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 )

MONDAY, JULY 19, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8847 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Land Title Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 70). Hon. Mr. Williams

Introduction and first reading –– 8847

Northwest Baptist Theological College Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 65).

Hon. Mr. Williams

Introduction and first reading –– 8847

Oral Questions

Dome LNG contract award. Mr. D'Arcy –– 8847

B.C. Railway borrowing. Mr. Leggatt –– 8848

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Hyndman)

On vote 20: minister's office –– 8849

Hon. Mr. Hyndman

Mr. Levi

On the amendment to vote 20 –– 8853

Mr. Barber

Mr. King

Mr. Lea

Division

On vote 20: minister's office –– 8859

Mr. Kempf

Division

On vote 21: ministry operations –– 8860

Mr. Levi

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

Hon. Mr. Curtis closes debate –– 8861

Division –– 8861

Election Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 13). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

section 1 –– 8862

Mrs. Dailly

section 2 –– 8862

Mrs. Dailly

On the amendment to

section 2 –– 8862

Hon. Mr. Wolfe

Mrs. Dailly

On the amendment to

section 3 –– 8862

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Levi

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications estimates. (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

On vote 84: minister's office –– 8864

Ms. Brown

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Brummet

Mr. Mitchell

On the amendment to vote 84 –– 8869

Division

Appendix –– 8869

MONDAY, JULY 19, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. REE: I think all members are aware of the great effort of Hansard

staff in recording the elegant words of members of this chamber. One of

the staff, Eileen Nightingale, has relatives visiting from England who

are in the gallery today. I ask this House to welcome John and Jean

Eaglen and their two children, Claire and Joanne, together with Mrs.

Doris Smith and Mrs. Cissie Hackworthy. Welcome to Victoria.

MR. MACDONALD: In the gallery we have a very popular alderman of the city of Vancouver, Bruce Eriksen. I ask the chamber to make him welcome.

MR. STRACHAN:

Visiting one of our researchers today are two guests from The Pas,

Manitoba. Would the House please welcome Elaine Bollman and Arlene

Wilson.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery

today is Mr. Doug Beech, manager and coach of the Merritt junior

women's softball team, which participated in the B.C. Junior Women's

Softball championships in Victoria this weekend. Accompanying Doug is

one of his players, Darlene Garay.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today I note a frequent visitor, but one

who's rarely introduced. He is a former member of this Legislative

Assembly, Mr. Lew King.

Introduction of Bills

LAND TITLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

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

a bill intituled Land Title Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill

70 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.

NORTHWEST BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL

COLLEGE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

On a motion by Hon. Mr.

Williams, Bill 65, Northwest Baptist Theological College Amendment Act,

1982, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

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

today.

Oral Questions

DOME LNG CONTRACT AWARD

MR. D'ARCY:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources. The minister has admitted that he made a tenfold

blunder in calculating the benefits to British Columbia under the Dome

LNG award. Can the minister advise which figure he was using when he

made the decision to award the project to Dome Petroleum?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Contrary to what the member for Rossland-Trail

says, I've admitted no such blunder. If the member, Mr. Speaker, will read

the Hansard report of my statement in the House last Thursday afternoon, he

will see that the figures I used were that over the 20-year life of the LNG

project the return to British Columbia in terms of royalties to BCPC would be

$3.5 billion.

MR. D'ARCY:

Mr. Speaker, the minister distinctly told this House and the media that

the benefits would be in the neighbourhood of $400 million a year — not

over the life of the project. In view of the minister's abysmal

knowledge of arithmetic, has he decided to reassure the B.C. taxpayer —

and the competitive bidders, Transpac and Rim — that the Dome award was

fair and reasonable by allowing a full and open disclosure of the data

on which he made the decision?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Once again I would ask that the member read Hansard ,

and if that member can find anywhere where I said to this House that

the project would be $400 million per year, I would be extremely

surprised. Secondly, he will find that what I told this House on

Thursday afternoon was that it would be a $3.5 billion benefit to

British Columbia over the 20-year life of the project. Mr. Speaker, if

that's correct, and that's what appears in Hansard , I suggest that this member owes this House an apology.

MR. DARCY:

Why are we giving the Japanese a better deal on the export of natural

gas than we are giving our customers in the United States — or our

potential export customers in other countries?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

We are not giving the Japanese any better deal. As the member should

know, having been the critic for Energy for some time, we developed a

formula over the last several years by which we would calculate the

sale of the export of manufactured products made from British Columbia

natural gas on the basis of the difference between the export and the

domestic price, in terms of other benefits which would come to British

Columbia. It's a value-added approach, and it's one which will return

maximum benefits to the province of British Columbia. On that basis,

based on the construction of the plant over the three-year period, jobs

created — some 1,200 people working for 10,000 man-years of employment

— plus the benefits, both direct and indirect, over the 20 years of

this project, we are not giving anything away. We're setting the stage

for a sound economic base for this province for a long time down the

road.

MR. D'ARCY: One of the problems in dealing with this minister and

this government is that they don't realize how stupid they sound when

they give these silly reasons for what they're doing.

the Minister of Energy prepared to give B.C. consumers and industry the

same deal on price increases as he is giving Dome and the Japanese?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

No. Mr. Speaker, I don't think the citizens of B.C. could stand that.

We now subsidize the domestic price of gas to the tune of about 60

cents a thousand cubic feet. No, we're not going to subsidize the gas

to be exported to Japan, as that member has just asked us to do; we're

going to get full value for it, fair value for the citizens of British

Columbia. It's because we're getting fair value for the export of our

natural resources that we're able to

[ Page 8848 ]

give

the citizens of British Columbia a decent break in the purchase of

natural gas. Mr. Speaker, if that member and that party opposite think

that it's silly to provide jobs for British Columbians, then they

should apologize to this House and resign.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. It is not necessary for the answer to go beyond the

scope of the question, and there is no debate in question period for

the questioner.

MR. D’ARCY: Mr. Speaker, can the

minister indicate to the House why he feels that an export price to the

Americans of $3.56 now, versus an export price to the Japanese in terms

of benefit to the British Columbia treasury of $1.08, is somehow not a

subsidy by the B.C. economy and American export customers to the

Japanese? How can he explain that difference?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I advise the member for Rossland-Trail that he obviously shouldn't be using Gary Lauk as his research officer...

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

...because he would be far better off using some other, more sensible

research. First of all, there is no $3.56 price. I don't know where the

member got that; it is wrong. The $1.08 price is not the selling price

of the LNG; that is wrong. The premise of the whole question was wrong,

which makes it very difficult to answer it correctly. So, Mr. Speaker,

I won't try.

B.C. RAILWAY BORROWING

MR. LEGGATT:

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

Small Business Development, and it concerns northeast coal. On Thursday

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) indicated to the House in

answer to a question of mine that discussions were going on with B.C.

Rail concerning financing methods for the Anzac line. Could the

minister advise now whether those discussions have ended, and is he now

ready to admit to the House that long-term debt will be foisted on B.C.

rail as a result of the decision to proceed with the Anzac line?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

In answer to the member's question, my answer will be the same as that

of the Minister of Finance: negotiations are ongoing until the matter

is completely resolved to the satisfaction of everybody. There wouldn't

be any negotiations or anything if the socialists opposite had their

way, because there would be no northeast coal deal to worry about.

MR. LEGGATT:

In explaining the financing arrangements for northeast coal, the

minister said on many occasions that that project would be

pay-as-you-go in terms of the construction arrangements with B.C. Rail,

and that there would not be long-term debt to B.C. Rail. Would the

minister now confirm, as a representative of his government, that this

now indicates a change of policy, given the fact that he has decided to

enter discussions surrounding long-term debt for B.C. Rail and the

Anzac line? Is it a change of policy?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

In answer to the member's question, I have to say that the question is

based on an incorrect assumption. As I stated, the Minister of Finance

is the minister responsible — the fiscal agent — for the British

Columbia Railway. This government has put more money into the British

Columbia Railway to offset the long-term debt than any previous

government. We have lived up to our commitment. I also want to say that

under this government, British Columbia Railway is better run than it

has ever been in the history of the province of British Columbia and

the railway.

MR. LEGGATT: During the minister's

estimates, he tabled a cost-benefit analysis at long last. We've now

had a chance to look at it. That analysis tabled by the minister

estimates that the in-place cost of the Anzac line in 1984 will be

$477.3 million. It assumes 14 percent interim financing costs during

construction. In view of the fact that BCR is borrowing at half a point

below prime, or 17 percent plus, can the minister advise the House now

how much that line is going to cost to complete, in view of the errors

in the cost-benefit analysis?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Again, it gives me a great deal of difficulty to stand in this House

and listen to questions from the member for Coquitlam-Moody that are

always based on incorrect assumptions. I wish that member, who has made

so many incorrect assumptions about the northeast coal deal — and now

that the facts are out he won't even believe them — had taken the time

to go to the press conference held on Friday morning with the

economists who put the project together to explain to all British

Columbians the basis on which the cost-benefit analysis was done. Then

we took the program over to Vancouver so that the business press and

everybody else who was interested could hear the facts about the

cost-benefit analysis. I wish that member had availed himself of the

opportunity to learn something about the economics of northeast coal so

that he wouldn't continually stand in this Legislature and make

incorrect assumptions.

MR. LEGGATT: I wish this minister would start answering some questions in the House; that's where he's supposed to answer questions.

That

same cost-benefit analysis states that 14 million tonnes of coal have

to be shipped over the line for 20 years, starting in 1984, to recover

the taxpayers' investment. The same study shows that in all of Canada

we can't hope to win more than four million tonnes of additional

contracts before 1990. Will the minister now explain how the annual

deficit on the line is going to be financed?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

That member continually tries to give a false impression. We have said

that on the Anzac line itself the first two contracts are not going to

totally pay for that branch line. Never in the history of any railway

expansion in North America has the first contract paid for the total

cost of the line. If he looks further, he will see that in 1980

dollars, with the cost of the branch line, port and everything else

that is being put in completely written off, there will be a return to

the taxpayers of Canada, after a 10 percent social discount, of over

$464 million. That is not on the same basis as the Price Waterhouse

report, in that it does not take into consideration the personal income

tax from the thousands and thousands of jobs that will be created in

Canada, in a time when we need them.

[ Page 8849 ]

Therefore

I have to state to the member that you cannot take one segment of the

total picture and isolate it. It's good for the whole of Canada, it's

good for British Columbia, and it's good for the British Columbia

Railway, because they still make a profit on moving that coal. Over and

above that, the Japanese steel industry are paying a surcharge —

unheard of in the history of any railway development ever — for the

construction of the railway branch line.

MR. LEGGATT:

I'm glad the minister referred to the Price Waterhouse study — which,

by the way, shows that one-half of all the mining equipment would go

overseas. We were curious as to why Price Waterhouse said that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LEGGATT:

My question is this. In the Quintette-B.C. comprehensive agreement, on

page 58,

article 14, there's a Pollyanna statement about procurement

policy which says, just follow the policy of the province of British

Columbia. That would be a bit disastrous. Why didn't the minister put

any requirement in the master agreement that British Columbia

contractors and workers would be given first preference on that

contract rather than this Tinkerbell system he's got where we all close

our eyes and hope for the best? How come you've got a Tinkerbell

procurement policy on the whole contract?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I'd like to inform the member for Coquitlam-Moody that British Columbia

has always said that it is a good strong member of the Canadian team. I

also want to remind that member that there are a lot of British

Columbia businessmen doing business in neighbouring provinces such as

Alberta, Saskatchewan and into the province of Ontario. Although the

rest of Canada will benefit more, we have always said that British

Columbia will be a leader in Canada and that if you keep British

Columbia strong, Canada will be a much stronger nation.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

On vote 20: minister's office, $165,160.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

The Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has had a busy and a

productive year. I would like to open these estimates, Mr. Chairman, by

reviewing a number of the activities of the last year and then make

some comments about the future. Joining me on the floor in a few

minutes will be my deputy minister, Mrs. Jill Bodkin, and my executive

director of finance and administration, Mr. William Stewart.

the outset, I would like to acknowledge the valuable work done over the

last year by the senior division heads of the ministry. They comprise

Mr. Robert Wallace, general manager of the liquor distribution branch;

Mr. Allan Gould, general manager of liquor control and licensing; Mr.

Jim Patterson, our rentalsman; Mr. Stewart Goodings, assistant deputy

minister in charge of the consumer affairs division

Mr.

Maurice St. Jorre, who, although the registrar of companies, served

very ably during the last year as the acting assistant deputy minister

of Corporate Affairs.

In addition, I would like to pay

special tribute to the hard-working office staff in my office — in this

building — headed by my ministerial secretary, Virginia Spring. Both

Mrs. Spring and all of her staff have worked very hard and helped to

make the office year busy and productive.

Mr. Chairman, the members of the committee might find it helpful if I briefly

reviewed the interesting scope of this particular ministry. It includes a consumer

affairs division and a corporate affairs division. It separately includes the

office of the rentalsman. It includes the two aspects of liquor policy: liquor

control and licensing; secondly, the liquor distribution branch. Additionally,

recently this ministry was assigned responsibility for Expo 86. In all, this

ministry is responsible for some 57 pieces of legislation. With respect to its

liquor distribution branch alone, it has a major responsibility as a retailer

in this province; in fact, it is the largest retail organization in the province.

Gross sales of the branch this year will approach the $1 billion mark. We operate

275 retail liquor outlets with a staff of about 3,000. That's only one

aspect of the ministry.

The

new responsibility for Expo 86 adds to the responsibility of the

ministry a project that will generate about $400 million in gross

revenues in terms of its own operations. The ministry itself operates

on a relatively modest budget. This year members will note the

estimates provide for $19.8 million, a rise of about 10 percent from

the 1981-82 estimates. I am pleased to note that for the fiscal year

just ended the ministry was brought home at a taxpayer saving of

$220,000 under budget.

In terms of major personnel changes

in the ministry over the last year, several are very important and

worthy of note. Mr. Thomas Cantell, QC, who has a distinguished career

in the professional public service of British Columbia, served very

ably as an acting deputy minister for about half the year and retired

late in the fall. I want to acknowledge not only his fine career record

of service to the province but also the particular assistance he

provided me as an acting assistant and then acting deputy minister as

our search was underway for a new deputy minister.

September we appointed a new deputy minister, Mrs. Jill Bodkin, which

is a very important appointment. She is the first woman deputy minister

appointed in the history of our province. I want to acknowledge that

Mrs. Bodkin has had excellent cooperation and assistance from senior

executives in the ministry. Members will recall that the throne speech

last fall placed some emphasis on the government's intention to open up

and pay more attention to career opportunities for women in our public

service. I am pleased to note that in this ministry — in addition to

the appointment of Mrs. Bodkin — there have been several significant

appointments of women to important positions in or related to

government in the last year.

First of all, with respect to

the Vancouver Stock Exchange and its board of governors, as a public

governor we appointed Mrs. Risa Levine of Vancouver who is a very

accomplished tax and commercial lawyer. Because of the fact that in

British Columbia today many investors on the Vancouver Stock Exchange

are, in fact, women, I think it's important to have a woman as one of

the public governors, quite apart from the fact that in her own right,

Mrs. Levine brings an excellent expertise in financial and securities

matters to the

[ Page 8850 ]

board

of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. In addition, we recently appointed the

first woman member to the Credit Union Reserve Board. I refer to the

appointment of Mrs. Sally Pipes. She, again, reflects an emphasis in

this ministry to consider able women as well as able men in terms of

opportunities for service in or related to government.

During

the last year there have been two other important appointments in the

ministry. To succeed Mr. Vic Woodland, who retired after a colourful

and important career as general manager of the liquor control and

licensing branch, Mr. Allan Gould has been appointed. Mr. Allan Gould

had been the deputy general manager of liquor control and licensing.

He's now been in the saddle for some time and is performing admirably.

Additionally, we recently appointed a permanent Assistant Deputy

Minister of Corporate Affairs, Mr. David Edgar. Mr. Edgar had served

this ministry as our senior legal officer, on loan from the Ministry of

Attorney-General. We are pleased that we were able to persuade Mr.

Edgar to officially join our ministry in that senior capacity.

Mr.

Chairman, may I turn to several of the divisions of the ministry and

make some comment about activities in the last year. I would first like

to deal with the consumer affairs division of the ministry. The

consumer affairs division, in part, operates four consumer centres

around the province, and we also provide assistance to 14 funded groups

to allow them to provide consumer services in the field around the

province. Over the last year, these consumer centres and

consumer-funded groups were able to provide mediation services in

respect of about 12,000 complaint files. They handled a total of about

125,000 inquiries, and more than $1 million in consumer rebates were

negotiated.

Also, in the last year we have provided

increased grant support to the B.C. branch of the Consumers Association

of Canada. The new president, Mrs. Barbara Rolls of Victoria, has done

a first-rate job in carrying forward the work of the B.C. branch of the

Consumers Association. I particularly want to salute the work of the

B.C. branch of the CAC with respect to certain of the B.C. Tel

hearings, and the consumer point of view represented there.

recent years the Better Business Bureau of Vancouver has taken a more

active role in relation to consumer issues and matters. They have

provided a growing arbitration service, which is very effective in its

own right and eases some of the pressure on our consumer centres.

Additionally, the Better Business Bureau has published in the last year

what it calls its "Blue Book," which is a very helpful guide to

consumers seeking general guidance about the offerings of service

agencies throughout the lower mainland and parts of British Columbia.

the consumer enforcement

section of the ministry, in the last year 28

enforcement actions were undertaken. I also think it's important, given

the pace of the economy in the last year, to note that I as minister

have made some effort to stay in touch with the British Columbia branch

of the Canadian Bankers Association. I've been concerned to follow what

general policies or steps the banks are taking, particularly relative

not only to consumer loans but to foreclosure practices.

I've

been in regular touch with the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bankers

Association. I'm pleased to report my understanding that as of today,

in this difficult economy with home foreclosure such a concern, all of

the major chartered banks in British Columbia have in place internal

review committees. Those committees, in their respective banks, have

the function of reviewing or monitoring what may be so-called hardship

cases with a view to providing every consideration possible in lieu of

foreclosure in such cases. Currently Mr. Ralph Franklin, who is the

senior vice-president of the Bank of Montreal, serves as chairman of

the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bankers Association. His immediate

predecessor was Mr. John Cleghorn of the Royal Bank. I think both those

gentlemen are due acknowledgement for the work they have done in seeing

that all of the banks now have these internal review committees at work.

One

of the annual customs and practices of the ministry is to join in the

nationwide salute to consumers and Consumer Week. We did that again

this year. We decided on a somewhat fresh theme, which was "Give a

Bouquet to Business." We felt that for a change, there were many

consumers who wanted a chance to toss a bouquet, as opposed to a brick,

particularly to the favourite small business of their choice or a small

business which in their community has rendered either long-standing or

particularly fine service. So we devoted the Consumer Week to the

concept of giving a bouquet to worthy businesses in communities across

the province, and we had a good response.

In the spring we

also provided a very helpful and sold-out workshop for consumers in the

lower mainland, entitled "Foiling Inflation." The workshop was

co-sponsored by us, the Royal Bank of Canada and the Vancouver Sun newspaper. It featured Michael Grenby, the well-known financial counsellor and writer from the Vancouver Sun .

We had the attendance sold out well in advance, and about 500 lower

mainland citizens were able to enjoy at a very modest price a very

educational day on ways and means of foiling inflation.

Mr.

Chairman, given the more difficult economy of the last year, it's not

surprising for me to observe that the debt-counselling division of the

ministry has faced heavier challenges and a much heavier workload.

During 1981-82 about 5,000 families availed themselves of the services

of our debt-counselling division. In the last several months, with the

increasingly difficult economic statistics being reported, the workload

falling upon our debt-counselling services has increased sharply, and

that workload is approaching about double last year's rate. In response

to that, we shall be attempting to shift internal resources to provide

an ongoing level of service to the larger number of individuals and

families in B.C. turning to our debt-counselling services.

may be of interest to members, Mr. Chairman, if I indicate by some of

the regional statistics the degree to which debt-counselling service

requests have increased in the province in the last two months. It is a

rather interesting comparison for different parts of the province. For

example, in greater Victoria requests for debt-counselling assistance

have risen by about a third, and that's a fairly modest increase given

some of the other figures I'll now quote. In greater Vancouver the

increase in the debt-counselling workload in the last couple of months

has been in the order of 80 percent; in Prince George it's up by about

100 percent; Kamloops by about 160 percent; Nanaimo by about 250

percent. That gives us some reading on the economy in different parts

of the province. As I say, we're attempting to shift internal resources

to increase the capacity of the debt counselling division within the

ministry to serve the growing number of applicants for help.

Also

on the consumer side, Mr. Chairman, the issue of UFFI —

urea-formaldehyde foam insulation — has been a major one to many

consumers in this province over the last 12

[ Page 8851 ]

months.

This ministry has maintained a regular and very keen interest in this

problem and on a regular basis maintained liaison with our federal

counterparts in Ottawa, the federal Department of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs. We've tried to lead the fight across Canada for

commitments from the federal government to assist affected consumers in

resolving their problems in their homes, in which consumers have

unwittingly become, by virtue of their own symptoms and reactions,

victims of UFFI. As I think the evidence is showing, not every house,

not every citizen may be affected; but certainly some homes and some of

our citizens have suffered negative consequences from the installation

of UFFI, and we feel strongly that the federal government has an

obligation to provide assistance and support to those affected

consumers. At the federal consumer ministers' conference last fall our

delegation led the fight to seek a commitment from Mr. Ouellet, the

federal minister, for both technical and financial help to affected

consumers, and that commitment was forthcoming in December.

The

homeowner action group here in British Columbia is, I think, the best

organized and the most effective in all of Canada. It's chaired by Dr.

Penny Tilby, and in the last year we have provided two separate grants

to this organization to assist their office in its operations and in

the work that it is doing on behalf of consumers.

We are

continuing to monitor both the ongoing evidence and reports about

reaction to UFFI across the country, and also to monitor the

implementation by the federal government of its relief program. My

colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) earlier this session

introduced a very important piece of relief legislation that will

assist consumers here in British Columbia affected by this problem.

That was legislation which would expand the normal

statute-of-limitations period and permit consumers afflicted with the

UFFI problem a longer period of time within which to consider their

rights and preserve their rights, then decide what action, if any, to

take.

Mr. Chairman, another highly topical interest on the

consumer side of the ministry in the last year is the topic of

supermarket scanners. The members will recall that early in 1981 we

acted to place a moratorium on the installation of further scanners in

supermarkets, pending the research, work and results of a task force

that we established headed by Prof. Stanley Shapiro of Simon Fraser

University. That report was completed late in the year. We released it

and announced our policy on scanners early in 1982. It is a policy

which seeks to provide a permanent choice for consumers, by providing

that over the next several years no greater than one-third of the

supermarket outlets in British Columbia may become scanner-equipped. We

seek to provide that consumers will have a choice as to where they want

to shop between a scanner and a non-scanner store. If over time the

scanner stores indeed turn out to provide lower pricing or better hold

the line on pricing, consumers will be at liberty to shop in such

stores. If they prefer to shop in stores with the traditional pricing,

that choice will be available to them. We have also implemented a

scanner code of conduct for those stores which may be permitted to

install scanners; we'd like to see them abide by the so-called scanner

code of conduct. That policy we've announced, Mr. Chairman, seems to be

working very well to the satisfaction of all concerned.

Also

on the consumer side of the ministry, in the travel business British

Columbia travel agents, prepaid tours and the Travel Assurance Board

occupied major attention during last year. The members will recall that

at approximately Easter of 1981 there were several major failures in

the wholesale side of the travel industry. Through the work of our

Travel Assurance Board and the Travel Assurance Fund, we were able to

preserve and protect the holidays of British Columbians and in

appropriate cases provide refunds, so that in the result,

notwithstanding those collapses, holidays were protected or restitution

was made. In the wake of that a report was commissioned, by Mr.

Frederick Shandro, a Vancouver lawyer and an expert in insolvency and

bankruptcy. Late in the year he brought in a major report containing

about 40 recommendations with respect to the organization of the travel

industry and the Travel Assurance Fund. The ministry has been assessing

those, Mr. Chairman, particularly in light of a rapidly changing

economy. The economy of today and recent months is much different from

the British Columbia economy in which Mr. Shandro began his original

research. However, we anticipate before too long making some major

announcements with respect to changes in the structure and operations

of the Travel Assurance Board and the Travel Assurance Fund.

have recently moved to fill the vacancy on the so-called retail side of

the Travel Assurance Board caused by the retirement of Mr. Malcolm

Nicholson from the board. Recently we appointed Mr. Kurt Maurer, the

proprietor of Hagen's Travel Service, to fill the retail position on

the Travel Assurance Board. We anticipate meeting again with the

British Columbia executive of the travel agents' organization. We met

with them about two months ago to receive and review their

recommendations as to the Travel Assurance Board, the fund and the

applicable legislation. We propose to meet with them again before

coming to any final conclusions.

Mr. Chairman, another very

important consumer topic — and it relates also to the corporate side of

the ministry — which has engaged our attention over the last year is

that of the proposed new federal competition act. Members will recall

this has been announced as a federal initiative by the Hon. André

Ouellet, the federal Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Again,

at the federal consumer ministers' conference last fall, British

Columbia took the lead in promoting discussion on this topic. Unlike

some provinces, without having seen the legislation we do not take the

new view that any new competition act must be bad and a step backwards.

Rather, we think, if properly drafted with proper content and with

proper consultation, a new competition act can be of major importance

not only to British Columbia consumers but to British Columbia

business, large, medium and small. While many think that a new

competition act must necessarily somehow be against business and only

promote the interests of consumers, we believe that if properly framed

and with proper content, a new federal competition act can be good news

for consumers, good news for big business, small business and

medium-sized business. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that in particular

small and medium sized business can earn and receive some much-needed

protection in our British Columbia and Canadian economy from modern and

fresh provisions in a new federal competition act. We await that

legislation and its content. As I said, if it is sensible, fresh

legislation that will advance the interests of consumers and business,

we look forward to supporting it.

May I turn to the

corporate side of the ministry and address some remarks on the

activities of the corporate division. The securities law and regulation

division of the corporate ministry has had a very active year. Our

jurisdiction

[ Page 8852 ]

includes

the Vancouver Stock Exchange. The VSE has really moved into its own in

the last several years. Last year it commenced recording some of the

highest trading volumes of any stock exchange in Canada. Over the last

several years the Vancouver Stock Exchange has developed policies to

upgrade the quality of its operations, the quality of its listings and

the quality of its staff.

The VSE has become a major

employer in our B.C. economy. About 200 attractive white-collar jobs

are now involved at the VSE. So a healthy and strong VSE is important

for many reasons, not the least of which is job availability in the

greater Vancouver financial community. In the past year the exchange

moved to brand new facilities, paid for by exchange members. About $200

million worth of new facilities and new technological equipment give

the VSE some highly competitive technological trading advantages.

The

VSE also recruited a new president to succeed retiring Bob Scott. The

new president is Mr. Don Hudson, who brings excellent executive and

retail experience to the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

Through

the ministry we've attempted to maintain a very regular liaison with

the exchange, its board of governors and its senior executives over the

last year. Certainly as the VSE has grown, the other exchanges in

Canada, particularly the Toronto Stock Exchange and the Montreal Stock

Exchange, from which the VSE has taken business, have announced plans

to counterattack economically and win back some of the business which

has been lost. I think, therefore, the ministry has a job to do in

assisting the VSE and the Vancouver financial community in keeping the

business that has been won and brought here, in achieving the VSE goal

of developing the Vancouver financial community as a unique

venture-capital market.

Recently it's been announced that

the Montreal Stock Exchange has been lobbying federal Members of

Parliament, the federal government and the Quebec government with a

view to creating Montreal as an international tax haven, with respect

to international financial transactions. We will be following those

efforts very closely. If the Montreal Stock Exchange, on the eastern

side of Canada with its window to Europe, seeks from the federal

government a special tax status with respect to international financial

transactions, we think an equally good argument can be applied with

respect to Vancouver, our Vancouver financial community and the

Vancouver Stock Exchange. Our area on the far western Pacific side of

Canada is deserving of such treatment too.

Members will also

know that an important amendment has been proposed for the Vancouver

Stock Exchange Act this session, providing for dealing in certain kinds

of financial options.

During the year there was considerable

concern about the time-frame required with respect to the Vancouver

Stock Exchange and our own broker's office for the processing of

prospectuses and statements of material fact. The argument was that the

unnecessarily lengthy time-frame would mean delays in processing

prospectuses and statements of material fact, that it would would be

costly to the investor and would cause further quality investment in

the Vancouver financial community to go elsewhere, by virtue of the red

tape and delay involved in getting them ready for public marketing. In

response to those concerns, early in 1982 we commissioned Mr. Peter

Stanley, a former governor of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, to

undertake an extensive look at the problem. He produced what we call

the Stanley report, which we issued in the fall. He proposed a number

of remedies, a number of which we have implemented. It appears that the

backlog that had existed is now virtually eliminated, and a number of

his recommendations are now in place.

With respect to both

the proposed new Securities Act and the Stanley report, we have certain

basic goals and objectives in our securities legislation, which I'll be

referring to in a moment.

Also of importance to members is

the proposed new Securities Act of British Columbia. The new Securities

Act was introduced earlier this session as a so-called exposure bill,

so that we might have comment from the affected parties. Under that

act, we proposed that a good deal of the content be relegated to the

form of regulations to provide in the future some greater flexibility

for amending the rules, and also some greater capacity to respond in a

timely way should competitive financial markets and stock exchanges

seek to compete by changing their rules. Today I'm pleased to announce

that we're going to release the proposed regulations under the act. For

the convenience of members we have collated the act and the proposed

regulations. It's all in one place and contains the proposed new

securities act and the proposed draft regulations, which are very

extensive. In advance of the regulations, there is a commentary by way

of an overview which seeks to give a

summary of what is in the

regulations.

These proposed regulations are again introduced

on an exposure basis. They are being farmed out to the affected and

interested parties in the private sector and also to certain public

interest groups. We're asking for response and comment by September 15,

in the hope that we may receive and act upon any constructive

suggestions for change. We further hope that in the fall we can proceed

with the act and the regulations together.

I've got a number

of further remarks to make about other parts of the ministry. However,

given the clock, what I might do at this stage is make a few more

comments about the corporate side of the ministry, and then perhaps my

friends opposite would have some comments.

In essence, these

are our objectives with respect to the securities side of the corporate

division of the ministry, with respect to the Vancouver Stock Exchange

and our financial marketplace in Vancouver: to provide improved public

protection and investor confidence; to make more effective our

surveillance, investigation and compliance; to develop a "little guys"

policy to make this the fairest market of all for the small investor;

to eliminate red tape and delays; to assist the B.C. financial

community in developing, as part of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, a

venture capital market that is unique not just in North America but in

the world; to meet successfully the expected new competition of the

Toronto and Montreal Stock Exchanges; and to encourage entrepreneurial

initiative. Those are the objectives that we hope to reach.

concluding at this stage, I note that we hosted the conference of

northwest securities state regulators about a month ago, with security

regulators from many parts of the U.S. and Canada. That's been of great

assistance to us.

I might pause at this point. I've got some

subsequent remarks to make on the real estate division of the

superintendent of brokers, the office of the rentalsman, credit unions,

liquor distribution branch and liquor control and licensing, but

perhaps I'll pause here and listen to my friends opposite.

[ Page 8853 ]

MR. LEVI:

I've no questions of this minister, since be refuses to answer

questions on substantive matters. I move that vote 20 be reduced to the

sum of $1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

MR. BARBER:

These are the estimates of a minister who has wrecked his reputation

during the present session. This motion is presented by the opposition

because we believe he holds this Legislature in contempt, and we

believe the way in which he has ruined his reputation holds the people

in contempt. We make three principal charges and criticisms of this

minister, and do so through a motion to reduce his salary to $1. If it

were within our power, Mr. Chairman, we would make a motion to require

him to repay the money he has spent on personal extravagance and the

money misspent on personal waste. If it were in our power, that would

be the motion we would be debating now. But it's not, and so we move to

reduce vote 20 to $1 and thereby limit his future waste and

extravagance in this portfolio, or at least as long as he holds it.

This

minister has wrecked his reputation, and he's done it in three ways:

first, by being charged with waste and extravagance on a scale we

haven't seen in this province for years; secondly, by being charged

with making false statements on vouchers which he certified as correct

and later admitted inPublic Accounts and elsewhere were not correct;

thirdly, by refusing to answer questions in this House during question

period and in a committee of this House called Public Accounts. The

record of (1) waste and extravagance, (2) false statements and (3) a

refusal to answer questions is a record that we believe requires us to

move that his salary be reduced to one dollar.

He has also

helped to further tarnish the reputation of his own government — the

government of Broadway Bob, who goes to New York and wastes a thousand

bucks, the government of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who

goes to New York and does the same thing, the government of a Ministry

of Health that rewrites vouchers, and now the Minister of Consumer

Affairs, who has done more spectacular consuming himself than any other

consumer in British Columbia this year. It's a government whose public

reputation has been doubtless irreparably damaged by the conduct of the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

There is only

one unique circumstance. This is one we didn't expect to see when these

revelations came forward, but it is now one which we are entitled to

acknowledge. In this record of waste and extravagance, in this record

of public admission that false documents were filed, this minister has

been consistently protected by the Premier. He has been protected from

the first day, and a standard of protection has been applied to him

that was never applied to another minister who got into trouble with

travel expenses — my colleagues to follow will be drawing comparisons

that are obvious for all to see. This minister has enjoyed the unique

protection of the Premier, and there are obviously powerful political

reasons why. They have to do with the nature of the coalition, the

nature of political debt and the nature of political obligation. This

minister — who stands charged with waste and extravagance, false

statements and a refusal to answer questions — has been protected by

the Premier in a deliberate and, in our view, unparliamentary way.

Later on we will be examining why it is that the Premier has found it

necessary to protect this minister.

Let me deal with the

first issue — waste. On March 27 of this year columnist Richard Gwyn

first hinted in print that there was something, wrong with the expense

accounts of members of the Social Credit cabinet. On March 21 — four

days later — the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs evidently

realized it might be him. He wrote to Mr. MacMunn, the departmental

comptroller, and asked him to examine his accounts. We can only presume

that if Mr. Gwyn had not written that column on March 17, no such

letter to the departmental comptroller would have gone forward on March

21. In consequence of that, the minister has admitted that at least

$326 was claimed by and paid to him that never should have been claimed

or paid. He could have admitted a great deal more, and we'll talk about

that too. On March 17 Mr. Gwyn hinted that something was wrong in the

cabinet; on March 21 the minister realized — perhaps for the first time

— it was him, and so he wrote to Mr. MacMunn.

Shortly thereafter the Vancouver Sun ,

in a series of disclosures based on authentic documents and disclosures

that were made as the result of the minister's certifying vouchers to

be correct when in fact they were not, helped develop a record of

personal waste and extravagance that we have not seen in this

Legislature for many years. This record of waste and extravagance

includes, as is well known, a dinner for six at Umberto's restaurant

purportedly to discuss government policy. This dinner for six cost the

taxpayers $374, of which $184 was for booze. How sober a discussion

could this have been, Mr. Chairman? There was $184 for booze — the

whole dinner only cost $374 — and that was for only six people. What

sober discussions took place that night? What discussions in fact took

place that night that couldn't have taken place in the minister's

office soberly by day?

I've never understood the

justification these Socreds offer for this constant claim on the public

purse for their personal eating and drinking habits. If they want to

eat and drink, that's fine; but let them pay for it. They're paid

enough by the taxpayers once. Why do they have to be paid twice? If

it's legitimate government business, if it involves entertaining

delegations, business persons, people from the trade union movement or

Mr. and Mrs. Citizen, that's fine. We don't criticize it. But this — a

$374 dinner at Umberto's restaurant — illustrates vividly, but not

uniquely, the personal waste and extravagance of a minister who, we

presume, would never have sent such a bill to his own law firm; he

knows full well his law partners would have thrown it out, laughing.

This is the famous dinner that includes, of course, the bottles of

wine, Pouilly Fuisse — $37.50. How does the minister justify that kind

of extravagance to the people of British Columbia? How can he possibly

do so — $37.50 for bottles of wine? This is, of course, the same

minister who also submitted vouchers in the amount of 60 cents for

cartons of milk. Can you imagine what it costs the taxpayers to process

a voucher for 60 cents? Can you imagine how much we had to pay, to pay

twice for the minister's cartons of milk bought at the CNIB store out

here? But that is the waste, that is the extravagance, and that is the

record of the minister whose salary we're now moving be reduced to $1.

This

is also the record of waste and extravagance that includes among other

items the following: $14.39 for films so that pictures could be taken

in his office for God knows what public purpose, $10.481 for a

government car for the minister — specially equipped, we found out,

with a stereo,

[ Page 8854 ]

deluxe

upholstery and an electric sun roof. What public business is better

served when the minister can press a button and open the sun roof on

his government car? What justification can he offer for that

extravagance at public expense? If he wants it himself, let him pay for

it himself. It's fine if he pays for it out of his own pocket; it is

objectionable, wrong and wasteful to bill the taxpayers $10,481 so that

this minister can enjoy a stereo, so that he can seat himself

comfortably on what was described as "deluxe upholstery," and so that

when it is sunny out, he can press a button and have a roof retract

automatically.

This is the minister who has also been asked

why he billed the government $579 for a bill submitted by Sewell's

Marina, a company that ordinarily rents boats. What government business

was conducted, if it was the case that this minister rented a boat

while on a tour? What justification is there for that bill? We've tried

to ask, and so has the press; the minister refuses to answer. There may

be a justification, but we don't know what it is. We can only construe

that it is as acceptable as $10,000 for a car with a sun roof or

hundreds upon hundreds of dollars for dinner and booze with friends.

The

minister's record of extravagance includes giving an unsolicited

donation of $5,000 to the Junior League, of which his wife was the

incoming president, for a Xerox that they never required. There are a

lot of groups around British Columbia who would be delighted to receive

$5,000 they never requested in order to obtain a Xerox they may not

need — the homemakers, for instance, Mr. Chairman. The homemaker

service would be delighted for a gift of $5,000 from this minister, but

of course they'll never get one because his wife probably is not the

incoming president.

This minister's record of personal waste

includes moving from Quebec City to Montreal in order to rent a room at

the Quatre Saisons in the amount of $440 a night. What government

business was conducted there we don't know, because there is no record;

what government business needs to be conducted in a suite that costs

$440 a night? If the minister wants to meet with people in Montreal,

why doesn't he meet at their office? Why doesn't he meet in their hotel

room? Why doesn't he try and find a few ways to save the taxpayers a

bit of money? No, he moved from a $250-a-night room at one hotel in

Quebec City — the Frontenac, I think it was — to a $440-a-night room at

the Quatre Saisons in Montreal.

This record of waste and

extravagance includes expenditures of $644 for a dinner with his staff.

Apparently he didn't value the staff at dinner highly enough to pay for

it himself. If he had paid for it himself, that might have been taken

as a sincere gesture by his staff that he really appreciated their

personal services, but no, he billed that to the taxpayers too: $644

later he's had yet another dinner at public expense.

On May

26, 1981, in one of his endless rounds of endless lunches and dinners

at the taxpayers' expense, he took to lunch the Minister of Tourism

(Hon. Mrs. Jordan), the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm) and the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree); $21 later,

he had treated his colleagues to yet another lunch at the taxpayers'

expense. You know, there seems to be no end to that extravagance

either. These guys are constantly taking one another to dinner,

constantly deciding who will pay the bill or how many will be paid for

the same bill, and constantly treating their own appointed deputies at

taxpayers' expense to yet another round of lunch and dinner and booze.

AN HON. MEMBER: You mean there is a free lunch?

MR. BARBER:

Well, there is a free lunch if you're a Socred. If you're a Socred

cabinet minister — I can't use their personal names — like the Minister

of Tourism or the Minister of Municipal Affairs, you got a free lunch

on May 26 — and hundreds of others in this cabinet that indicates its

contempt for authentic restraint, its willingness to spend anything for

personal pleasure, its total lack of will to buy a hamburger out of

their own pockets. This is the government and the minister who

submitted a voucher for 60 cents for a carton of milk.

The

waste and extravagance of this minister includes a trip to Arizona.

Today, $1,509 later, we still don't know what he did there. We do know

that the minister was appointed to the cabinet on January 6. We now

know — this is information not previously made public — that 13 days

later he made a reservation to go to a plush resort in Scottsdale,

Arizona. Thirteen days after being appointed he discovers he has urgent

government business in Scottsdale, Arizona; that's when the reservation

was actually made, we now learn. Seven months later the minister

persuaded himself, shall we say, that this was, after all, legitimate

government business, and he submitted a claim. The government paid the

claim. Unfortunately for him, during a period covered in this claim he

also claimed to be in Vancouver. Even for a really fast minister,

that's hard. To be in both Scottsdale and Vancouver on February 27 is

really hard to do, but that's what that minister said he had done.

We've

asked before and got no answers: what was the minister doing in

Scottsdale, Arizona? Who invited him? What government agency asked him

to go down there to conduct what government business? We contacted the

governor's office, the offices of the minority and majority caucus

leaders in both houses of the Arizona state legislature, and the

Arizona department of consumer and corporate affairs. I'd like to know

whether the minister ever met with any of those people. If he didn't,

what was he doing there? Why did it take him seven months to ascertain

that he had been there on government business? Who are Mr. and Mrs.

Walter Stirling? What business do they have with the government of

British Columbia? What business do they have with the government of

Arizona? What dealings do they have with the policy issues of the

Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs? What dealings do they have

with the policies administered and agencies governed by this minister?

Which specific state legislators were met by the minister when he was

in Scottsdale, Arizona at this luxury resort? Which of them, if any,

were arranged to be met before he left Vancouver? If any were arranged

to be met, who made the arrangements and for what business purpose?

The minister has refused, in Public Accounts

and to the press, to answer questions about what he was doing in

Arizona. His refusal makes us curious. When he decides he has to go to

a resort for tennis stars and makes the booking 13 days after he is

appointed, we have to be a bit curious as to what he's doing there and

whether or not it's government business.

Those are just a

few illustrations of the charge that has been made, and that can be

verified, that this minister has been living very handsomely off the

public purse and has been demonstrably guilty of waste and

extravagance, which is unacceptable in this or any other House.

That

is the first reason why this minister has wrecked his reputation in

British Columbia. The second reason deals with the issue of false

statements.

[ Page

8855 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

As the member is very well aware, certain terms may not be used in the

chamber. I would ask the member possibly to couch his comments in

terminology that is acceptable to the chamber.

MR. BARBER:

The vouchers filed by this minister are positively riddled with

misinformation. Those statements are not accurate when you examine the

vouchers. The claims made by the minister over and over again prove to

be, upon analysis, riddled with statements that cannot be verified and

claims that are, in a word, false. I'm not commenting about motivation.

The minister himself has admitted that these are false claims, because

he's pulled back some of them, he's refunded some of the money and he's

tried to correct others.

The second principal reason why we

make this motion and why this minister has wrecked his reputation is

because of these hopelessly inaccurate vouchers and claims of expense.

For instance, at one point he claimed to have had dinner with the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) on a cabinet tour. He said he

saw the Minister of Labour in the same dining room but, upon review,

realized that he wasn't at the same table. The first explanation

collapsed in a heap of laughter when it turned out that the Minister of

Labour was neither at the table nor in the room nor on the cabinet

tour. He wasn't there at all. It turned out that the male member of

cabinet whom he thought he had dinner with was a female member of the

Premier's office staff. That was a claim he made within 60 days of the

event. A strangely short memory; wildly inaccurate recollections. The

inaccurate claim on that voucher has been repudiated.

The

minister also claimed — he certified it; he put his signature on the

document — to have had dinner with the publisher of the Vancouver Sun .

This turns out to be another — in a word — false claim. The publisher

said he was never there for dinner with the minister. After it became

public, but not before, the minister admitted that as well. He went on

to givePublic Accounts an explanation which, frankly, we do not

believe. The explanation offered by this minister for the Clark Davey

dinner is utterly incredible. No one believes it but the minister

himself. No rational person can accept the excuse offered by the

minister: how he came by mistake to have believed he had dinner with

Clark Davey, when in fact he didn't. That was only the second mistake.

The first was the Minister of Labour, who wasn't at the table or in the

dining room or on the tour; the second was the publisher of the Vancouver Sun ,

who came over to say hello. I certainly don't think that was worth

billing $61 to the taxpayers: it was a fairly brief hello. The

explanation the minister offered toPublic Accounts was completely ludicrous. I suspect the minister is the only person who can even repeat it with a straight face.

Then there's the issue of another inaccurate claim. This one involves double-billing,

This is the one that involves the Arizona trip and the trip to Vancouver occurring

at the same period. How is it possible that the minister could sign a document

alleging he was in Vancouver when he knew he was in Scottsdale and claiming

for both? There's a word for that kind of practice, and it's found in

the Criminal Code. It's found in the Criminal Code when people do that sort

of thing. That was obviously a fraudulent entry. The minister says it was a

mistake, just one of many. We're asked to believe that he signed vouchers

with his eyes closed. We are asked to believe that he sat there in his office

one day and riffling through them — as you and I would riffle through a pack

of cards — he simply signed voucher after voucher and didn't care enough

to find out if the expenses were legitimate, accurate or even real. There's

another word to describe someone who would treat public funds like that. The

word I use is malfeasance.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. The member can use any word he wishes, as long as it is

in keeping with the rules that govern us in this House. I'm sure the

hon. member has enough command of the language to say what he wants to

say without offending those rules.

MR. BARBER: I'm not aware that malfeasance is on the famous list, Mr. Chairman. Is it? You know it's not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member knows the intent of the word he's using and....

MR. BARBER: I do. The intent of the word and the intent of the minister are unhappily parallel.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I must ask the member to bear in mind the rules of this

House and to carry on a debate that is acceptable to those rules.

MR. BARBER:

The minister has asked us to believe that he signed a bunch of vouchers

that were, for all practical purposes, blank. Some of us don't believe

it. Some of us think that even if that it were true, that alone is

enough reason to justify the call for his resignation. But we'll get to

that in a minute too. Either way you look at it, the man is not fit to

hold the office. If he's signing things blind, he shouldn't be there.

If he's signing statements that claim he was in one place and another,

thousands of miles apart, on the same day, he shouldn't be in either of

those places. He shouldn't be in that office at all.

In one

travel voucher alone there were five claims, three of which the

minister has now admitted were completely in error. That's just one of

dozens. No minister that incompetent — three errors out of five tries —

has adequate administrative skills to hold the office he commands. Even

if you believe the explanation he offered — and many don't — that

explanation disqualifies him from the office he holds.

The

record of inaccurate statements includes strange billings to the

account of the deputy minister herself. The minister has also admitted

that there might be something peculiar about that practice. We hope

that the auditor-general reviews it very carefully, because we think

there is something quite wrong with it as well. When the deputy

minister is on legitimate government business, she's entitled to be

reimbursed for it. We don't object at all. When the minister is on

legitimate government business, he is similarly entitled. But he is not

entitled to cover up his real expenses by charging them to someone

else, namely his deputy. That appears to be what happened. The minister

has admitted as much. It is a gross violation of anything that we

consider to be honest bookkeeping — to see that kind of manipulation

occurring in the public accounts.

The minister has admitted

to $326 worth of mistakes. He's admitted that he signed vouchers with

his eyes closed — those are my words and not his. When he made the

admission by way of a letter paying back the money, he didn't make that

letter public. We did. We had to. We found it, The minister apparently

was so ashamed of the admissions of error that he

[ Page 8856 ]

did

not himself make a public disclosure that he had paid back some of the

money he had wrongly claimed. We found it by surprise in a set of

vouchers, during the good old days when we had staff and could use the

staff to examine vouchers. The minister was obviously ashamed of

something.

The third part of our argument, and that with

which I conclude, is where the real shame should lie. We've said as

well that the minister stands condemned for his refusal to answer

questions. Mr. Chairman, I ask a very simple question: what right does

the minister have to refuse? Where in the Constitution Act does it say

that this minister has the right to refuse to answer questions on the

floor of this House in question period, during his estimates or inPublic Accounts

? What lawful right does he have to refuse to answer questions about

Arizona, the milk cartons, Umberto's Restaurant, the money for the

camera, the money for the car, and all of these other inconsistencies

and this other extravagance? What right does the minister have to

refuse to answer? In our view he has none at all, save the

self-proclaimed right of Socreds. That self-proclaimed right is

arrogance, contempt and a refusal to be held responsible for what

they've done after they've been caught.

In conclusion, Mr.

Chairman, this minister stands condemned by refusing to answer

legitimate questions in a forthright, straightforward and timely way.

He stands condemned by the publication of vouchers that indicate a

record of personal high living that no one in British Columbia believes

he is entitled to. He stands condemned because he signed voucher after

voucher that turn out to have been filled with mistake after mistake.

The record of incompetence is clear and proven. The record of waste is

clear and proven. The record of this government and in particular of

this Premier in protecting this man is also clear and proven. On all

those counts our motion to reduce his salary to $1 should pass this

House unanimously.

MR. KING: I'm amazed, Mr.

Chairman, that no one on the government side is prepared to stand up

and give even a pretence of a defence of the very serious allegations

brought forward against the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

Perhaps what bothers me more is the fact that the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs is prepared to continue to occupy the office of a

minister of the Crown in this province with the very serious and

supported allegations made against him for the squandering, if not the

abuse, of public funds within the authority of his ministry.

Mr.

Chairman, there has been a long-standing tradition in parliaments

within the British jurisdiction, parliaments modelled after the British

House, that where a serious allegation, or even a question, of

wrongdoing against a minister is raised, that minister stands down from

his office, pending a full and thorough investigation of the

allegations that have been brought forward. It's not to be construed as

an admission of guilt; rather it is to preserve the integrity of

ministerial offices. It is to preserve the integrity of a minister of

the Crown as being above reproach in terms of the administration of

public funds, until a full and thorough review that guarantees

judicious hearing of evidence makes a finding. This minister has

refused to do that. Moreover, this minister has refused to adequately

answer implications flowing from the material released by the Vancouver Sun initially, and further information contained in vouchers which were brought forward at Public Accounts

committee meetings. This minister — it's been demonstrated and outlined

in most articulate fashion by my colleague the first member for

Victoria (Mr. Barber) — has abused the public trust. This minister has

squandered public funds on his own personal meals....

Interjection.

MR. KING:

My colleague asks whether or not the two ministers who flank the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, neither one of whom

occupies his own seat, drew the short straws in terms of seeing who

might remain in the House to act as a palace guard for the minister who

is under attack. I want to suggest that those ministers have drawn

short straws not only in terms of defending that minister but also, it

seems, in terms of preserving their own ministries.

It's a

most serious matter. The only parallels we have to this situation, in

which it's been proven that this minister waxed fat, sassy and

extravagant at the taxpayers' expense in the exclusive restaurants of

British Columbia, drinking expensive French wines that, as my colleague

the Leader of the Opposition says, are so dammed expensive I can't even

pronounce them — $37.50 a bottle to anoint the throats of this minister

and some little coterie of friends who dined out at Umberto's

restaurant, a place that the unemployed thousands of British Columbia

will never see, much less dine in....

That's an abuse. It's

an abuse when this minister donates, at government expense, machinery

to an organization which never requested it, but which coincidentally

his wife happens to be the incoming president of. It's an abuse when

this minister entertains his colleagues, other cabinet ministers, and

bills the people of this province for their meal, over and above the

per diem of $45 they receive each and every day they're out of the

capital of Victoria. In addition to that, a number of cabinet ministers

dined together and this minister picked up the tab for all of them.

That's double-dipping, Mr. Chairman. That's an abuse and extravagance

that the people of the province of British Columbia do not deserve to

have imposed upon them. That's an abuse of office — if not illegal,

certainly immoral.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

How

can this government expect any credibility to be attached to their

alleged program of restraint when we see the Minister of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) attending Broadway shows

in New York with a Cadillac limousine waiting — hundreds of dollars of

taxpayers' money blown on that minister's self-gratification? Similarly

with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), in New York attending a

Broadway show, the title of which is unparliamentary. To render it into

parliamentary terms, I guess I would have to refer to it as "The Best

Little Bawdy House in Texas." The Minister of Finance attends that at

public expense. We have this minister living high off the hog, renting

boats, going on a tennis holiday to Scottsdale, Arizona, failing to

show that he conducted any government business whatsoever while on that

week's vacation at public expense, playing tennis. I think he had his

family with him, did he not? That's fine; I like to see ministers'

families travel with them wherever possible. I think that's good

practice. But it should not be billed to the public. Taxpayers don't

deserve to be billed, indeed gouged, for the private holidays of

ministers of the Crown. By all means take your wife with you on these

trips; I think it's a very good practice. But surely, at

[ Page

8857 ]

$70,000 per year, Mr. Minister, you could afford to pay for your wife's accommodation and travel expenses.

Maybe

you did; I don't know. The problem is, Mr. Chairman, that the minister

has steadfastly refused to answer any of the questions relating to that

trip to Arizona, which defies the doctrine of ministerial

accountability to this Legislature and the doctrine of political

accountability to the province. As Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, how

can we be expected to give any credibility to that minister's

responsibilities under his portfolio, when he has shown such an utter

and overwhelming contempt for the people of the province of British

Columbia by squandering their tax dollars hither and yon across this

province and indeed across the continent? It would be a charade and a

mockery to treat seriously this minister's responsibilities for

Consumer and Corporate Affairs until he is prepared, in an honest and

forthright fashion, to step down from his position and allow for a full

and thorough airing of all of the information raised by the vouchers

which have been referred to.

Mr. Chairman, there's no need

for the minister to entertain his cabinet colleagues. They each make

$70,000 a year. I don't criticize that, because they work hard —

ministers do. They spend long hours. I have been there, and I know. I

suspect that not all of the public recognize the long, difficult and

tedious hours that ministers of the Crown put in. But they are well

paid; they receive an adequate expense allowance. It is totally

unnecessary and unprecedented for members of the executive council to

dine constantly at public expense in addition to the expenses they

receive. Furthermore, it is totally improper to entertain their

colleagues at public expense — unjustified either by rule of cabinet or

by rule of tradition in terms of ministerial behaviour.

Deputy

ministers receive $60,000 per year. I'm not sure whether all of them

do, but certainly the senior ones do. They can well afford to buy their

own lunches and dinners. They do not have to be entertained by the

minister at public expense, so that the taxpayers are receiving a

double load in the cost of maintaining government.

It never

ceases to amaze me that this government deals so much in cliches.

Remember the lines of this government during the last election?

"There's no such thing as a free lunch, my friends. Someone has to pay.

The government has no money of its own. It all comes from the

taxpayers." Surely, Mr. Chairman, if they were serious and sincere

about those sentiments, they would not be gouging the taxpayers of the

province of British Columbia for meals day after day, for their staff

and their colleagues in cabinet, while at one and the same time

receiving a salary of $60,000 and $70,000 a year, plus $45 a day per

diem for the days they are out of Victoria. What they preach to the

public they are not prepared to follow; they are not prepared to set an

example to the rest of the province. They preach restraint, they preach

caution in difficult economic times, but they live high off the hog at

public expense. And what is worse, this minister consistently — and in

my view contemptuously — refuses to answer questions regarding the

expenditure of public funds under his office, for which he should be

accountable to this Legislature. It may be that he is hoping that when

the auditor general's report comes down in 1983 or 1985, whenever it

may be, he'll be vindicated. That may be. It may also be that he will

no longer be in the cabinet at that time in any event. It may be that

any abuses or misdeeds that occurred will be beyond the upcoming

provincial election, so that any accountability to this Legislature, to

this parliament and its rules will have gone by the board before that

minister is called to account for the improprieties which have been

clearly proved respecting his submissions of expenses under public

accounts. It s totally unprecedented that a member should remain a

member of the executive council while these most serious allegations of

abuse, and indeed wrongdoing, are suggested by the claims which he has

made on the public purse.

He made some claims and collected

some money — I think it was $324 — which was subsequently repaid by his

decision, without any public airing. Private citizens in this province

accused of any wrongdoing or accused of acquiring expense money or of

making income tax claims or claims for social assistance or workers'

compensation, basing those claims upon false testimony and certifying

that indeed their claims are correct and true.... If it is subsequently

proved that that certification was false and untrue, they don't have

the luxury of repaying those moneys received.

This

government is most vigorous in prosecuting cases under Human Resources,

workers' compensation or any other field of human benefit where claims

certified as true are subsequently proven to be untrue and

unsupportable. There should only be one standard of justice in the

province of British Columbia, not one for politicians and another for

citizens. There should be one standard of justice for all people before

the law in the province of British Columbia, whether they be cabinet

ministers or workers. It is not good enough to have people in high

places protected by the Premier or by other members of government while

young mothers with dependent children on welfare are prosecuted for

making false declarations in terms of claims to the Ministry of Human

Resources. There's nobody to protect them, nor should there be. But it

angers me and it breeds cynicism, distaste and contempt in the hearts

and minds of the people of this province when they see that there are

two standards of law: one for this minister, for Social Credit and the

Premier, and quite another for the average citizen.

That's

what's at issue here. It's damaging to the process. It's not only

damaging to that minister; it is damaging to each and every member who

sits in this Legislature, because it brings politics into disrepute.

It's shameful conduct. How is it that this minister, with a

preponderance of proof, a preponderance of evidence, at least to

suggest that there has been if not impropriety then scandalously

irresponsible accounting is protected? How is it that the member for

North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), the then Minister of

Communications, at the first suggestion of impropriety in claiming for

travel fares was not only summarily dismissed by the Premier from the

executive council but subsequently pursued with criminal charges and

found guilty?

At that time the Premier said: "I do not wish

to prejudge the case against this member, but serious allegations have

been raised and he should stand down from the cabinet until such time

as the charges against him have been dealt with through due process." I

agree with those sentiments. I agree with that action taken by the

Premier, and I ask why that standard of procedure was dispensed to the

member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) and not in the case of

the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. How come there's one

standard for that member, a former Liberal, and quite another standard

for this former leader of the Tory Party in the province of British

Columbia, who joined the Social Credit coalition when he found it more

convenient to get elected that way? Is it because he is of more

political import to

[ Page 8858 ]

the

political destinies of Social Credit? Is that why he's being protected?

Is that why he still occupies a cabinet chair, when in fact the

allegations raised against this minister are far more numerous and far

more serious than those for which the Premier summarily dismissed the

member for North–Vancouver Seymour from cabinet?

If anyone

in British Columbia is to take either this minister or the government

seriously and particularly the Premier of the province, then they have

to be satisfied that some integrity is associated with this government

and their policies. How can anyone, regardless of political bent, view

with any seriousness in this day and age a call for restraint by this

government when the Premier, who is seeking to persuade people to

participate in that restraint, is protecting the minister who has been

guilty of the most flagrant, outrageous and scandalous abuse of the

public purse in the history of this province?

What was the

minister doing in Scottsdale other than playing tennis? Did he have any

government business there? If so, with whom? What benefit did the

taxpayers of the province of British Columbia receive from that week in

sunny Arizona on the tennis courts, which they paid for? The minister

consistently refuses to answer those questions in the House, and in my

view, Mr. Chairman, he is in utter contempt not only of the process

here but also of his responsibilities to the taxpayers of this

province. As such, he cannot expect to receive anything but the return

contempt of the voters when the next election rolls around. I'm afraid

we shall have to wait until then for a complete remedy.

MR. LEA:

What was the minister doing in Scottsdale, Arizona? I think it's a

question that a great many people want the answer to. I've arrived at

my conclusion: the minister was a guest in Scottsdale, Arizona.

You'll

recall, Mr. Chairman, that the gift to the Junior League of the

photocopier was because the minister's wife is the incoming president

of the Junior League in this province. The other person in Scottsdale,

Arizona whom anybody had any business with was Mrs. Sterling, also a

member of the Junior League. I suggest that Mr. Sterling and the

minister were guests of the wives, and the taxpayers picked up the

bill. That's what was going on in Scottsdale, Arizona. It was tennis,

fun and the Junior League. That's all it was, pure and simple.

It's

a sorry day for this province when once again we see this kind of

behaviour from a Social Credit government. It began 20 years ago, when

for the first time in commonwealth history a cabinet minister went to

jail for accepting bribes. A Social Credit cabinet minister, the first

in the history of the British Commonwealth system, went to jail for

receiving bribes. The first cabinet minister to be found guilty of

criminal fraud in this province was in this Social Credit government,

again a first. When this minister first came to my attention publicly

he was running in a by-election against the Socreds as a Conservative.

After he lost that election he sent our leader a letter, saying: "It

was a good show, but at least we didn't let the Social Credit in for

nothing." Do you know who won? Somebody else.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gordon Gibson.

MR. LEA:

He had the nerve to write a letter as a longtime Conservative and say:

"At least we didn't let the Social Credit in." Next thing I know, he is

Social Credit; he's the president of Social Credit. This chamber has

been filled since 1976 with political prostitutes, and this is the king

of them all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please, perhaps we could maintain some moderation and temperance in our language and be parliamentary.

MR. LEA:

Look, it's hard to be parliamentary when you're dealing with such utter

contempt for the process both in and out of this House. They are

opportunists; they are there for one and only one reason — to keep the

New Democratic Party out of power. They're not there for positive

reasons. They are not there to bring a vision of British Columbia; they

are there because they are the best politicians that money can buy;

that's why they're there. And should it be such a surprise to us that

we see members of that coalition, who meet and have joined and have run

for negative reasons and purposes, being charged with criminal fraud

and being found guilty of it? Is it any surprise that we see them

squandering public money? Is it any surprise that we see them putting

in for one day while they're actually somewhere else? It is no surprise

— not to us — but hopefully it's a surprise to the people of this

province. Hopefully, once and for all, the people of this province will

see through the political corruption that this minister symbolizes and

see that it is not good enough to vote for negativity. If we are to

move forward in society, we must move with positive reasons and not

negativity.

Mr. Chairman, there is no point in chronicling

all of the expenditures and all of the things that have been reviewed

in this House by my colleagues, or what has been reviewed in public

accounts and reviewed in the press. I don't go anywhere in this

province anymore where that minister's name is not met with cynicism —

not just that minister, but all of us, and the process too — in these

days when more and more people are becoming disillusioned with all of

the institutions — both those structured institutions and the more

subtle institutions in our society, the moral fibre that holds us

together. This minister has done more damage to the process and the

faith in our institutions than a host of other people could have

possibly done with evil intent.

This minister is, I suggest,

inadvertently squandering and spending money, because he feels it's his

right to do the sort of things he's been doing. He feels that he's the

privileged ruler, not the servant, of the people, and as long as

cabinet ministers and politicians treat the process in that manner, we

will further go into contempt of the people we serve and of all of our

institutions. Every member in this House has an obligation and a duty,

when we find this sort of political corruption, to cut it out like

cancer, to get rid of it and to make sure that every person in this

province knows that every member of this Legislature is going to do his

or her duty when we see this kind of corruption. For members of the

Social Credit side to back this because of their partisan purpose and

reasons is in itself another reason to bring people to have disrespect

for another institution in our history. Mr. Chairman, we have a duty

not to allow this minister to continue. We do have that duty, and

anyone who does not choose that duty is also negligent in their duty to

the people that they were elected to serve.

Mr. Chairman, it

doesn't end there. I said I'm not going to chronicle it, but during the

public accounts committee the minister, when asked whether he'd seen a

little bit of light, whether at least this last year he paid for his

own Christmas

[ Page 8859 ]

presents

to his staff, said yes, he'd seen that light. During the month of

December 1981 the minister didn't show any signs of having changed. In

fact, he threw a party in a local restaurant — the Harbour House, I

believe. Every kind of imaginable luxury was available, from paté to

seafood to good wines — and lots of it — to champagne coming out of a

fountain. Is that the sound of reform? Is that the kind of "I'm sorry"

attitude that he'd like us to believe he has? Is that going to get

respect for the institution of parliament and of cabinet and for those

things that our society stands for? Champagne coming out of a fountain,

invitations personally sent out by the minister to about 150 people,

everybody there scoffing at the public trough, drinking wine, eatingpaté

, nothing but the best of seafood and champagne coming out of a

fountain — is that the symbol of this administration? I'm afraid it is.

Lunches, dinners, breakfasts — all paid for at the taxpayers' expense

and all presided over by the Premier.

It is not so much the

responsibility of that member and that minister as it is the

responsibility of the Premier to make sure that his government is not

corrupt. And he has not met that duty. The Premier has allowed expense

accounts for friends, for colleagues, travel, Broadway shows, salmon,

seafood, best of wines, champagne coming out of a fountain, trips to

Arizona, fancy hotels — the works. The Premier has sanctioned it all.

The only difference between that minister and the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) is that the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour found himself on the outside with no friends and this

minister finds himself on the inside surrounded by them because they

feel they need him politically.

This minister has brought

shame on us all. This minister has brought shame on every living

citizen in this province, on the system, on the process, on the

Legislature, and still he sits there holding his office and the Premier

does nothing about it. We can't. We can show our contempt for what's

been going on by reducing his salary to $1. It won't pass, because in a

partisan way his colleagues will support him to the last. They are a

coalition to make sure that the privileged get their privileges, and

they will do anything to remain in power. They cling to power and they

blame everyone but themselves. They cling to it because they represent

the kind of living that we have seen disclosed in this minister's

vouchers.

The minister has brought us shame, but the Premier

has done worse. He's allowed that shame to reek from one end of this

province to the other. He has allowed this province to sit in shame. In

other parts of the country they look at us aghast. They thought this

went out with the old coalition. At least the old coalition called

themselves a coalition. They call themselves Social Credit. They are a

coalition who has brought us shame and a Premier who has allowed it. We

will not vote for this minister in any way. We would vote to have him

dismissed. We will vote to have his salary brought down to $1 only

because we can take no stronger action, We are taking the strongest

action we can because we feel very strongly that we do not want to

suffer the shame of this minister and his government.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 28

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

Brummet

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

On vote 20.

MR. KEMPF:

It might be that the NDP want to do nothing but sling mud and dirt

across the floor of this Legislature, but I want to discuss some items

in the estimates of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

I'll not take much of the time of the committee, but a couple of

problems raised by constituents of mine are of interest to me as the

representative of that riding.

This year, as in past years,

I want to talk about something that has been a serious problem on many

occasions for constituents of mine who live in very small communities,

such as we have in Omineca. That problem relates to acquiring a

neighbourhood pub licence and the regulations which designate where a

neighbourhood pub can or cannot be built in this province. I want to

implore the minister to have some of these regulations changed so that

they relate more logically to the small communities in the province of

British Columbia. Two of the regulations appearing in a little pamphlet

called "Obtaining a licence for a neighbourhood pub house in British

Columbia" relate directly to the very small communities which exist in

my constituency, and one of them has been used as an excuse to turn

down applications for neighbourhood pubs on many occasions. In the last

year, this regulation was used on about three different occasions as

the reason for turning down an application for a neighbourhood pub.

One

of the regulations states as follows: "No licensed neighbourhood public

house or licensed hotel shall be located within one mile of another

licensed neighbourhood public house or licensed hotel." The second

regulation reads: "No licensed neighbourhood public house shall be

located within one-half mile of a main or secondary highway." Anyone

knowing these small communities in the rural part of this province

knows that to be a mile away from another public house would in many

cases — and in most cases in the many

[ Page 8860 ]

communities

that exist in Omineca — be out of town. Anyone knowing the small

communities that exist in most of the rural areas of this province

knows that to be half a mile from an arterial or main highway would be

back in the boondocks, back in the bush, out of town.

So I

implore the minister and ask him again this year, as I have in the

past, to review that regulation. I realize that it says "except where

approved by the general manager," but in many cases, looking at

decisions made particularly in the last year for applications for

neighbourhood pubs in communities in the constituency which I serve,

this has been used as an excuse. The general manager has not realized

that to be half a mile from an arterial or main highway, or to be a

mile from another licensed public house was to be completely out of

that community. It's a ridiculous regulation. It might fit in Victoria,

Vancouver, Nanaimo or even in Prince George, but it certainly doesn't

fit in the communities I represent.

The other question I

want to discuss in this minister's estimates is that of specialty wine

shops. During the last six and a half years that I have served in this

Legislature, I have on occasion gone to bat for more logical and more

lenient liquor laws in the province of British Columbia. Many of the

laws we have today.... I must congratulate the minister for the recent

decision to allow advertising of beer and wine in the electronic media

of this province. It is a step in the right direction. It's probably

because most of our liquor laws are archaic that we have so many

alcohol-related problems. If you look at other jurisdictions, I think

you will find that to be true.

One of the regulations I

would like to see brought in is a law to allow for specialty wine shops

to be opened, of the type that I see in travelling in other areas of

the world. I refer specifically to one I saw very recently in San

Francisco on Fishermen's Wharf. I think they are an absolute must. They

would certainly add to the tourism attraction of this province. They

would make it much easier — and would be much more logical — for the

people of this province to go in and browse around in a proper

atmosphere and pick the kind of wine they want from a collection of

wines that would be acceptable to those citizens, not the type of

atmosphere that one sees in government-run liquor stores. I think

that's a very small thing to ask.

As I said earlier, I

believe the liquor laws in this province are very archaic. From time to

time, in this minister's estimates and elsewhere, I will speak for

changes to those archaic liquor laws. One area that is an absolute must

is to bring in a regulation in this province to allow for those kinds

of specialty wine shops. This afternoon I'd like to know from the

minister whether he has given consideration to that. If so, is he near

bringing in those kinds of regulations?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Before recognizing the minister, I would again remind all members that,

while ministerial votes allow for wide debate, the discussion of

legislation or the need for legislation is beyond the scope of the vote

before us.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Within that ambit, I

will comment on the two questions posed by the member for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf). I must say he is one of those who have a regular interest in

liquor policy, particularly as it affects the interior and the north.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Dealing

first with so-called specialty wine shops, in the last year I suppose

the two largest issues within liquor policy that the ministry dealt

with were, first, the question of beer and wine in grocery stores and,

second, the question of electronic advertising. The issue of specialty

wine shops is a separate one, because the concept is of individually

licensed small, independent wine shops, not part of some larger

supermarket or grocery complex, dealing only in wine or accessories.

The fact is there is a continuing and very strong public interest in

this concept. Although we have said no to beer and wine in grocery

stores, we have not said a final no on the issue of specialty wine

shops. Because of the obvious strong public interest in the concept, it

is receiving our ongoing consideration. We're not immediately at hand

with a final decision, but we certainly have not said no. Because of

public interest, it continues to percolate internally as a topic. It's

of particular interest to those concerned about small business

activities and ventures.

On neighbourhood pubs, the member

for Omineca has flagged the most difficult of the rules we face under

the existing guidelines — the so-called one-mile radius rule he has

referred to, which admittedly has an exception. The problem here, I

think, is that our traditional rulebook of several years' standing

applies one set of provincewide rules, and what may be sensible, for

example, for the lower mainland or Richmond or greater Victoria, as the

member has pointed out, may obviously not make sense in the north.

It's

my belief that we're going to have to overhaul the rules applicable to

neighborhood pub applications, giving recognition to regional factors.

The difficulty is that right now during these economic times, we want

to proceed only carefully and not, if you like, rock the economic boat.

While we want to make some progress, we don't want to do harm to those

who have invested in neighbourhood pubs. So I would say that over the

next year we're going to look at the possible regionalization of the

rules, and if that comes about, we'd like to proceed with sufficient

notice and caution that there not be immediate disruption to those

who've chosen to be in the field. But I think the member makes a very

valid point.

Vote 20 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 23

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

On vote 21: ministry operations, $19,633,623.

[ Page

8861 ]

MR. LEVI:

I was going to move a motion on this to reduce it by $442,000, but it's

a rather useless exercise when it comes to this minister.

Vote 21 approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 35.

PROVINCIAL DEBT REFINANCING ACT, 1982

(continued)

HON. MR. CURTIS: The other side did adjourn debate. I assume that I'm not interfering with anyone who wished to participate in the debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Is the debate now being closed? It is the duty of the Chair to announce that debate will close.

On a point of order, the second member for Surrey.

MR. HALL: Perhaps the Speaker would care to read out which bill it is that we're dealing with.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the bill which is contained in all our desks is Bill 35, the Provincial Debt Refinancing Act, 1982.

MR. BARBER:

On a point of order, is it not also ordinarily the practice for you to

indicate who adjourned debate? As it happens, it was me, and I don't

propose to continue, but it seems to me that would clarify it a bit.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, that is why I drew to the attention of the House that

once I had recognized the minister, that would conclude debate, and it

is the responsibility of the Chair to announce that the minister

concludes debate on second reading. That's why I posed that question,

so there would be no misunderstanding. On that basis I would be

prepared to recognize the Minister of Finance, who closes debate on

second reading.

HON. MR. CURTIS: There were two or

three points raised in the course of second-reading debate with regard

to Bill 35 which I would like to cover in a few minutes.

The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) spoke about cash balances. I note

that the member is not in his seat at the present time, but perhaps he is in

his office. He is, as we know, an accountant by profession. I know that he would

recognize that there is a significant difference between a cash balance and

an excess of expenses over income.

There

was also criticism by that member and perhaps one other of the 9 1/8

percent interest rate. You will know that that particular rate was a

market rate at that time, i.e. in the early part of 1976. While it may

seem low by today's standards, it was nonetheless market. We've moved,

certainly in the time that I've served as Minister of Finance —

although the process had commenced before that with my predecessor, now

the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr.

Wolfe) — to ensure that moneys invested by various pension and trusteed

funds are invested at or very close to market. I was critical, frankly,

of previous administrations in British Columbia where that had not been

the case. But it is now the case. It has been the case for some

considerable time. I trust that it will remain the case. It is not fair

to look to those whose moneys are entrusted with us and expect them to

subsidize whatever activities we may undertake. I hope I can put to

rest a comment. which has been made on a number of occasions, that this

was in fact an artificially low rate. That was not so, notwithstanding

that the day of single-digit interest rates seems some time in the past.

think there was sort of a rerun of a number of the points which had

been made in previous years. That was the one key point that I wanted

to deal with in the close. We agree to disagree on this. I also point

out that this year we found it necessary to defer the principal amount

of the debt, which is the subject of the bill. We have found that

necessary for very valid reasons. The rest, I think, was covered in my

opening remarks. Therefore I move second reading of Bill 35.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

Bill

35, Provincial Debt Refinancing 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. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 8862 ]

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 13; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Chairman, I have just one brief question on

section 1 for the

minister. There are lots of important things that have been changed in

this section, but one particular major change, of course, is changing

the campaign time from 38 days, which it was formerly, to 29 days. What

was the rationale for this? Why did you do it?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Primarily, Mr. Chairman, the changing times — the substantial increase

in communications and transportation; secondly, the development of the

new enumeration system, whereby a voters' list of a more up to-date

nature is available right at the time of dropping the writ, in effect.

Those are the main reasons why the election period itself has been

shortened.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MRS. DAILLY:

I'd like to amend

section 2(l)(

a) of the original act by submitting the

number 18 where 19 now appears. In other words we are recommending that

the voting age be dropped from 19 to 18.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's your amendment on the order paper.

MRS. DAILLY:

Yes, it's my amendment on the order paper, and I'd explain to the House

that many of us feel that if you're 18 years old, you'd be asked to

fight for your country if there were a war. We can't understand why we

don't give the voting right to our citizens when they're 18.

move the amendment appearing in my name on the order paper, Mr.

Chairman, which would lower the voting age from 19 to 18. [See

appendix.]

On the amendment.

HON. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, although the amendment is well-intentioned, I'm sure, I

have to say that we will not be able to accept the amendment, primarily

because the present age of majority in British Columbia is still 19 for

other purposes as well as for election purposes. In municipalities as

well the voting age is still 19. We have under review matters of this

kind having to do with eligibility and the age of voters, but we are

not prepared to amend that particular item at this time, as I say,

because the age of majority for other purposes is still 19 in other

legislation.

Amendment negatived.

MRS. DAILLY: I would like, with House's approval, to add a new

section

to l(

b) stating that, "Unless otherwise provided in this act, a person

who contravenes a

section of this act by doing

an act that it forbids, or omitting

to do

an act that it requires to be done, commits an offence," and deleting

the sections which relate to offences from the Election Act. I move that amendment

appearing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix, ]

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that those matters are already law under the

Offence Act. In effect, what this amendment would do is substantially

broaden the impact of offences as called for under the act, and for

those reasons we are unable to accept the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Further, the amendment is out of order because it creates an offence, and the Chair so rules.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on

the order paper, which adds a new

section to

section 4. [See appendix.]

I know the government will accept this amendment, because we have a

situation here which is very inequitable and which in this day and age

must be corrected. Let me explain what the situation is for the benefit

of the minister.

On the amendment.

MS. SANFORD:

If a person who is a British Columbian joins the Armed Forces in this

province or in some way serves with the Armed Forces — such as a nurse,

a chaplain or a surgeon — and is posted outside of the province, say to

Ontario or even overseas, and returns to this province, he does not

have to fulfil the usual six-month requirement before he's able to vote

again. Because he or she is serving with the Armed Forces, that person

is deemed to have been a resident of this province the whole time, even

though that person was outside of the province, up until even two days

before the election is actually held. That person can come back into

the province and vote; they do not have to fulfil the residency

requirement of six months. But the problem, Mr. Chairman, which my

amendment would correct is that spouses of those Armed Forces personnel

or people attached to the Armed Forces — and I've already mentioned

nurses, chaplains or surgeons — who would presumably be posted with

their families are not permitted to vote. They have to fulfil that

six-month requirement again if they are British Columbia citizens who

are somehow serving in the Armed Forces and who have been overseas or

out of the province with their families.

Now I think the

minister and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), who are both

looking at this amendment, will agree with the arguments that I'm

advancing that in this day and age we cannot discriminate in this way;

the family has to move with the person who's serving in the Armed

Forces at that time. If the Armed Forces personnel are able to come

back into the province and vote without fulfilling that six-month

requirement, then it seems very obvious to me that we must extend that

same privilege to the spouses and the family members who would also be

eligible to vote. That's very simple; it's very clear. I want to make

sure that the Attorney-General and the minister responsible have enough

time to look this over so that they can come up with a positive

response to my request.

Are the ministers ready, or would they like me to speak a bit longer on this? Are you prepared to accept it at this time?

[ Page

8863 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: No.

MS. SANFORD: Well,

surely, Mr. Chairman, they would be prepared to accept an amendment

which is as clear and as obvious as the one that I'm proposing. Are you

going to continue to discriminate against the spouses and the families

of Armed Forces personnel? Why are you going to allow them to vote

without fulfilling the six-month requirement, but not their spouses? On

what earthly basis would you make that decision? I wonder if the

minister would mind explaining his reason at this point.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, as I see the amendment, which I gather has just arrived

on the order paper in the last couple of days.... In any event, that's

not the reason for saying this. The point is that this bill has been

before the committee for so many days, and the amendment has just

appeared at this stage.

But as I read the definition of the

act under

section 4(b), residence rules, "a person who leaves his home

for temporary purposes only shall not thereby lose his residence." I'm

wondering why a person, as you described, in the Armed Forces wouldn't

still qualify under that definition.

MS. SANFORD:

Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the minister has missed the whole point

here. Some of these people are not away on a temporary basis; they are

posted for two, three and four years sometimes and are absent....

HON. MR. WOLFE: Then they're not residents.

MS. SANFORD:

If that's the case, Mr. Chairman, if the minister feels that these

people can vote under

section 4(b), which says that "a person who

leaves his home for temporary purposes only shall not thereby lose his

residence," why on earth do you need the subsection (

i) at all, which

refers specifically to the Armed Forces personnel who get posted out of

this province, not on a temporary basis? They could be gone for years

and years and years, but they do not lose their status as British

Columbians for the purposes of this Election Act and do not have to

fulfil that six-month residency requirement again.

Let me

assure the minister that there are many people in my constituency who

are spouses of Armed Forces personnel, and who have come to me and

said: "Please, would you introduce an amendment to this Election Act to

ensure that I can vote in the same way as my husband? I had to follow

my husband." The women out there at the air base have been telling me:

"I had to go." Now the spouses normally would follow their mates if

they are posted outside the province. Why is it that they are not

permitted to vote when they return to this province? Why do they have

to fulfil that six-month requirement? The minister has not answered

that. People have been denied the right to vote because they are

spouses of Armed Forces personnel. The person serving in the Armed

Forces can vote; the spouse, or dependent child old enough to vote,

cannot. I would like the minister to reconsider that point.

MR. LEVI:

The minister is about to enter the pages of the history of this

province; I can see it. He's consulting people with white beards or

dark beards. It looks like we may just get the minister to do something.

HON. MR. FRASER: Stormin' Norman.

MR. LEVI: Who's mumbling now? Who woke up Alex Fraser? That's terrible. In the middle of a debate to wake him up is a terrible thing.

I'm

only skating around so the minister can make up his mind. I know it has

been on the order paper for three days. What my colleague says is

eminently fair. He can do one of two things. He can either accept the

amendment or we can adjourn the debate in order to give him more time

to reflect on it. In every Armed Forces base in this province they've

got some effigies ready, and if you don't accept this amendment they're

going to burn you tonight — in effigy, of course. The spouses in

particular, whoever they may be, will be running around doing all sorts

of harm and other evil on the minister.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI:

Right. I think that member should leave and go have some tea. We're

building up a head of steam here. We may get the minister to amend it.

Right now, for the benefit of the people in the galleries, the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), the chief law enforcement officer

of this province, is viewing the appropriate sections.

think we've got to kill one or two myths about what exactly goes on

when people go overseas to serve their country. I was going to speak in

another

section of this debate. At the end of the war I was eighteen

and a half, had been in the army two years, and I couldn't even vote.

But in those days we didn't revolt in the British army.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI:

My gosh, this is something unique in the history of this House, Mr.

Chairman. I think we're approaching a consensus. Remember, Mr.

Provincial Secretary, the effigy-lighters are standing ready with their

torches. It looks like a hot time in the old town tonight. The minister

is about to say something good.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The

amendment has some merit. I could only say that we cannot consider it

at this time. When you study the act itself, it appears that the

amendment does not properly relate to it. The present act states: "a

person shall not lose or be deemed to have lost his residence in this

Province or in any electoral district by reason only of the fact that

he has heretofore been or may hereafter be absent from his place of

residence while serving as a sailor, soldier, chaplain, surgeon or

nurse, or in any other capacity...." So I don't really consider that

the amendment is in order; it would contravene the

section that already

exists in the act. I would be prepared to say that we will review the

matter, but I don't think we should now move to accept the amendment on

the floor of the committee until we've given it further consideration.

MS. SANFORD:

I fail to understand the minister's reasoning here. This amendment is

in order. It doesn't contravene any other

section that exists. It only

extends a privilege to the spouses of those people covered in

section

4(

i) under the act. I realize the minister is nervous about this

because he hadn't discovered this amendment until today. I don't know

what his staff does over there; this amendment has been there for a

week. I'm wondering if the minister

[ Page 8864 ]

would

accept a motion at this point that the committee rise and that we delay

consideration of this

section until either later today or tomorrow. I

feel that the

section is very valid. If the government rejects this

section now, it's not going to be included in time for the next

election. We are not likely to have this act before us again. The

minister can consider it all he likes, but it's not going to be in time

for the next election.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF UNIVERSITIES,

SCIENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS

On vote 84: minister's office, $165,088.

MS. BROWN:

I realize that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications

(Hon. Mr. McGeer) is preparing for his estimates and needs a few

minutes to get his act together, so I thought I would grab this

opportunity to say a few words. I look forward to having the minister

show up when he's got his act together, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to

participating in the estimates. I even look forward to having the

minister tell me how long he'd like me to keep on speaking on his

behalf until he gets his act together. Perhaps this is a good time to

welcome everyone in the gallery, and I ask leave to tell them how

pleased we are to have them.

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN:

On behalf of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications,

who is preparing for his estimates, I'd like to take this opportunity

to welcome you all, and ask you to stay until the minister shows up,

which he will do in the very near future, I am sure.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, in order that the record stand corrected and be accurate,

I would advise the committee that the minister is attending a meeting

with the mayor and members of the council of the city of Vancouver in

the Oak Room of this building. He should be with us in a moment.

HON. MR. McGEER:

I'll speak very briefly for the members opposite about a few of the

activities of our ministry during the past year, as a means of

introduction. Then, of course, I'll answer the questions that members

might care to put.

Dealing with the universities part of the portfolio, the university system

in British Columbia is rapidly maturing. Established in our province now is

a variety of colleges and institutes. We have the Open Learning Institute and

the Knowledge Network as a backup. Our universities are not growing terribly

rapidly. I recall that when I was first elected to this House almost 20 years

ago, our public system consisted of one university and one college. In the past

20 years we have undergone the greatest growth in post-secondary education in

the history of our province, a period of growth which will never be rivaled.

The

commitments of the Legislative Assembly to our universities over these

past few years have been the greatest in Canada, with the one exception

of Alberta, where an enormous amount of money was made available in one

bolus for capital expansion. Our educational institutions have

generally been extremely favoured by the Legislature, the universities

being no exception. I must say that I was not very happy last year when

one of our universities said that they had been faced with the bitter

taste of hard times, Alice-in-Wonderland financing, having mediocrity

forced upon them, when never have they been more generously treated.

Indeed, the proof of all of that came when that particular institution

recorded a $6.4 million surplus. I don't think the Members of the

Legislative Assembly have anything to apologize for in the support that

they have generously given to our institutions of higher education.

Quickly

switching to the Communications portfolio, the members will of course

have become aware of the court action started by my colleague the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) with respect to the federal

government's claim to jurisdiction in the provincial area of

communications. We think that there will be major changes in the

communications field in the next few years and that a proper resolution

of constitutional areas of jurisdiction, if not possible to be reached

at the political level as it should be, unfortunately will be decided

by the courts.

Finally, speaking briefly to the last of the

portfolios, the Science portfolio, I would like to cast our activities

there in the slightly larger context of the Canadian economy. These are

times that test the economically fit around the world. The Canadian

industrial structure has been found wanting in this particular time.

Federal and provincial governments across this nation will record

deficits in this fiscal year of over $40 billion — surely a record for

any country in the free world at any time in history. Never has a

country performed as badly in an economic sense as Canada is p