitled to a refund,

is that it?

HON. MR. CURTIS: To the member, no. A refund is a refund is a

refund. If it's legitimate, then the commissioner may make the refund,

but it's of tax overpaid as a result of a tax rate change or of tax

paid in error. We see little likelihood for that amount to be in

dispute. The minister will continue to be responsible for tax refunds

where there has been an appeal saying: "This is my view of it versus

yours."

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to congratulate the minister on including this amendment. I think it makes eminent good sense.

Sections 16 to 23 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 11, Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1986, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 23, Mr. Speaker.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1986

The House in committee on Bill 23; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, this tax return, is it a

provincial tax return that

section 5 refers to? It certainly can't, I

would think, exempt a charity from filing a federal tax return. I

wasn't aware that there was a provincial tax return. I know that

charities have to file returns with the provincial governments and file

tax returns with Revenue Canada, but I'm just not sure about this. I'm

not sure what they're being exempted from in this particular section.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Registered charities have been exempted from

the requirement to file tax returns. The

section also imposes a

requirement to file on taxpayers who have been able to offset their tax

liability by the application of certain income tax credits. My view of

this

section is, as with others, that it is designed to bring the B.C.

tax law into line with federal tax law. It's not a provincial tax

return. The member is correct in the negative of his question when he

commenced.

Sections 5 to 15 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 8547 ]

Bill 23, Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1986 reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

On vote 72: minister's office, $226,849.

HON. A. FRASER: I hope you can hear me. I have the worst

affliction any politician could have. I have laryngitis. But I am happy

to say a few brief words in introduction of the estimates of this

ministry. I have been waiting with bated breath for three months for

this day to happen.

Last year was a big year for the ministry, and this year is another

one. I believe the budget last year was $1 billion; and this year it is

around an even billion. The main increase is in the two large projects:

phase 1 and part of phase 2 of the Coquihalla, and the Annacis bridge

crossing of the Fraser River. So with those two projects, plus regular

construction and maintenance, the budget is certainly a fair size.

I might say it was government policy, decided in 1984, to step up

the expenditures of Transportation and Highways, because we needed the

additional facilities; but we also were anxious to create jobs, and it

has had both effects, as you know.

Phase 1 of the Coquihalla is open and we've had.... I want to pay

tribute to our engineers, our contractors and our workmen for pushing

phase 1 from Hope to Merritt through in a period of 20 months over some

of the toughest terrain in Canada. They are to be complimented for

doing an excellent job in a very short period of time under very

difficult conditions. In effect, the construction period they worked in

was two winters and one summer. It would have been a lot better, I

think, if it had been two summers and one winter. But they did work two

winters and one summer to achieve that.

We have let all the contracts on phase 2 from Merritt to Kamloops,

with the exception of the paving contracts — there might be one. I

believe that a value of about $80 million has been awarded on phase 2.

I believe all those contractors are now at work. It is anticipated that

phase 2 from Merritt to Kamloops will be completed by freeze-up 1987.

We awarded the first contract on phase 3 just recently. Work will be

starting now from Peachland to Merritt.

I would just tell the committee that this ministry is responsible

for B.C. Ferries. We are responsible for the motor vehicle branch,

which includes motor vehicle licensing and driver licensing. We are

responsible for safety only on the B.C. Railway. We are responsible for

the Motor Carrier Commission, which is semi-autonomous. We have the

airport assistance program.

That's a brief introduction. I would also like to introduce my

deputy minister. We have a new deputy minister, Tom Johnson. He was

appointed deputy minister on January 1, 1986. Before that he was the

assistant deputy minister. We have other staff people here as well. So

I look forward to debate on the estimates.

[5:15]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me inform the

committee that we understand the minister's affliction. Hopefully it

will be temporary. I must say I admire the minister for a politician,

as the minister has stated, to partially lose his voice in the middle

of estimates is really sad — and the leadership contest going on as

well. I'm just waiting for that minister, whom I've known for many,

many years, to throw his hat in the ring. You'd get a lot of support

from us non–city slickers, I can tell you that.

Secondly, I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr.

Johnson for having risen through the ranks to Deputy Minister of

Highways. I've had the opportunity of working with...I'm not sure about

working with, but of having consulted with Mr. Johnson on many items

over the years. I recall when he was totally in charge of the

highways-operated ferry system. He was always available, answered my

questions, answered my mail. I appreciated that, so my congratulations

to Mr. Johnson.

We have something like 40 minutes left in these estimates....

AN. HON. MEMBER: Hurry up.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: For today only. We possibly have several

weeks, but in today's sitting we have some 40 minutes left. We have

some major questions on matters such as the Coquihalla, the Annacis

Bridge, B.C. Ferries, airport assistance programs, but I've decided not

to get into those matters here this afternoon in the short time we

have. I hate starting a major debate, if you wish to call it that. on

some of these so called major items, and then having to break up the

debate and continue next day. I find we usually end up doing the same

debate twice if we go to two days.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I try not to be but I often am, like the other people in this House.

What I thought I would do is concentrate on.... I've never done this

before: opened a debate of this nature concentrating on a few

constituency items. But I'm going to get into them sooner or later, so

it may as well be sooner and we'll finish off today. Before I do that,

Mr. Chairman, the member for Comox, who is not — for very good reasons

— going to be present tomorrow but is here this afternoon.... I know

the member for Comox has some questions for the minister, so rather

than get into the meat of the debate at this very moment, I will take

my seat and give the member for Comox an opportunity to pose her

questions to the minister.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, for some reason the minister

doesn't look surprised — he expects me to be on my feet during these

estimates. As a matter of fact, I started out last year during the

estimated expenditures of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways

by suggesting that the minister was probably tired of hearing from the

member for Comox, because every year I approach these estimates in the

same vein: I make an absolute appeal to the minister on behalf of the

constituents of Comox in order to rectify what is a great injustice, in

my view. We in the constituency of Comox have been neglected in terms

of a highway that has needed construction for years and years, and

still we have the Minister of Highways saying: "Oh, it will be some

years yet before there

[ Page 8548 ]

is a highway" — an inland route built north of Parksville through to Menzies Bay just north of Campbell River.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to reiterate the words that I have used

every year in this Legislature for the last 12 years on this issue. The

situation is more crucial than it was then. What I would like to do is

read just a couple of comments, which the minister may not have

received or may not be aware of, from editorial writers in the

constituency and from people who write to me from time to time. The

president of Mt. Washington Ski Resort Ltd., Alex Linton, writes to me

saying that he is in support of the request by the Association of

Vancouver Island Municipalities, who recently made a request to the

minister regarding this highway. Maybe I'll start again so that the

quote will come out accurately in Hansard:

"Dear Mrs. Sanford:

"This letter is in full support of the request by the

Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities for an immediate start of actual

construction of a first-class new Island Highway from Parksville to Campbell

River.

"We operate by far the largest ski resort on Vancouver

Island and employ more people in winter than any other business in Courtenay.

Most of our customers, many from Victoria and district, are becoming increasingly

dissatisfied with the time and frustration involved in the trip up-Island. Some

are coming less often, and others are going instead to Mt. Baker in the U.S.A.,

which should be unacceptable to our tourist industry principles.

"The theme of Expo 86 is alleged to be transportation

and communication and yet travel from Victoria to Courtenay now takes longer

than it did 20 years ago due to congestion and obsolescence on the existing

route.

"It is time to modernize for the future of Vancouver

Island.

Yours truly,

Alex Linton, President"

That sentiment, Mr. Chairman, represents the sentiment of most of the constituents in the constituency of Comox.

An editorial from the Record on May 14, 1986, says:

"Someone must have been asleep at the wheel in the

Highways department when the Island Highway was designed. It is only

May, but already more than 20 people have died this year in a series of

tragic motor vehicle collisions along the highway. Three teenage girls

died Thursday after their car broadsided a truck near Crofton. A

44-year-old Shawnigan Lake woman died Saturday after her car collided

with a school bus at Koksilah Road. Two weeks ago, a toddler strapped

into a back-seat baby carrier was the victim of a three-car collision

near Black Creek.

"You have to wonder how many people have to die on the

highway before the government finally agrees to reconstruct it or build

a new one. The twisted two-lane highway serves a fatal combination of

holiday sightseers, logging trucks, seniors heading out to the local

store and impatient commuters. Add to that an unlimited number of

connector roads, cars pulling on and off the highway and a scattering

of small towns along a beautiful, distracting route and you have a

daily horror show."

I'm not going to read the whole editorial, but those are the

sentiments expressed in the constituency. The Association of Vancouver

Island Municipalities in its convention in March passed unanimously a

resolution calling for the immediate construction of the bypass route.

The Associated Chambers of Commerce of Vancouver Island have passed a

similar motion. At a more recent conference held at the Association of

Vancouver Island Municipalities, they set up a number of workshops to

discuss various issues related to the Island. There was only one

workshop that the delegates attended, and that related to the inland

route.

I'm going to read one other

section out of a letter. This is a letter from a Ken Livingstone, who says:

"I'm neither a member of the Social Credit party nor

the NDP I'm just a disgusted Island resident who would like to see some

semblance of fair play in the expenditure of the Highways department's

dollars on Vancouver Island.

"Mr. Fraser, we know that you have people in your

department who are real wizards at highway construction. Tell me, sir,

once the last cow path has been paved in the last Social Credit riding,

is there a chance we Islanders, obdurate as we may be in our voting

habits, can expect some consideration for the tax money we have been

paying for years, and for which we have so little to show?"

Then I must make reference to a comment made by a person who is

getting some publicity these days, who, during his travels throughout

the province, made some comments when he was in the constituency of

Comox. This person's name is Bud Smith. I see them all cringing over

there at the mention of the name. "Bud Smith indicates that Sanford and

the NDP leader have continually attacked provincial Highways budgets;

and that such attacks have influenced government highway spending

priorities. 'Your MLA has bad-mouthed Highways budgets."' Do you

remember that, Mr. Minister?

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: I have been up here on my feet calling for the construction of that highway for 12....

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: '"...has bad-mouthed Highways budgets, and the

minister must assume that this n