1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

FRIDAY, JUNE 4, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

7997 ]

CONTENTS

Waste Management Act (Bill 52). Hon. Mr. Rogers

Introduction and first reading –– 7997

Provincial Debt Refinancing Act, 1982 (Bill 35). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 7997

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

On vote 22: minister's office –– 7997

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Forest Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 42). (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

Third reading –– 7998

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 30). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7998

Mr. Stupich –– 7998

Mr. Levi –– 7999

Mr. Mitchell –– 7999

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8000

Special Appropriations Act (Bill 11). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

section 1 –– 8001

Mr. Stupich

section 2 –– 8001

Mr. Stupich

section 3 –– 8001

Mr. Stupich

On the amendment to

section 10 –– 8002

Mr. Stupich

Mrs. Wallace

section 10 as amended –– 8003

Mrs. Wallace

Hon. Mr. Waterland

Mr. King

Mr. Lorimer

Mr. Davis

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Lauk

section 13 –– 8008

Mr. Stupich

Mrs. Wallace

On the amendment to

section 17 –– 8008

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Stupich

section 18 –– 8009

Mr. Stupich

section 24 –– 8009

Mr. Stupich

section 41 — 8010

Mrs. Wallace

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 4). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Fraser)

Mr. Lorimer –– 8011

Mr. Levi –– 8011

Appendix

Ammendments to Bills –– 8015

FRIDAY, JUNE 4, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MS. BROWN: A group of parents and

children is visiting the Legislature today agitating — I shouldn't use

the word I agitating," but demonstrating — on behalf of the need for

more child-care facilities. Would the House recognize their presence,

please.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed,

last Wednesday the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat sought to move

adjournment of the House pursuant to standing order 35 to discuss a

matter of urgent public importance, namely the request of a public

group for a meeting with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt) in response to a letter from him dated May 7, 1982. The matter

must be urgent, that is, of recent occurrence, and raised without

delay. On page 370 of the sixteenth edition of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice , this rule is further qualified:

"The

fact that a grievance is continuing is not sufficient if it is not a

recent occurrence. The fact that new information is received regarding

a matter that has been continuing for some time does not in itself make

the matter one of urgency. If the facts have only been recently

revealed, that does not make the occurrence recent."

In the case at hand, this application lacks the essential degree of urgency for debate at this time.

MR. HOWARD:

I rise on a point of privilege with respect to a question of privilege

raised by my colleague for Alberni one week and one day ago on May 27,

a question of privilege of great importance. I submit to Your Honour

that the continued delay in Your Honour's bringing back a ruling on

that particular question of privilege continues to hold a cloud over

the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

McClelland), I would urge on Your Honour, with all respect to the Chair

and the office, that justice delayed is justice denied.

MR. SPEAKER:

I know that the matter is of great concern to members of the House, and

I know that the gravity of the matter occurs to members because of the

merits of the case. The Chair in its ruling cannot take into

consideration the matters of the case, but must consider the technical

aspects of the question, which in this case are rather complex. I think

if the hon. members would refer to the Blues at the time the matter was

raised, it would occur even to the members that a delay in this was not

planned but inevitable. However, hon. members, the decision will be to

the House as quickly as possible, and I trust that there will be no

reflection upon the lateness of the decision, attributing that lateness

as some device — may the saints preserve us! — of the Chair. So I would

like to give the House that undertaking, which is of course always the

case with the Chair.

Introduction of Bills

WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT

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

a bill intituled Waste Management Act.

Bill

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

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

PROVINCIAL DEBT REFINANCING ACT, 1982

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

a bill intituled Provincial Debt Refinancing Act, 1982.

Bill

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

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

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of standing order 35 to seek

leave to move adjournment of the House to debate a matter of urgent

public importance.

For the third month in a row the

unemployment rate in this province is at a crisis level — a

post-depression era record. The figures released today show that

220,000 persons in British Columbia are without work today. That

situation is of the gravest possible concern to myself and my

colleagues, and we are not satisfied with the do-nothing attitude of

this government on this issue. With an unemployment rate that is triple

that of a year ago in some areas of this province — for example, the

Prince George region has a rate of 19.6 percent compared to 6.9 percent

a year ago — it is imperative that the Legislature address the failure

of this government to put British Columbians back to work. The anguish

and the despair created in our populace by the high unemployment levels

require that the regular business of this House be set aside so that we

can debate this urgent problem, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member submits the matter and the proposed motion.

The Chair will take the matter under advisement and return a decision at the earliest possible time.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On vote 22: minister's office, $299,040.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

[ Page 7998 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would move to public bills and orders. I call report on Bill 42.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Bill 42 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 30.

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. CURTIS:

As the House will know, Bill 30, Social Service Tax Amendment Act,

1982, was introduced at the time of the budget, just about two months

ago. It includes a number of amendments and, as the House will note, is

comprised of 14 sections dealing with a variety of matters that were

spoken of at some length in the budget. Several amendments are

necessary as a result of actions in which the Ministry of Finance has

become involved in the past year. In speaking to the principle of a

bill such as this at any time, it is appropriate to point out that it

is essential the government maintain the revenue base of the Social

Service Tax Act in order to provide the many services which residents

of British Columbia have become accustomed to. Accordingly, it has been

necessary to make several technical amendments to ensure that the tax

revenue through the Social Service Tax Act is maintained.

There

are other matters within the bill dealing with long-term lease

agreements. Where those are broken, in accordance with the terms of

those agreements, the whole of the remaining payments become due and

payable to the lessor. When a lessor must sue for payment, he

technically sues for damages for breach of contract instead of for the

actual remaining unpaid lease payments, even though the amount of the

damages is based on those payments. In the current wording of the act,

the tax is imposed on the lease price, and damages are not legally the

same as lease price. As a result, the amendment imposes a tax on the

damages attributable to the unpaid lease payments. The amendment

provides that where the lessor is able to obtain only a fraction of the

total of the lease payments owing, the tax is payable on only that

fraction. Also, where damages are received in excess of the unpaid

lease payments, no tax is payable on the excess.

Elsewhere

in the bill, the act will be amended upon passage in this House by

adding a paragraph to deem that trust moneys collected by vendors are

separate and apart from their own money. Without this provision, the

government would be forced to physically trace its tax moneys in the

accounts of the vendors. I think members will agree that this is

probably an almost impossible task once these moneys are mixed with the

vendor's own funds, whether it be on a small basis or a very large

basis. This provision is similar to those in the Canada Pension Plan

and the Unemployment Insurance Act, which the Supreme Court of Canada

has upheld. So we seek a separation, a distinction, of those moneys

from the actual cash flow of the firm under discussion.

Further,

we are amending the previous exemption of tangible personal property

purchased by farmers solely for the needs of their farm. I might pause

for a moment here to say that I think it is a constantly changing topic

in terms of the specific items that should be exempt from tax when

purchased and used by bona fide farmers.

MRS. WALLACE: It's very slow.

HON. MR. CURTIS: One member interjects that it's very slow. It's a very long list, and I would like to speak about that in just a moment.

The

amendment will allow a detailed list of material and equipment to be

prescribed by regulation in order to provide greater clarity and

certainty of exemptions for farmers. This new list will also provide

farmers with the additional exemptions announced in the budget speech,

effective April 6, 1982. Some of the major new items now to be included

are: auxiliary generating equipment; silos; front-end loaders;

ventilation and air-conditioning equipment, except for residential use;

milk storage tanks; and others.

Those members who are

particularly interested in the farming community will know, as I

indicated a few moments ago, that we have a very long list of

exemptions, and some of them are perhaps a little out of date. I would

refer interested members to such things as turkey saddles; in British

Columbia they would be western. The member knows that the list, which

has existed for a number of years, is constantly undergoing change. We

have had meetings with representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture

and Food. We have also had meetings with the representatives of the

British Columbia Federation of Agriculture. I think the list can be

further improved in the next year or two or three. It can undergo

constant change, with the deletion of those items which are no longer

used by even the small farmer — even a farmer in a relatively remote

and isolated situation.

It is our goal in the consumer

taxation branch, and certainly it is my goal in this respect, to have a

list that is as up to date and useful as possible to the agricultural

community in the province of British Columbia. So we're taking some

steps this year in that regard. These exemptions are being established

to provide additional financial assistance to farmers, in order to

recognize the rising costs of farm operations.

Other

specifics are dealt with in Bill 30. Perhaps the chief critic for the

official opposition expected me to simply say that it could all be

dealt with in committee. We have a series of changes here, as is the

case in most years. I'm pleased to observe that one matter which is not

in this bill — and I trust that I am in order in making this

observation — is a general sales tax increase this year in the province

of British Columbia. That has occurred in a number of provinces, to the

alarm and concern of the residents of those provinces.

Perhaps

in second reading this bill may be considered for what it is: minor

changes. But it also avoids the necessity for a general sales tax

increase in the province of British Columbia in the 1982-83 fiscal

year. I am particularly pleased about that absence.

I move second reading of Bill 30.

MR. STUPICH:

Since the minister has raised the subject of a general increase in the

sales tax rate, I'd like to comment just briefly on it. We would have

had every right to be surprised had their been a general increase in

this particular tax, because it's just three years and one month ago

that this administration was re-elected on a promise that it would

never again increase the sales tax. Of course, as you'll recall, Mr.

Speaker, just one year and two months ago the government did impose a

50 percent increase in the rate of tax. Had they broken their promise

two years in a row, one would have been somewhat surprised. Also, I

think when they drew up this budget they were expecting an election to

be called in the

[ Page 7999 ]

near

future and they were expecting to be re-elected and bring in the

general increase next year. Having said what he did, I'd like the

minister to go on record now and tell us that he will not introduce an

increase in the sales tax rate in next year's budget. I'd like him to

make that forecast.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH:

The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is

laughing. I would remind him that he was one member of the cabinet who

issued that promise in the election campaign in 1979 as part of the

budget of 1979. I knew it was a joke and the people of British Columbia

found out it was a joke. And the minister is now laughing at the

ridiculous suggestion that his group should make that promise today

rather than in the heat of an election campaign. It's good that he does

laugh now, because he knows he wouldn't make that kind of promise

except during an election campaign.

As the minister suggested, most of the discussion with respect to this legislation should be

section by section.

When

the minister started he said that it protects government revenue. When

a Minister of Finance tells us that the bill is designed to protect

government revenue, one takes that as a euphemistic way of saying it's

increasing revenue. To some extent this bill does that, but it does a

lot of other things as well. We have no intention of unduly holding up

the bill in second reading. In the committee stage, there will be

support of some sections; there will be questions asked about other

sections; and there will be opposition to some sections.

The

minister did make some reference to the agricultural part of this — and

perhaps some of my colleagues will want to comment — but I would point

out to him that it is still a prescribed list. So it's not a case of

saying that everything used in agriculture is going to be exempt; I'm

not suggesting it should be that way. There really isn't that much

change. It does add to the list and I might even be inclined to argue

against having any list at all for agriculture, but knowing that the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) seems to be embarking on a

path of getting rid of the farm income assurance program, I think

farmers need the kind of protection that the Minister of Finance can

offer them.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Are you suggesting no exemptions?

MR. STUPICH:

I said I might be inclined toward that if the farm income assurance

program were working properly. Since the government's intention,

through the Minister of Agriculture, is to get rid of that program,

certainly we need exemptions; we need more of them. I'd be interested

in seeing the list again sometime. I have seen it in the past, and

there is a new list coming. I remember one of the anomalies on that

list was that a pitchfork, which I can't imagine being used by anyone

other than a farmer, was taxed,

whereas a shovel, which is used by any

backyard gardener, was one of the items that wasn't to be taxed. I'm

not sure of the situation right now. Was the minister suggesting, Mr.

Speaker, that turkey saddles are going to be removed from the

prescribed list? I just can't imagine….

HON. MR. GARDOM: What is a turkey saddle? Barbara doesn't know either!

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr.

Gardom) is asking what a turkey saddle is. If the minister ever had the

opportunity to see a couple of turkeys mating, then he would know which

one wears the saddle and why. If he saw the claws on the feet of the

male turkey, he would know why the saddle is….

HON. MR. CURTIS: Please, you're upsetting Hansard.

MR. STUPICH: Well, perhaps. But at least I'm answering the question.

any case, Mr. Speaker, we will support the bill in second reading, but

other colleagues of mine may have a comment or two to make.

MR. LEVI:

I just want to raise with the minister…. I don't want to ask him a

question; I just want to point something out to him so that in the

committee stage he can come back and tell us what he has decided to do.

I want to give him an example of one of the things that is missing from

this piece of legislation. I recently visited the Princeton Hotel,

which is in Vancouver, and they have a standard process around the bar

in which they have an old streetcar collection box. They collect money

in it from the patrons — they can put it in, because they always have a

project going.

They had a project going recently in which

they wanted to raise some $9,000 for a piece of equipment for the

Children's Hospital. They raised it. They bought the equipment, and

they presented it to the hospital. However, they were quite surprised —

and a little upset — that they had to pay the sales tax on it. I did

get in touch with your director of sales tax about this, and because of

the definition that you have in your act, because they purchased it and

they had possession of it, they must pay that tax.

I would

ask the minister to give some consideration between now and when we get

into the committee stage to the fact that, if we are encouraging people

— and it's a good thing that people raise money for these things — we

don't suddenly come back on them and say that they have to pay the tax,

because that's the way the act reads. It would seem to me that it does

become a little discouraging. After all, everyone contributing to this

fund is a taxpayer anyway, but the last thing I think they expect is to

be taxed on such an activity and such an essential piece of equipment.

I would ask the minister if he would look at that when we get to the

committee stage, and look at bringing in an amendment which redefines

that

section of the act so that those worthwhile charitable

arrangements do not have to be taxed. I think it's a very worthwhile

thing.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. LEGGATT:

I'd like the House to welcome in the gallery an old friend of both

Norman Levi, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, and I: Mr. John

Kosowick. He is one of the reasons that Norman and I have the privilege

of being in this place. I'd like you to welcome Mr. Kosowick to the

precincts.

MR. MITCHELL: I have to admit that I don't have the largest farming community in my area, but there is one thing

[ Page 8000 ]

that

I would like to bring to the attention of the minister. I realize that

he has changed the farming list. It's not so much what is on the

farming list, but that his particular ministry can twist — and I say

that very loosely — the bureaucratic

interpretation of what a certain

section of the act or the regulations is supposed to mean. Again, I

bring to the attention of the minister the

interpretation that they

brought in on the Bobcats.

The minister and everyone in the

agriculture community knows that the Bobcat was designed as a farm

implement. It was originally developed by a turkey farmer. It's used

extensively both in construction and in the farming industry. The

interpretation of the Bobcat, because it didn't have two large wheels

on the back, was that it was not a farm implement. I'm happy to see

that the minister has now amended it so that it's going to be a piece

of equipment with a front-end loader. The Bobcat is not always equipped

with a front-end loader, but it is still used as a small vehicle that

can get in and around the buildings in a turkey, chicken, or pig farm.

It is used in the farming community. I ask the minister, when there are

appeals for reduction in the sales tax on equipment used in the farm

community, that they do not use this bureaucratic

interpretation.

think I phoned nearly three-quarters of your staff in finding out: what

is the description of a farm vehicle? The only intelligent answer I got

was that it had to have two large wheels at the back and was not a

skid-steerer. As I was talking to the person on the phone, I looked out

my window and there was a vehicle that fitted the description of a farm

vehicle: it had two large wheels at the back, and it was used to mow

the lawns of the parliament buildings. Because it was not on a farm it

would not qualify for an exemption. It was a vehicle that was used just

like the Bobcat in other construction, other industries and other

businesses, but it didn't have the farm status that a piece of

equipment like the Bobcat did have.

It is used in the farm

community, and it is used very effectively. I hope that they don't get

tied up again in that they have to have a front-end loader. It's a farm

vehicle, it's a tractor in the general sense, and it is being used by

bona fide farmers.

I would ask the minister to have a little

compassion, bend his regulations if he feels he must bend them, but

make them flexible enough in the

interpretation, and not get locked

into a simple legalistic wording. I know we have to have legal

definitions, but I believe the community and the society should be able

to work within these regulations. I ask the minister not to drag it

through the courts as he has done with the Bobcat industry and the

Bobcat community. You just don't drag everything into the courts unless

you're a lawyer. The majority of us in this House are not lawyers, and

I think we should still fight it out.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the several members who have made comments in second reading of Bill 30.

the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich): yes, we will obviously want

to discuss a number of matters in committee stage. I cannot answer his

question with respect to tax changes of any kind for the next fiscal

year in the next budget, as the member well knows, having served as

Minister of Finance in the province of British Columbia. I could if the

member could indicate, in the corridor or over a cup of coffee at some

point, where the economy in North America will be. That would assist me

greatly; then I could start my budget work much earlier, if he could

tell me what the prime rate will be in the United States and in Canada.

If he could indicate the housing starts which will occur in the United

States, particularly, then that would be of great assistance. Then I

could in fact answer him in this House in question period. I don't

think we will be in a position to comment on the 1983-84 budget until

we are closer to it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I deal only with budgets, Mr. Member.

The

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) has raised an interesting

point which I will examine. It might be appropriate if, again, we

discuss that specific, and I would be happy to do that. I note that I

don't have his full attention at the moment, Mr. Speaker, but I'm

interested in the comment that he made. I would like a little more

information, and perhaps we can resolve that difficulty within the next

few days if we might have discussion.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) asked for, if I may paraphrase,

less rigidity in the list of items which are exempt from sales tax. Mr. Speaker,

I don't offer this as an exhibit, but rather as a document which is available

to everyone in British Columbia. It isn't necessary to table it but, sir,

as you can see in very small type, these were the exemptions as of April 5 for

the farming community alone. It is necessary to describe the items which are

to be exempted in relatively specific terms. I am not a lawyer, and the member

understands that. He says: "Let's try not to be so legalistic."

If there is not a specific identification of that which is to be exempt or which

is, by absence, not exempt, then it would be very difficult for those in the

consumer taxation branch of the Ministry of Finance to grant an exemption. We

can't run a long list of exemptions, whether in industry, in commerce, in

the agricultural community, for consumers or wherever…. We can't run

a long list of exemptions unless we describe them quite specifically. In the

case of the agricultural community, I don't propose to read from A to Z

— the list doesn't reach any item under Z:

"Aerators;

agricultural lime; animal life of a kind the products of which

ordinarily constitute food for human consumption; automatic travelling

sprinklers for greenhouses; automatic trough feeders and fenceline

feeders; auxiliary generating equipment; bail ejectors; bail loaders;

bail tyers and ties and wire; bail wagons; self-propelled barn

cleaners; bam hay-drying equipment. For fur farmers: drinking cups;

feeding dishes; food grinders; mixers; slicers; wire mesh for cages;

any other item listed as exempt for farmers…gate handles;

gopher-baiting furrow machines; grain augers or elevators; grain

grinders; grain treaters; grain testers; granaries, steel; grape

stakes; grape ties; halters and harnesses for horses; hammer mills;

hardware for harnesses; harrow carts; hormone sprays; horse-drawn

vehicles; horseshoes; horses; working farmhorses; breeding horses,

where not used for any other purposes; incubators and parts;

insecticide applicators; livestock protectors; manure aerating system

above-ground; manure separators; manure spreaders; mattocks; metal

nests; metal wire or netting…."

I will stop there.

[ Page 8001 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Perhaps I should carry on, then: "rakes, raspberry picks, rock

pickers…." I will not test the Chair's patience. It is not a document

which needs to be tabled. It is available to anyone at any time.

The

point is that in British Columbia we now have such a very long list of

exemptions that I do not think we can simply leave this to the

discretion of whoever occupies the position of director of consumer

taxation at the moment. To do that would be to invite chaos. What we

are doing — what I think predecessors have done over the years with the

exemption list on sales tax…. As we receive recommendations or

observations that a particular item is ludicrous to have been left off

or ludicrous to have been left on, in some instances, we do work on

that on a regular basis. This leads to the kind of change that is

occurring as a result of Bill 30. The alternative — I seek absolutely

no misunderstanding — is that which occurred in Ontario just a few days

ago, where the exemption list for social service tax was virtually

eliminated on many items, much to the annoyance of many residents and

consumers in the province of Ontario.

I have to say to the

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew that so long as you have an exemption

list you are going to have something which is not quite in the list or

not quite out of it. Inevitably there will be these kinds of requests.

Bobcat, as I understand it, is a brand name for a particular kind of

front-end loader. There were requests for exemption of Bobcats. It's

not good enough for us to simply exempt Bobcats but rather to go to

front-end loaders.

Because of the complexity of the

exemption list, we may find that there is some item which is similar to

a front-end loader which is not exempt. That is the nature of the

problems created when you have a comprehensive exemption list. I invite

all members not just to call the consumer taxation branch when they are

contacted by a constituent with respect to equipment for bona fide

farmers or exemptions in the retail trade, but to please contact me as

well. Identify the problem for my information in order that the two of

us together may pursue it, and then consider the possibility of an

exemption, addition or clarification at the next tax opportunity.

There

will obviously be further discussion on sections during committee

stage. I thank members, and move second reading of Bill 30.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill

30, Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1982, 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. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: In the gallery today are students from Marigold Elementary School. I wonder if the House would make them welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 11: Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MR. STUPICH:

Section 1(

l) reads: "Payments may be made" — for certain purposes. I'm

not reading the purposes, but the

section identifies the purposes. My

question is whether or not that list is complete. I want to be

reassured, if that is the case, that payments may not be made out of

the consolidated revenue fund and charged against this account for any

purpose other than the ones listed in

section 1.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That is correct.

MR. STUPICH:

We had other legislation before the House that gave the government the

authority to levy an administration fee against a host of enterprises,

funds and everything else. I take it, from the minister's response,

that no administration fee would be charged against this particular

fund.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The assumption the member has made is also correct.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. STUPICH: The very same question; that is, the purposes are outlined and no administration fee will be charged?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The answer again is yes, that is correct.

MR. STUPICH:

I would anticipate that this amount could be drawn down fairly quickly,

depending on the applications and on whether or not these applications

are supported by government. Once that fund is drawn down to a nil

balance it's the end of the program unless something happens to bring

in a new program. So the fund will go out of existence when the last

dollar is spent, unless something else happens.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Yes, for the instruction of the committee, we are looking at downtown

revitalization in

section 2. I don't know that it is correct to assume

that the fund will be drawn to a zero balance. It does depend, as the

member observed, on the number of applications received. Any number of

factors could come into play with respect to this fund.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. STUPICH:

I'd like to ask similar questions about

section 3. First, will it be

charged an administration fee? Secondly, this fund has been in the

category of perpetual funds, which means the principal balance is not

spent; only the interest earnings are spent annually. Will interest

earnings

[ Page 8002 ]

credited to the balance in this fund from here on, or will there be no

such credits unless it's government policy, at some day in the future,

to add some more money to this fund?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Without offending the committee's section-by-section study, I think I

can offer the assurance that the member has put with respect to the

funds already discussed: there is no administration fee in any of those

dealt with here. If I find an exception, I will so notify the committee.

With respect to interests being credited to this fund, the answer is no.

MR. STUPICH:

To this point it has been a perpetual fund, so this is quite a

departure. We are now saying it is no longer a perpetual fund and

moneys will be spent out of the principal balance, since there is no

balance other than the principal balance. It foretells the end of this

particular fund at least, not necessarily what is being done.

also am concerned that while it does provide for education purposes, it

also provides for money to be spent on rehabilitation from the effects

of using drugs, alcohol and cigarettes. That could be quite a wide

loop. This fund could be exhausted in the current fiscal period.

Certainly there are a lot of health problems, a lot of people are

hospitalized, and all kinds of other situations exist whereby this fund

could easily be exhausted in one fiscal period. I'd invite the

minister's comment.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On this

particular section, the member is correct in assuming that the fund

could be exhausted in this fiscal year; that is not only a likelihood

but almost a certainty. In this case we really speak to the heart of

the fiscal problem in which the province, along with other

jurisdictions, finds itself. We also speak to the fact that while many

of these funds were established for specific purposes, the alternative

to not taking the route outlined in this

section and in others would be

a deficit budget. The activities undertaken under the Drug, Alcohol and

Cigarette Education, Prevention and Rehabilitation Fund will be in the

estimates of the Ministry of Health and will continue, while the fund

will without much doubt, be fully depleted by the end of this fiscal

year. That really speaks to the heart of the approach taken in the

Ministry of Finance in preparing this year's budget.

Sections 3 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, you caught me short. I didn't realize there was an

amendment. Is the Habitat Conservation Fund removed from the list? My

apologies for not being…. But then you were a little slow in the

beginning, so we're even.

In any case, I let the other

sections go, because the minister had assured me that if, indeed, there

was an administration fee to be charged against any of them, he would

have remarked on it. I would have asked the same questions, but of

every fund; it would have been the only way I could have found out.

have to oppose this

section — not in total, but the only way to do it,

of course, is in one section. I am concerned about several of these

funds going out of business. They were set up for a good purpose. In

setting up the funds, the government announced its support of certain

activities. I pick, for example, the Barkerville Historic Park

Development Fund; the Drug, Alcohol and Cigarette Education, Prevention

and Rehabilitation Fund; and the Energy Development Fund.

think I need not say anything about Barkerville; I think everyone would

support the idea of people being aware regularly that the government

had set money aside for the development of Barkerville. I think it was

a worthy object. I think the money should be left aside for that

project, and I'm sorry to see that one go out of existence. From what

the minister has said, these funds are going to go out of existence,

and it will depend upon a particular minister as to whether or not he

will do anything at all in that area in a particular year. I have no

confidence that once we do away with the fund, with the pressure of

financial constrictions this year and probably next year, anything will

be done. I'm sorry to see that go.

With respect to drug,

alcohol and cigarette education, again, I think it was important that

people realized that the government was particularly concerned about

the educational problems. Certainly when people get into hospitals….

Some of them will be able to get in, although with this year's policy

of closing down hospital beds, it's going to be harder to get into

hospitals. Nevertheless, certainly a large number of people are going

to get into hospitals and some of them will be there because of

problems related to these particular abuses to one's body.

But

I fear that the educational part of it will suffer. In spite of the

minister telling us that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) will

have this in his budget, I have no confidence that, under this

particular administration and with that particular Minister of Health,

education will get very much consideration. Mr. Chairman, I believe it

will get very short shrift. Even if we had a minister who was dedicated

to the idea of education with respect to these particular abuses, I

still think it's good to remind the people in the province that it is

necessary that we do something educationally, that we have a fund that

is there as a constant reminder, and that there is a perpetual fund,

the interest of which would be available for that kind of a program. So

I'm opposed to wiping out that fund.

I'm opposed to wiping

out the Energy Development Fund. That was set up just two years ago. It

was supposed to be used to encourage people to look for energy

conservation and alternative forms of developing energy. That was a

good program. It hasn't been used. The Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has done a little — but very

little — along the lines of this fund, and yet it's something that's

going to become increasingly important. By wiping out the fund, I think

we're going to lose opportunities to look at what that fund might have

been doing. I'm upset to see it being wiped out as well.

Mr. Chairman, in short, I'm opposed to this particular section.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I wish to offer an amendment from the floor. This is perhaps not directly in line

[ Page 8003 ]

with

the comments made by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), but it may

assist the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace). The further

amendment to

section 10, which is before us, if accepted, would delete

paragraph (h).

Whereas the order paper shows the deletion of (

m) and

(q), (

h) removes the Dairy Producers Protection Fund from the thrust of

this bill. The amendments on the order paper, of course, dealt with the

Farm Income Assurance Fund and Habitat Conservation Fund.

I may speak on this amendment, Mr. Chairman, on examination, these

particular funds are unlike a number of others on the list. I think

that the Habitat Conservation Fund is of particular interest because,

essentially, it receives a variety of money from interested and

supportive individuals; it isn't specifically and exclusively a

government fund. On the basis of representations made by my colleague

the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), it was quite possible

for us to examine that; hence the need for this amendment. There are

the three now before us, if that is acceptable.

MRS. WALLACE:

I'm a little confused at this point. I guess the amendment that we're

discussing is simply the removal of the Dairy Producers Protection

Fund, and the amendment on the order paper is for farm income assurance

and habitat protection. Which amendment are we discussing? To the best

of my knowledge, the question on the first amendment has not yet been

placed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We now have all the amendments before us on this one amendment vote. That's the Chair's understanding.

MRS. WALLACE:

This is an amendment to the amendment. So the amendment on the order

paper now covers the Dairy Producers Protection Fund, the Farm Income

Assurance Fund and the Habitat Conservation Fund.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're right, hon. member. It's the Chair's understanding that it's (h), (

m) and (q).

MRS. WALLACE: All three are under discussion at this point.

I'm

very pleased that the Minister of Finance took my advice and at least

removed the farm income assurance plan from this particular dissolution

of funds. I had raised the matter with him on previous occasions,

indicating the situation that we would be in had it remained. One time

he said there would be an amendment; the next time he said there

wouldn't be. Now I see that we have one. I'm really pleased to see that

he has included farm income assurance.

I will certainly

support the amendment to delete these from this section. Perhaps we

should do that first, before I continue my remarks on the

section

itself. Would that be the proper procedure, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is voted on first, and discussions regarding items (h), (

m) and (

q) are now relevant in debate on the amendment.

Amendment approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat on

section 10 as amended.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to vote against it now after voting for it a second ago? Is that consistency?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, that's consistent. We had advised that there were sections of the bill we were opposed to.

am concerned that the minister has removed certain sections, two of

which relate to the agricultural industry. It is interesting to note in

the original presentation of this particular

section that of the

proposed 25 funds being recovered, seven related to the agricultural

industry. Now he's removed two of those. So five are related to the

agricultural industry: the Agricultural Credit Fund, the Agricultural

Land Development Fund, the Crop Insurance Stabilization Fund, the

Domestic Animal Protection Fund, the Farm Products Industry Improvement

Fund, and, of course, the range portion of the Forest and Range

Resource Fund. Those funds were put in place for a reason. They were

put in place to indicate the government's commitment to agriculture in

those various facets.

Agriculture is a high-capital

industry. It has to plan far ahead. People have made financial

commitments based on the strength of those funds and on that funding

being available and those programs being in place. It's no solace when

you add a few things to the exemption list, which we were discussing in

the previous bill, and then remove these other funds — wipe them out of

existence. That's one reason why I oppose this particular section.

oppose the

section for another but similar reason, but it relates more

generally…. When the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

introduced the Forest and Range Resource Fund, he stood in this House

and said: "This indicates this government's commitment that we're

setting this money aside. It's going to be used for that, and that

indicates the commitment." Now the fund is being removed.

fact, many of these funds were set up under special purpose funds

appropriation acts. That act included

section 29, which was supposed to

indicate the government's intentions. That

section read:

"Notwithstanding any other enactment, all money paid into the fund

shall remain there until the money has been expended in the manner

authorized by this Act." That was a pretty strong commitment in that

section, and people believed it.

AN HON. MEMBER: We didn't.

MRS. WALLACE:

Well, the general public believed it. Maybe we have some questions

because we've learned through experience that this government doesn't

always mean what it says. Certainly this is ample proof that they

didn't mean what they said when they brought in that special

appropriations bill. At that time they would have had us believe that

no matter what other acts were passed, those funds would stay in place.

They would be there, and those funds would be used for that purpose.

Now, of course, in this

section we have those funds being wiped right

out. In a later section, which I can't discuss at this time, that

particular piece of legislation is repealed. That indicates to me that

the government doesn't follow through.

I believe that when

something is passed in this Legislature, it represents a commitment to

the people of the province of British Columbia. and no future

legislature has the right to reverse that decision. That's what's

happening in this section, and that's why I am opposed to it.

[ Page 8004 ]

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, the Forest and Range Resource Fund was indeed set up to

assure us that funds would be available, especially during difficult

revenue times for the government, so that we could carry on the much

enhanced forest and range management work initiated here a few years

ago. I believe that the fact that we are using those funds this year

during difficult revenue times, for the purpose for which they are

intended, indicates a very sincere commitment to carry on with those

programs of forest and range management. Contrary to what the member

says — that it indicates an abandonment of those commitments — it

indicates an even further commitment, because we are willing to spend

what we must in order to carry on with those very worthwhile programs.

really can't follow the logic of the member, who seems to think that if

we leave that money sitting in an account somewhere we are somehow

enhancing the forest and range resource of this province. By spending

the money for what it was intended we are indeed following through with

our long-term commitment.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I

didn't really intend to speak on this, but once the Minister of Forests

has risen, I feel obliged to make a few comments, and perhaps help to

explain to him my colleagues' concern, my own concern, and indeed the

concern that has been directed to the minister, to the Premier, and to

the government generally from the Professional Foresters Association

and from various parts of the industry. I have copies of many of the

letters the minister has received; I intend to deal with them mainly

under the minister's estimates.

The concern regarding the

elimination of the Forest and Range Resource Fund is that the fund,

which was set up by the Legislature as a five-year commitment to

intensive forest management, has now been eliminated and placed in

general revenue. While a portion of the funds allocated will in fact be

utilized this year through the ministry budget, the five-year

commitment is gone, and that's what concerns the professional

foresters, the industry and the opposition, because it's the withdrawal

of a long-term commitment. The minister well knows that intensive

forest management cannot be turned on and off each year. It has to be a

long-term commitment. You don't start nursery plantations this year and

then withdraw the funding next year. It requires a long-term

commitment. The minister says: "It's not turned off; we'll provide

money next year." That is up to the whim of the Minister of Finance;

that is up to the economic situation that prevails next year, which may

in fact force the Minister of Finance to consolidate all the revenue

and to withdraw the funding and the priorization of any of the

special-purpose funds.

No, this is a setback for intensive

forest management in the province of British Columbia — no question

about it. The Minister of Forests is not fooling anyone when he

suggests that nothing has happened. It was he himself who touted the

great new age of forestry in British Columbia when the Forest and Range

Resource Fund was set up just a few years ago. It lasted two years, and

it's now eliminated, and he says nothing has happened. Mr. Chairman,

he's not even being consistent with what he's been saying in the past.

It's

a very dangerous step, because 50 percent of the revenue generated in

this province flows from the forest industry. The minister has shown,

and he's predicted himself, that there will be a 26 percent loss of the

forest land base. His ministry has indicated that there will be a

falldown in timber supply. Now, at the very moment when we should be

investing more in increasing our wood supply, he has withdrawn the

funding from it on a long-term basis. We are losing two years of

commitment to the intensive management program. It's a shame, and this

government will be held accountable.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I would ask members of the committee to examine the comments which were

made in second reading and at the time when the bill was introduced. In

many instances the activities for which the funds have been established

will remain over time as activities drawing on the accounts which are

being created with the passage of this legislation.

I don't

intend to respond in full on behalf of my colleague the Minister of

Forests to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke regarding his last

comments, because I think that can be dealt with by those hon. members

at some other time or later today. The fact is that this government has

a continuing and, in fact, a heightened commitment to activity in

forestry. That has been made clear in a number of ways with respect to

employment initiatives and several activities. The point that was made

in second reading, and which is very appropriate in discussing the

actual list of funds in this section, is that the circumstances and

conditions worldwide are such that we need the ability, through this

legislation, to draw on these funds as and when appropriate. I do not

want any member of the committee to assume that all the activities

described in the alphabetical listing under

section 10 will come to a

grinding halt upon royal assent of this bill. That is not the case. I

think the members understand that.

MR. LORIMER: I

want to mention the disappointment I have with the disappearance of

these 25 funds that are wiped out by this section. When those funds

were established, they created a headline in the newspaper. They were

going to do this and they were going to do that. We had the money to

back it up and so on. Now they are being wiped out.

I want

to speak about the Urban Transit Fund. I realize that that is really

not the responsibility of the minister whom we're addressing these

remarks to, but it was a $55 million fund that was set up for transit.

It was basically a political bill to get the publicity indicating that

something was actually being done about rapid transit and urban

transit. I knew at the time that the money would not be spent or

required for transit services by this government, because I know the

history of the Social Credit Party when it comes to transit operations,

their dedication to urban transit and their lack of commitment to the

urban transit problems.

HON. MR. GARDOM: What do you think Vander Zalm is doing?

MR. LORIMER: I'm trying to find out what he is doing, because very little has been done.

HON. MR. FRASER: We have to fix those old used buses you bought from Winnipeg; they're all worn out.

MR. LORIMER:

Those buses weren't bought by me; they were bought by people long

before my time. That is the one thing that my friends across the way

bring up because it is

[ Page 8005 ]

the

only thing that they've done in seven years on transit. They've

replaced 200 old buses with some new ones, and that's very good. I

commend them for it. But I don't think that's a record to be proud of

over a seven-year period. They've got a few test holes drilled in some

areas in downtown Vancouver. They've got a big discussion going on….

HON. MR. GARDOM: Will you stake your seat on whether it goes ahead or not?

MR. LORIMER:

It will go ahead around that little loop from B.C. Place to the

convention centre. I've always said. It will be a long time before I

see that in Burnaby. It will be a longer time before my friend for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) sees it and it'll be even a longer time before

the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) welcomes it into Richmond.

HON. MR. CURTIS: We're going to put it in McGeer's tunnel.

MR. LORIMER: He hasn't been very active since they took away his Meccano set, so we don't hear much about the tunnel anymore.

want to point out that most of these bills were political bills. They

created headlines for the week, and now they've disappeared down the

tube under one

section and abide quietly under one act. I'm sorry to

see this fund going because I thought the money might be there when

there was a new government, and that it could be put to some use in

creating transit for the province of British Columbia.

MR. DAVIS:

The member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) made a few comments

about light rapid transit, really inferring that it wasn't proceeding

or wouldn't proceed very far. In the past 12 months, in the fiscal year

ending March 31, 1982, $39 million was spent on the prepayments for 114

cars for the system. Two of those cars will be delivered shortly.

They'll be at the PNE, for example, for everyone to see. There has been

a good deal of physical work, including drilling, as the hon. member

said, of locations for the bases for the columns for the elevated

guideway. There was, within the last few days, a contract let in the

amount of $11 million for approximately one kilometre of line, the

construction of which has begun near the CNR station and along Terminal

Ave. The guideway will be completed by September or October, and will

be complete with rails and cars and operating this time next year as a

demonstration line. So physically it's proceeding; financially, we're

perhaps S50 million into what eventually, at least in current dollar

terms, will be a $400 million or $500 million expenditure.

Virtually

all of the right-of-way has been decided and agreed upon by the

municipalities directly involved. There is only one four-block

section

on Commercial Drive in Vancouver East which is still not approved by

the city of Vancouver, but otherwise all of the 12 miles of

right-of-way has been cleared by the municipalities and their planners.

The utilities are in the process of being moved. B.C. Hydro is now in

the process of moving parts of its rail-line so the columns and

guideway can be constructed.

We're perhaps a third of the

way into a program that will take, overall, some four and a half years

to complete. As of now, we're both on budget and on time. There's every

indication that the system will begin running, at least from the south

end of SeaBus in downtown Vancouver to downtown New Westminster, by

mid-1985, and will be in revenue service by January 1, 1986.

First.

because of the investment that has already been made, second, because

of the $350 million contract with Metro-Canada. an Ontario Crown

corporation, which is binding both on our provincial authorities and

Ontario and finally. because of the commitments made by the

municipalities and contracts let with the private sector, we have to

proceed. There's really no turning back. I doubt very much whether any

other government at any other time would turn the clock back. All

that's really in question now is when we cross the Fraser River to

Surrey. That is the kind of issue which still has to be finally decided

upon, not whether we're going to proceed with the construction and

completion of the first 12 miles of the rapid transit system.

MR. LORIMER:

I don't want to be critical about the member who just sat down. I think

he's sincerely trying to do what he can for transit. However, although

he may be believing that things are going to proceed as he suggests, I

want to warn him that to get the funds from the cabinet is another

question. I've watched this cabinet for seven years, and the top

priority isn't transit.

MR. KEMPF: I remember you in cabinet. You didn't do anything.

MR. LORIMER:

You don't remember me in cabinet because you weren't around here then.

As a matter of fact, chances are you won't be around long enough to get

your pension.

Interjection.

MR. LORIMER: You'll come close to a pension, but you won't quite make it.

This

member has said that the thing was on budget and on time. Well. what's

the budget and what's the time? It's been seven years now. How much

more time do they want? A proper rail system would have been in by 1980

at the latest if the program that we had commenced had proceeded at the

same rate. Now we're talking about this fund, which I presumed when it

was brought in was at least going to assist in starting the steps for a

sophisticated system in Vancouver.

I'll be speaking further

on this at a later date. I do want to mention that although I

appreciate the keenness of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.

Davis), I hope that he will have more sway with the treasury benches

than other people in the party who have tried to do something about

transit.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I listened to

the two interjections by the member who has just taken his seat, but I

would particularly like to endorse and confirm what has been stated by

the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. In fact the $55 million. which

is the subject of

section 10(y), has been paid over to the Urban

Transit Authority. It's not a question of it being used for other

purposes: it has gone for the purpose for which the fund was

established. It is as simple as that.

[ Page 8006 ]

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, on the question of the ALRT, the hon. member for North

Vancouver–Seymour referred to a very serious local issue in the

constituency of Vancouver East and partly in Vancouver Centre. It's a

matter of about four blocks and whether the ALRT….

HON. MR. CURTIS: Order, Alex. We're talking about a special fund.

MR. MACDONALD: I know we're talking about the ALRT.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, we're not talking about ALRT; we're talking about the money for it.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I think for that period to save…. We made that position clear formally and informally now over the past two years.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD:

The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) says: "How much will it cost?" The

whole purpose of rapid transit is to prevent the destruction of

residential neighbourhoods by traffic congestion and the pollution of

exhaust fumes, which is assuming tremendous proportions in many areas

in the lower mainland like Vancouver and Burnaby.

For the sake of the additional cost of burying the line….

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. MACDONALD:

Possibly $9 million. When you consider the costs of what is now

proposed in the east lane beside Commercial and the costs of burying

that line, the difference is not astronomical compared to what this

government is spending on B.C. Place and the massive $1 billion subsidy

for the export of cheap coal to the steel mills of Japan from our

northeast.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Where are the priorities of this government?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: I want to make it plain, Mr. Chairman, that I intend to press this issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: What's the point of order? I'd like to listen to that.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, by no stretch of the imagination can we get into an

in-depth discussion like the member is now beginning to engage in. The

discussion would be much more appropriately debated…. I believe the

member is on

section 10(y), and we're talking in this particular area

on something a lot broader in scope than the very narrow range the

member is now canvassing. I would ask the member again to bear in mind

that we must be extremely relevant to the

section before us and that

the debate the member is currently engaged in would be much more

appropriately covered in another area of committee.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, I'll conclude my remarks. I didn't realize I was in a

state of disorder. I thought I was fine when I came in here this

morning. We are talking about the $55 million and it's not enough. That

is what I am saying. We are talking about this special fund and we

should be prepared to put the necessary resources into necessary public

services. The people of Vancouver East, unlike some of the more

chauvinistic parts of the city of Vancouver — in Point Grey or

Shaughnessy, they oppose a Ronald MacDonald home for the parents of

crippled children — recognize the need for good public transit. They

are not being dog in the manger and saying: "No way can it pass through

our riding." They know it is necessary to save neighbourhoods, but for

heaven's sakes put the financial resources behind it so that it doesn't

result in the destruction of neighbourhoods. Bury the dammed thing.

MR. STUPICH:

I appreciate the minister's remarks. I recognize that it is a desperate

ploy to get at the funds set aside by the administration headed by

W.A.C. Bennett for twenty years and by Dave Barrett for over three

years. I believe some of them were even set up by the present

administration. However, this year they need all the money sitting in

those funds so as to balance the budget, and this is their way of

getting it out. The minister told us, with respect to one of them — I

suspect it is the same with most of them — that the funds will be drawn

down to nil this year. That is in part what they are there for, but in

part some of these funds were set up for special purposes. While I can

agree with wiping out most of them, I did identify three, from the

point of view of education — and I'm not thinking now about classroom

education — I thought should have been saved as funds. It is not that I

am opposed to the whole list but I am very much opposed to having three

of the funds in there, apart from those the minister has already moved

by amendment. For that reason I am opposed to this section.

MR. DAVIS:

Very briefly, on refunding the urban transit system, as the Minister of

Finance says, $55 million has been turned over to the urban transit

authority for rapid transit. In addition, the federal government has

paid another $60 million directly to the transit authority which is

earning interest. So $60 million over and above the $55 million is

committed to this project. Some of that will be earning interest.

Perhaps $120 million is already committed to the construction of a

system which, when it is completed through the first 12 miles, would

cost four times that amount in current dollars.

Finally, the

second member for Vancouver East made reference to the cost of

tunnelling Commercial Drive. We are only talking about some four

blocks. The additional cost is not only that of a tunnel over and above

an elevated above ground line, it is also the cost of a delay. The

entire system could not now be completed by January 1, 1986. It might

take another 12 months. When $400 million or $500 million has already

been invested and the system cannot operate for another 12 months, you

are not talking a few million dollars;

[ Page 8007 ]

you

are talking $50 million or $100 million additional interest costs.

Today, that is really the issue. Can the province, the lower mainland,

indeed can Vancouver, afford the delay of digging a four-storey deep

hole in the ground and filling it in again? Instead of doing that we

can save the money and have the system on budget and on time. That

money could buy 75 or 100 additional beds in the Vancouver General

forever, so let's keep our priorities right.

MR. LAUK:

It is interesting about priorities. I have followed the career of the

member for North Vancouver–Seymour with great scrutiny, detail and

admiration throughout the years, and the thing that strikes me most is

that he is astounding when it comes to the cost-efficiency of matters

and hopeless when it comes to the cost-effectiveness of matters. His

definition of effectiveness is totally different from that of the

second member for Vancouver East, or from mine. We believe that society

exists for the benefit of its people, not for a project, no matter who

it hurts or how many houses come down because of it; not for some

concept of transportation that will destroy a neighbourhood; not for

some monument like B.C. Place that will effectively destroy

neighbouring…. B.C. Place is in this section, Mr. Chairman.

Talk

about priorities. Without the blink of an eye, B.C. Place officials are

talking about a $4 million to $6 million scoreboard for the stadium.

Here we're talking about a whole neighbourhood for $9, $10 or $12

million — whatever it is — and somehow, we've got to become more

cost-efficient about that. But a scoreboard for $6 million is okay.

That's another example. Talk about the hypocrisy of this government!

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The Motor Vehicle Act bill is going to come up a little later; I'll talk about that later. Do you want to hear about that now?

The

questions raised by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald) are extremely important. The people of that constituency are

very concerned. It reminds me of a time some years ago — and the hon.

member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) should remember this

with great clarity — when the Strathcona Property Owners Association

was formed to stop a freeway system through the Columbia connector

going through Chinatown and through the east end of the city of

Vancouver. At the same time, the Spadina group got together and stopped

the Spadina expressway. He's a nice fellow, but if there's a focal

point for that kind of organization and rallying around again, the hon.

member for North Vancouver–Seymour fits the bill. I know it's not true,

but he gives the impression that he could not care less about ordinary,

little people, and the idea is the important thing — the concept. The

project is the important thing, but the little folks out there don't

mean a damn. That's the kind of guy we should have in charge of a

project like this if we want to organize the neighbourhoods, because he

makes a good bogeyman.

It is unfortunate, Mr. Chairman. This

whole bill is unfortunate. It's a tragic admission on the part of an

inept Minister of Finance that he couldn't balance his budget. He has

to raid all of these ancient and honourable special funds that were

created for so many specific purposes. He's bankrupt in his

imagination. He's inept as a Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Perhaps the deputy minister would like to enter the debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I can read lips, Mr. Minister.

It's

unfortunate that the Minister of Finance is so inept and so incapable

of balancing the budget without raiding the special funds, that he's

had to go into this deficit. He has been the only minister since the

war who has created a deficit in the province of British Columbia. He's

raided these funds, and he will go down in history as the minister

responsible for putting British Columbia into debt in terms of

government expenditures.

MR. SEGARTY: That was Barrett.

MR. LAUK:

We're talking about something you won't be able to understand, I say to

the member for Kootenay. We're talking about facts and figures.

Mr.

Chairman, I would think that

section 10 is the broad sword-stroke

cutting these special funds off. I think that it's regrettable that the

government has seen fit to force its narrow, inflexible view of what

the rapid transit system should be in the city of Vancouver. I join my

colleague from Vancouver East in condemning the government's approach

in this regard.

Section 10 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Vander Zalm

Richmond

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

NAYS — 17

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Cocke

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Macdonald

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Who's on the point of order? I have three members standing, hon. members.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it may already have been conveyed to

you, but when the committee reports, I wonder if leave could be asked

to record the division in the Journals of the House.

[ Page 8008 ]

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, do the division bells ring in the Douglas tunnel, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

On a point of order, would you like to inquire from the first member

for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) if they also ring under red lights.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, I wish you would inquire as to whether the division bells are working in the opposition offices or not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does anyone have a real point of order?

MR. LAUK: What does he mean by "red light"?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: So that there's no doubt in the mind of the member — I can understand why there might be — I was thinking of traffic lights.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

section 13.

MR. STUPICH: I want to clear up what

section 13 means on page 4, the

appropriation section. The cash balance of the Agricultural Land Development

Fund will all be transferred into consolidated revenue. That I can understand,

but subsection (b) "…money received after March 31, 1982 under…the Agricultural

Land Development Act…." Does that mean everything received under the Agricultural

Land Development Act by this legislation is being transferred into consolidated

revenue?

HON. MR. CURTIS: This particular subsection deals with repayments.

MR. STUPICH:

I'm aware of that. What I'm wondering is: does that mean that all the

repayments on contracts that have been in existence for, perhaps in

some cases, decades will now go directly into consolidated revenue?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The payments will be held in the account. I think that's a point the

committee could be reminded of from time to time in this debate,

because while we are dealing with funds here, we are setting up

accounts. I would draw the member's attention…. He has spoken of

subsection (3)(b). Under subsection (1), that money will be held in the

account and repaid, to be spent without further appropriation.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. STUPICH:

I guess the next part of my question is whether it is that easy to get

money out of the Agriculture Land Development Act program. Do we not

need some kind of amendment in the Agriculture Land Development Act? I

see there is an amendment to it, but it doesn't seem to cover this.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I'm advised that this provides the authority unnecessary. In the

absence of this we would have the authority to hold, funds, but we

would not have the authority to spend for the purpose described in this

section.

MR. STUPICH: The only other question I have

on this, Mr. Chairman, is that in every other instance where we have

had funds that have had interest coming in, the interest is now going

to go directly to consolidated revenue; it will now be accredited to

the purpose of the fund. I gather in this one it's different in that

the interest portion of the payments that are being received will be

credited to the balance of the fund.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Yes, the member is correct. The interest may be appropriated without

any further authority. The interest flows directly to this account

under discussion.

MRS. WALLACE: I, too, have some

questions about this fund. I was listening very carefully to what my

colleague was asking, but am I not correct in assuming that this is a

joint federal-provincial fund? Are we not on

section 13?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MRS. WALLACE: That's the agricultural credit amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER . It's provincial.

MRS. WALLACE: That's strictly provincial. Okay, that answers that question.

Money

required for the purpose of this act "may" be paid out. I'm worried

about the "may," because it doesn't really indicate that if those money

are required they will be made available. That bothers me somewhat

because there are commitments made, and this just says that they may be

paid. There's not really any commitment that the money will be

available.

HON. MR. CURTIS: There are contractual

agreements and legal commitments in place. I hear what the member for

Cowichan-Malahat is saying. I'm not sure that "shall" as opposed to

"may" would strengthen this

section in this context, because we are

committed to making the payments. I know that on a number of occasions

there has been discussion about the words "shall" do something or "may"

do something, but the legal agreements in force cover any weakness that

the member might be identifying in this section. They may be paid out

of consolidated revenue. They have to come from somewhere. They are

coming from consolidated revenue. I think that the agreements would

allay any fears which might be expressed. The Minister of Agriculture

and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and I have discussed this, and obviously the

money comes from CRE. This is simply the authority to make those

payments which are required by agreement.

Sections 13 through 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, I'm opposed to this amendment. The original appropriation

section of the bill didn't place any limits. Now we have limits placed

on the amount of funding available for the farm income assurance

[ Page 8009 ]

program.

It's falling right in line with the subject which I tried to raise

earlier in this House under a different venue. We are seeing this

government striking down the farm income assurance program. Here's

ample proof of it, in my mind. We have an amendment brought in that

sets limits on the amount of money available and also says that that

money must be paid back. Arrangements must be made to pay that money

back into consolidated revenue. I'm opposed to that. I think the

Minister of Finance is being used as a ploy by the Minister of

Agriculture to help him strike down the farm income assurance program,

because now he's going to be able to say: "Look, we can't give you

these programs because there's a limit on the amount of money that's

available." It doesn't matter how bad the year is, how bad the crop

conditions are, what the prices are, the money isn't going to be

available because the legislation puts a limit on the amount of funds

available. I am definitely opposed to this amendment.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I think it is instructive to realize that the amendment

says in part, and I'm looking under

section 6: "In addition to money

appropriated under any other act, the Minister of Finance may authorize

money to be paid out of the general fund of the consolidated revenue

fund to the fund established under subsection 2(a), to a maximum of $30

million during any fiscal year." In my view, and I'm quite sure that I

speak for the Minister of Agriculture and Food, that does not limit the

amount of money which is paid in a period of difficulty under the

activity carried out, because that rolls from year to year. This simply

says no more than $30 million in one year. It might be paid in the very

last weeks of a preceding year, or in the early weeks of a following

year. The maximum, I'm satisfied, is correct for any given year when

viewed as an entity — as a 12-month period.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I join with my colleague for Cowichan-Malahat in opposing

this particular limit. If the Minister of Finance were to tell us that

there is a commitment to put anything into this fund on an annual

basis, I'd feel differently about it. There is no such commitment. It's

quite conceivable that in any one particular year the only money coming

into this fund would be premiums paid by producers. It's possible in

any one year that it might be there are no drawdowns from that fund,

because of excellent agriculture conditions in the agricultural

industry — that's entirely possible. Yet there's no commitment that the

minister will pay his portion of the premiums into the fund that year,

because the government is obligated to match premiums. All that we're

faced with is that in any one year there will be a maximum payment into

that fund. That's a pretty one-sided agreement. I'm opposed to it.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, the $30 million maximum described here is only for

unfunded premiums. In the kind of situation which the two members who

participated in the debate have described…. It is identified here for

the year when things are in anything but ideal conditions. I assure the

committee that this is the amount within a particular year, when one

might say in one or more commodity groups a very serious situation

develops, but it does not prevent the government from undertaking

certain activities prior to the start of the year in question, or

immediately following the year in question.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, I think the wording of the act and the wording of the

amendment very succinctly state the difference in the philosophies of

the two parties in this Legislature relative to farm income assurance.

I would just like to read the amendment: "The Minister of Finance may

authorize money to be paid out of the general fund of the consolidated

revenue fund to the fund established under subsection 2(a), to a

maximum of $30 million during any fiscal year, to be repaid on terms

and conditions required by the Treasury Board." The original act reads:

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may authorize the Minister of

Finance to set aside out of the consolidated revenue fund the amount

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council considers necessary to establish,

carry out and administer the farm income assurance plan." One shows a

real commitment to the agricultural industry, the other one doesn't.

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

section 18.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I haven't really been asking my questions about interest

up to this point, but this is another instance where loans have

actually been granted. I'm wondering whether the interest comes into

the fund balance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I do

not have the answer to that question. We could take the time of the

committee, but I undertake to give that information. Members of my

staff are listening, and I know that they will make a note. I undertake

to give that information to the member for Nanaimo next week at the

earliest opportunity.

Sections 18 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendments approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

Sections 22 and 23 approved.

section 24.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I asked earlier about administration fees, and the

minister said that he would pick them up. Previously the legislation

did provide for an administration fee to be charged. I think it's

eliminating that, and I'm just so surprised that the government would

give up that opportunity of getting some money out of one of these

funds. I wonder whether it actually is eliminated. I'm puzzled.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, we don't need separate authority in this context in this particular matter.

MR. STUPICH: So you will be collecting administration fees?

[ Page 8010 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, probably.

Section 24 approved.

section 25.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 25 as amended approved.

Sections 26 to 32 inclusive approved.

section 33.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 33 as amended approved.

Sections 34 to 38 inclusive approved.

section 39.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, it will be apparent to the committee that earlier in

Orders of the Day the deletion of

section 39 appeared. Within recent

days, for reasons not known to me, it did not appear. I therefore offer

an amendment which deletes

section 39. It is consequential to that

which occurred elsewhere in the bill. This removes the Wildlife Act

amendment from this bill.

Amendment approved.

Section 39 as amended approved.

Sections 40 and 41 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order, I didn't hear us deal with

section 42, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I made this same inquiry. It isn't

section 42, it is part of

section 41.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the member for Cowichan-Malahat satisfied?

MRS. WALLACE:

As I read it,

section 41 deals with the Special Funds Act, which is

repealed — the act which said it was going to stay in force regardless

of any other enactment. Then we have the commencement…which, it would

seem, is another subject. It has nothing to do with the repeal of the

Special Funds Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a good point. One moment, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, it is commencement of the Special Funds Act. I gave

incorrect information to the House, I think. I look for guidance from

the Chair in this respect. It is

section 41, as I understand it, in

discussions with legislative counsel.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The Chair is advised that there is no

section 42, but because of the

printing style the Chair will allow the member to discuss

section 41,

if the member wishes to debate

section 41.

section 41.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, I didn't particularly want to debate that section, but it

does seem to me that the commencement portion deals with the entire

bill, which is in fact the Special Appropriations Act. The Special

Funds Act covers some of those special appropriations — not all of

them. I don't think it's going to be earth- shattering if we don't pass

section 42. But from a legal point of view it certainly appears to me

that the commencement is much wider-ranging than the Special Funds Act.

Section 41 approved.

section 42.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, in an effort to be absolutely certain, I would request

the Chair to consider this as

section 42. That's probably an abundance

of caution.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister has put

section 42 before the committee. Shall

section 42 pass?

Section 42 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill

11, Special Appropriations Act, reported complete with amendments to be

considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 4.

[ Page 8011 ]

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) adjourned the debate on behalf of the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann).

MR. LORIMER: I will speak on behalf of the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead).

MR. SPEAKER: I will just make sure that that is a possibility.

MR. LORIMER: I'll speak on my own behalf, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The member defers to himself. Please proceed.

MR. LORIMER:

Certainly in principle the official opposition will support this bill.

I'm sure every member in the House is very concerned about the carnage

on the highways and the problems that have arisen over the years with

injuries, death, damages and so on to the travelling public and

pedestrians in British Columbia. This is basically a very technical

bill, and I note that some three pages of amendments were tabled by the

government in the House today. We would like to see presented the very

best bill possible. I understand there are certain problems within the

government caucus with reference to this bill. I would say it covers a

wide territory….

MR. RICHMOND: Who's been telling you those things?

MR. LORIMER: You've got a leaky sieve over there.

would like to see the government bring in more amendments in order to

produce the very best bill possible. We will be bringing in amendments

ourselves, but it would be far better if the government took another

look and did a little fine-tuning on some of the sections so that the

intent which is obviously there will come about within the meaning of

the bill.

One of the principles of the bill appears to be

the giving of a very wide discretion to the superintendent of motor

vehicles, with a reduced amount of discretion to the judges of our

courts. It may possibly lead to uneven justice when such wide

discretionary powers are in the hands of one individual, no matter how

capable that individual may be. He may be bent by pressures from a

number of people, including MLAs, to assist an individual or to reduce

whatever discretion he is dealing with. Those who have no one speaking

on their behalf will get the normal penalties. I think the penalty

sections — not with reference to impaired, drunken or reckless

driving…. I am not concerned with those, but with those that deal with

points, because three points can be picked up not only through those

areas but by failing to stop at a stop sign. Maybe there are no

automobiles coming along; maybe it is 4 in the morning and an

infraction takes place. Two of those would bring this person, under the

present sections, liable to a possibility of a maximum $5,000 fine, six

months in jail or both.

I would guess that a large proportion of the people sitting in this House have

more than three points, not including me. There are a number of people — maybe

they're not in this House — who have more than three points on their driving

record. They are subject to a maximum penalty of $5,000, six months in prison

or both. That seems to me an unreasonable penalty for those people who have

accumulated those points through small offences that are not in any way risking

life or limb. I would like to see the minister take a look at some of these

things. We want to see a fine bill come through, but I think there are some

areas here that do need some looking at.

The

other matter that is of some concern is the fact that the bill — to

some extent in some of the sections — makes the superintendent a

collection agency for ICBC. Whether that is a valid purpose or aim of

the superintendent of motor vehicles is, I think, somewhat doubtful.

There are areas in which licences can be suspended. Both vehicle

licence and the driver's licence can be suspended if some of the

payments owing to ICBC for their premiums or whatever are in default.

Another principle of this bill refers to making private roads part of the public

highway. I'm not sure this should be the case. I can see little harm in

people who are capable of driving, if they're drivers in their working hours,

driving on private roads and not driving on public roads. The difficulty is

that if a person makes his living from driving, the penalty here not only prevents

him from driving on the roads, but also prevents him from making his livelihood.

Not only does he or she suffer from these sections, but in addition, the whole

family suffers. If the person is a truck driver, driving logging truck on a

private logging-truck road, I'm not convinced that this should be classed

in the same way as a public highway.

will be dealing in much more detail with this bill during committee

stage. I make those few points in the hope that the minister will take

another look at the bill, and see if he can bring in a bill that we can

all be proud of, one which will do the job that it's intended to do, so

we can make the province of British Columbia a more reasonable and

safer place to drive in.

MR. LEVI: The minister has

had pretty close to 14 months to bring this bill in. In fact, last May

when he told everybody he was going to bring it in, he made what was a

very interesting statement to the press: "Things are so bad in British

Columbia that I wouldn't go out driving on a Friday night in British

Columbia." I think he is right. I have a little trouble going out

Friday night. In fact, I have a little trouble going out any night,

sometimes.

I think the great sadness about this legislation

is that the minister, in the great rush to get it in now, has really

bypassed a couple of groups that are looking right at this moment at

traffic safety. I think one of the great mistakes the government has

made is that they've found no way the public can get involved in

deliberations about the problem of traffic safety. That is very

unfortunate. At the moment the subcommittee of the Crown corporations

reporting committee on ICBC is looking at it. They've had a number of

hearings and it is a very interesting process. I've been fortunate

enough to sit on that. They have not brought forward their report yet.

There

is also an interministerial committee headed by the ubiquitous Mr.

Bourne that is doing something about looking into ICBC. On the Crown

corporations reporting committee we have brought in people with very

special interests and expertise, but the public haven't had this

opportunity. What the government should be doing is finding a mechanism

for having a public hearing on this. There are a lot of people out

there who have a great deal to say. The bill itself, from the

government's position, does not have a near high enough

[ Page 8012 ]

profile

in the public for the people to really think the government is serious

about doing anything about it. What we have in this bill is a large

number of amendments which deal with the points. We will discuss it in

more detail in the committee section, but there are very serious

problems in looking at remedial measures. Frankly, I don't think they

necessarily lie in looking at the point system.

For

instance, in one hearing under ICBC we were told by the president of

ICBC that there are some 25,000 people in this province who are banned

from driving. Yet the police estimate that about 40 percent of them are

driving anyway. We have a very serious problem with that. What has come

out of the discussions I have been involved in, and we haven't had any

with the general public, is that most people are convinced that what we

have to get at, in the whole question of motor vehicle safety, is

attitude: the attitude of people today in terms of how they drive. The

Vancouver City Police told us this in some detail, as they are

concerned about that.

The other thing that I think the

minister should address is an area of his responsibility. Many MLAs and

others have complained many times about the state of the roads and, in

some respects, the design of roads, when there is a continuing number

of accidents in the same place. For instance, there is an increasing

number of accidents at First and Clark in Vancouver. It's a very

dangerous comer. Accidents have been taking place there for years.

Reports have been sent to the engineering department, to the motor

vehicle department, and no change has ever been made.

The

important thing is that in dealing with this whole issue of traffic

safety, it really isn't good enough for the minister to tip the bill

into the House and say we're going to have a go at people because of

the point system. Many more things than this have to be looked at. But

we can't really look at it just in the confines of this Legislature. We

do have an adequate standing committee, one which has not met for years

in this Legislature. The justice and labour committee deals with such

matters and should be meeting and holding public hearings on this very

serious subject.

The economy and unemployment are our two

most serious problems, and this is the third most serious problem in

British Columbia. We realize this. We know from ICBC hearings that we

insure the most dangerous drivers in the country. It's a great tragedy,

but that's the reality of it. A great number of people in this province

are involved in various safety activities — some 75 of them: 75

different legislators all having a go at safety, and there's no

integration, no coordination. I don't believe very much in this

coordination. There's no integration of this kind of thing.

The

former attorney-general is giving me a quizzical took. If he put his

glasses on, his frowns would disappear. Ah, that's better. I'm sure

that now I've prompted him to get up and debate, but he'll have to do

it on Monday.

The important thing is that we simply cannot

deal with this bill in the usual routine manner; the issue is far too

serious. Every second day five people are killed in this province. Two

out of the five are killed as a direct result of impaired drivers.

There are a large number of children being killed in this province, yet

there has not been a serious attack mounted by the government in terms

of what it is going to do about not only taking the public into its

confidence but consulting the public on what they think about it. We

have one group at the moment that is very visible: Mothers Against

Dangerous Drivers.

Can we have a little quiet in here, Mr. Speaker? Those guys are mumbling. They don't care very much about this subject.

MR. SPEAKER: Order in the chamber, please.

MR. LEVI:

Why don't you ask the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) to go

have some lunch? I'll pay for it just to get him the heck out of here.

MR. SKELLY: You'd probably pay for it anyway.

MR. LEVI: Yes, hand me the bill; I'll pay for it. There is no Pouilly-Fuisse down there so I don't worry.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I'm not going down there!

MR. LEVI: Aha! On your way!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. May we continue with Bill 4?

MR. LEVI: Right. Thank you very much.

would hope that the members on the other side would get up and talk on

this issue as well, along the lines that we've got to involve the

public. We simply can't pass legislation and not bring the public into

what we are doing and into the confidence that we have in the

legislation we've passed. Basically, eventually we're going to have to

get around to the whole question of how we instil attitude in people.

That is the key thing that apparently we have to change in some way;

otherwise we are heading for incredible disasters.

The

horror story in Canada is that in the past five years over 35,000

people have been killed on the roads. In the two wars that Canada was

involved with — from 1939 to 1945 and the Korean War — there were some

13,000 men and women killed in action. Here we have another kind of

war. There have been three times as many deaths in almost the same

amount of time. The toll is mounting every year.

We have to

grapple with the very serious problem not only of attitude but of what

we do with a drunk driver in a remedial fashion. There is a great deal

of criticism that can be levelled at a number of departments. It is all

very well for us to have the apprehension process. The BATmobile and

the roadblocks are very good. That is the kind of thing with which you

gather in offenders. The question is what you do after you've gathered

in the offender. What do you do with the offender? Our jails are

becoming full of drunk drivers.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I know what you'd do with them.

MR. LEVI: I know what I would do with them, but I don't want to tell you. I want you to get up and tell me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member who has the floor will address the Chair, and there will be no interruptions. Please proceed.

MR. LEVI:

I need some protection from that guy; he's baiting me. Never mind

making jokes about this; this is what we have to address. From the last

public forum I had in my riding a month ago, I know what people would

want to do about it. Yes, they're talking in a very hard fashion about

life suspensions and putting people in jail. One of the things that

[ Page 8013 ]

has

concerned me is the gradual drift away from the earlier ideas they used

to operate with in this province. In terms of death and people being

killed, there was a time that a manslaughter charge used to follow. All

of that's completely gone now.

When are we going to get

really serious about this — more serious than the minister of small

business, small economics and small coal mines? He's not serious about

it; he thinks it's a big joke. It's not a big joke; it's a very serious

matter.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LEVI: And if you go down to the dining room, I'll buy your lunch too. Come on, take off!

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't buy me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister is not in his seat. He is constantly interrupting. I will ask him to come to order.

MR. LEVI:

Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister of Highways, when he closes

the debate, would he indicate to us whether his ministry has really

looked at the very serious problem of road and highway design with

respect to this particular problem. It is a serious problem when you

have a number of accidents at the same spot and there is no change in

the design; it simply goes on. This kind of thing has to be worked out

very much within the terms of the insurance company that is paying out

hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs for injuries — physical and

vehicle damage. Surely the cost subsidization would work the other way

if it were possible to do something about the state of a highway with

respect to the particular areas where there are continual accidents.

Those

are very realistic and economic questions that could be dealt with, but

the minister did not indicate that in his opening remarks. Surely he's

not suggesting to us that changing the point system and giving a great

deal of discretionary power to the superintendent of motor vehicles is

somehow going to meet the problem here. There are other aspects to the

problem as well.

We can all be sure that once this

legislation passes, we're going to go back to the old system where we

were constantly being called by people who had lost their licences and

wanted to get an earlier dispensation in respect to the sanctions

imposed on them. We're going to get all of that again. I actually

preferred the system whereby the superintendent of motor vehicles did

not have that discretionary power. People knew exactly where they stood

in terms of the act, and that was it. You don't have to go back to a

system where there will be a great deal of lobbying. It's not a

desirable kind of system.

In terms of the enforcement, if

there had been a public hearing with respect to this whole problem, we

would have heard from the police, as we did in the subcommittee of the

Crown corporations, that there is a manpower problem. It's all very

well for us pass laws, but we then get into the whole question of

enforcement. We talk about manpower, and that's not something this

provincial Legislature deals with, except perhaps in respect to the

RCMP. The municipalities have their own police force.

What

we've done here is a start, a beginning, albeit an unfortunate

beginning, in the sense that much more information could have been

available to this assembly had the minister taken the trouble to find

out what's going on in terms of studies being done, information being

gathered. We could have had that tabled in the House, particularly the

report that will eventually come down from the Crown corporations, and

also from the interministerial committee. There's a great deal of

material on this. I get the impression, from the way the minister

presents the bill, that he's not too aware of what's going on. This is

just a very small part of what's taking place.

So I address

the minister: if this is the first stage in terms of war on the carnage

on the road, then, subject to some suggestions from this side in terms

of changes to some aspects of the sections, we can support it. The main

thing is, what else have they in mind? What are they going to do about

keeping the public informed on where we are going in terms of

preventing this problem? This province, certainly on the west coast, if

it was to follow what is going on in the United States…. In the state

of Washington they're involved in a most aggressive campaign against

drunk drivers, the most aggressive campaign of any of the states on the

west coast, and all of them are involved in it. I would ask the

minister to give some thought to the possibility of having in this

province an habitual driving offender classification, which they have

in the state of Oregon. That offender is on a long-term probation, and

is carefully watched.

That's something that we have to look

at here, because we can't have 25,000 to 30,000 people who are

suspended from driving, when the police inform us that 40 percent of

them are driving anyway. We have to get much more graphic about the

kind of sanctions that we're prepared to get involved in in this

question. This one is really an administrative one, but it creates a

serious problem in terms of enforcement, and that's where I think that

the minister has kind of started at the wrong end. It's not something

that you can take to the public and that they would have confidence in:

somehow it's got to have some inroads into lessening it. What you've

done here is to get involved in some administrative solutions. But they

don't mean very much out there on the battlefield, where people are

getting killed all the time.

So we have to have much more

dramatic approaches to the problem than what we have contained in this

bill. That is the difficulty with this bill: it's more administrative

than a hard-nosed approach to the most serious social question that we

have. And, of course, it has implications economically too. With the

number of people that have injuries — there are 40,000 — that drain on

our scarce resources, in terms of what other areas we could be putting

the money towards….

'We have to put it towards what's

characterized in the insurance industry as the flesh in the tin. That's

a rather grim way of putting it, but that's the reality of it. The main

thing is that the premium money seems to go more to the repairing of

the cars than it does to the repairing of human beings. There is a

completely misplaced focus in terms of where we should be going in that

area; also, it's misplaced in terms of where we should be going here.

would ask the minister to consider this and to talk to his colleagues

about whether in fact we can take this problem in a very real way to

the public. If you have to have a commission, then have a commission.

Give the public an opportunity, give the police an opportunity, and

give the medical profession an opportunity — give all of these people

an opportunity. We've had some opportunity in the subcommittee to hear

them, but

[ Page 8014 ]

it's

not a public kind of forum. We need a public forum on this thing. We

don't need interministerial task forces, which are not public and which

would eventually come out with a report. We need to have continuing

visibility on this kind of thing. If we don't have it, then all we've

done is make an administrative change, and we haven't really achieved

the thing that we set out to do in the first place. No doubt, later on

we'll be discussing all the questions relating to young people.

want to give the minister one example of what happened to me a couple

of weeks ago. A constituent of mine came in, very upset at the

behaviour of his son who was driving. His son was almost 18 years old.

I asked: "What do you want us to do?" He said: "I don't want him to

drive." I said: "Go down to the office where you signed the permission

in the first place and withdraw it. You gave him permission. If you're

unhappy with the way he's behaving, go down and withdraw it."

lot of parents forget that they do have some control over young people.

They give them permission to drive. If they're unhappy with the way

they're behaving, let them take the permission away. Don't wait for the

state to do it, because if the state does it, everybody says: "Oh,

that's the heavy hand of the state." Parents do have some obligations.

All of us here who are parents have some obligations. We all know. We

have children and teenagers, and when they hit that 16-year-old bell

they want a licence. We're the ones who give it to them. We should be

the ones who take it away from them.

AN HON. MEMBER: What if they're six feet tall?

MR. LEVI: If they're six feet tall, bring in Emery Barnes. He's the guy who's the convincer on this side.

This

thing is serious in terms of the parents understanding exactly what it

is they do when they sign permission for young persons to drive. The

one aspect and feature of the bill which we're going to be dealing with

is the whole notion of provisional licensing. I think that's an

excellent notion. You don't get a licence at age 16 for five years and

somehow think that's all there is to it. I would be very happy to see a

provisional licence of one year for new drivers. There's nothing wrong

with that at all. We have to build an attitude — something that we can

build in at that age — whereby they get to understand that the licence

isn't for five years then and "We'll see you when you're 21. How are

you doing?" We have to go in that direction.

The parents

also have to remember that many times they are closer to the situation

than the police are. The police can't do everything. The parents can.

When this parent spoke to me, I said: "Well, the onus is on you now. I

don't know.

There may be a lot of trouble. You have to sit

down with your kid and say, 'I had your licence taken away because I

withdrew my permission!" I said: "Don't just do it that way. Tell him

what you're going to do. Tell him, 'I have the power to go down, and if

you don't straighten up your act, that's what I'm going to do.'" More

of that should be done by the public, because the public forgets —

particularly the parents. There's a notice here for them to do that.

That's

one notion. We're talking about parental involvement. We're talking

about the notion that the provisional licence is something worthwhile.

But the key question in this whole process that we're dealing with is:

what do we really do — effectively — with the dangerous driver and the

drinking driver? That is the kind of problem that constantly confounds

us. One of the major criticisms is that there are simply not enough

places where treatment is available. That is quite true. In this

province we have not developed the treatment resources that can be

dealt with. The question is: what kind of treatment do we use when we

have the resources? That treatment technique is not easily developed.

We often think and we worry — about keeping people off the highways.

may well be that we will have to look further south, to the California

notions. Let's deal with what they do down there. They have placed an

incredible burden on tavern and hotel operators who serve liquor. If

somebody goes out of your place and gets into an accident and somebody

is killed, we are going to come back and find out exactly what you did

in terms of your responsibility as a dispenser of liquor that you would

allow a person to leave your establishment and get into an accident

where somebody gets killed. They have a process. They have had people

come into court almost in a co-defendant role. Persons have lost their

tavern licences because they've been irresponsible in terms of dealing

with their customers.

There are a range of options we can

use in a very persuasive way, but it has to be very public and people

have got to understand what is going on. If they don't understand, then

it becomes very difficult.

In view of the hour — and I am

getting thirstier — I think I will move adjournment of this debate

until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved,

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:00 p.m.

[ Page

8015 ]

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

11 The Hon. H.A. Curtis to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 11) intituled Special Appropriations Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 10 , by deleting paragraphs (

m) and (q).

SECTION 17 , by deleting

section 17 and substituting the following:

" 17

Section 6 of the Farm Income Insurance Act , R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 123,

is repealed and the following substituted:

" Appropriation

" 6 In addition to money appropriated under any other Act. the Minister

of Finance may authorize money to be paid out of the general fund of the consolidated

revenue fund to the fund established under

section 2 (

a) to a maximum of $30

by Treasury Board."

SECTION 21 , by deleting

section 21 and substituting the following:

" 21

Section 2 of the Funds Control Act , R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 146, is repealed

and the following substituted:

" Fund continued

"2. The Farm Income Assurance Fund, established in the Provincial treasury,

is continued."

SECTION 21.1 , by adding the following section:

" 21.1 Sections 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11 are repealed."

SECTION 25 , by adding the following paragraph to the proposed

section 1(4):

"(

d) interest, at a rate and calculated in the manner and at the times

determined by the Minister of Finance, on the amount of money available

for appropriation under subsection (3)."

SECTION 33 , by deleting

section 33.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada