1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 13, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2405 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Reporting of campaign expenditures. Mr. Howard –– 2405

Criteria for loans to private enterprise. Mr. Stupich –– 2405

Purchase of Maplewood Poultry Processors Ltd. Mr. Levi –– 2406

School Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 20). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2407

Mr. Lauk –– 2408

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2409

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 4). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2409

Mr. Stupich –– 2410

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2410

Trade and Convention Centre Act (Bill 23). Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Howard –– 2411

Division on

section 1 2411

section 2.

Mr. Howard –– 2411

Division on

section 2 2411

section 3.

Mr. Hanson –– 2411

Mr. Barber –– 2412

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2412

Mr. Barber –– 2412

Mr. Hanson –– 2414

Mrs. Dailly –– 2414

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2415

Mr. Nicolson –– 2415

Division on the motion that the committee rise –– 2415

Mr. Barber –– 2415

Mr. Howard –– 2417

On the amendment to

section 3.

Mr. King –– 2417

Division on the amendment to

section 3 –– 2417

section 3.

Mr. Barber –– 2418

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2418

Mr. Barber –– 2419

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2421

Mr. Barrett –– 2422

Mr. Barber –– 2423

Mr. Hanson –– 2424

Mr. Lauk –– 2424

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2424

section 4.

Mr. Howard –– 2424

On the amendment to

section 4.

Mr. Howard –– 2424

Division on the amendment to

section 4 –– 2424

section 4.

Mr. Levi –– 2425

Report and third reading –– 2425

Forest Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 17). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2426

Mr. King –– 2426

Division on the motion to adjourn debate –– 2426

Mr. Barrett –– 2427

Division on the motion to adjourn debate –– 2428

Mr. Howard –– 2428

TUESDAY, MAY 13, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

In the gallery today we have some special guests, 45 grade 10 students

from York House School. In introducing these students to the House

today, I'd like to ask them if when they go back they will pay

particular attention to see if they can find among the archives at York

House the picture of Dixie Wolfe as having graduated — or did she

graduate? I'm not sure. Would the members please welcome these students.

MR. MACDONALD:

While the archives are being searched, I wonder if they would search

for the name of Christina Macdonald, who taught me all the manners that

I have.

MR. BARRETT: What a terrible thing for a father to say about a daughter.

Mr.

Speaker, I don't normally have the opportunity of introducing too many

guests from outside British Columbia, but we have been honoured today

with a visit from a group of 14 Japanese citizens who are on a

pre-conference tour of North America for the forty-fifth anniversary of

the atomic bombing disaster. It is a Pacific conference against atomic

and hydrogen bombs. These Japanese citizens, who will be returning to

Vancouver, are in the vanguard of people all over the world who are

concerned about the threat of nuclear weapons throughout all nations

regardless of politics.

I ask the House to welcome the

following: Mr. Suzuki, Mr. Hayakawa, Mr. Konno, Mr. Fukuda, Mr.

Kataoka, Mr. Dei, Mrs. Yazaki, Mr. Hiraki, Mr. Sumiya, Mr. Kishio, Mr.

Maruyama, Mr. Morioka, Mr. Nanjo and Ms. Ota. May I say, on our behalf,

that we appreciate the effort they care making in their struggle

against nuclear weapons, and we wish them every success.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

It is my pleasure to acknowledge the presence of 46 students from BX

Elementary School near Vernon in the buildings today. They are here

with their teachers, Mr. Wally Steinke and Mrs. Dorothy Hunter. Mr.

Speaker, as you know, it is not possible for them to be in the

Legislature at this time and witness the opening because they are grade

6 students, but I'm sure you'd like to know they've had a very

interesting tour of the building. They are out on the lawn now, and I

would ask the House to warmly acknowledge their presence.

MR. LORIMER:

I would ask the House to join me in welcoming a group of 30 students

from Moscrop School in Burnaby who are with their teachers, Mrs. Marj

Lernmen and Wayne Axford. Along with them are 30 exchange students from

the city of Montreal, with their teachers Frank Caranciy and Yolande

Beaugard. Also in the precincts are a group of students from Sussex

Elementary School, with their teacher Mr. G. Slark. In addition to that

I ask the House to welcome two of my constituents, Margaret and Dale

Lawrence.

MR. REE: With the young ladies from York House is the daughter of a

very old and dear friend of mine, who is also a partner in my law practice.

I ask the House to welcome Judy Anfield.

MRS. WALLACE:

in the gallery today we have a visitor from Australia, a young

gentleman who is a graduate in political science from the University of

West Australia. I would like the House to join me in welcoming Mr.

Jeffrey Kaye.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I would

like to report to you that in the precincts today is a group of

students, with their teachers and other staff, from Yermadon Elementary

School in Maple Ridge. I wish the House would make them welcome.

Oral Questions

REPORTING OF

CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to direct a question to the Attorney-General. Can the

Attorney-General give this House and the people of B.C. an assurance,

at this stage of the investigation into unreported campaign fund

expenditures on behalf of the Social Credit Party — which funds were

operated out of the Premier's office — that no campaign fund

contributions were made and no undue influence exerted on the

government by Cargill Grain Co. Ltd?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, the member seems to be under some misapprehension as to

the nature of the work which is going on in my ministry with respect to

the matter of alleged failure to comply with the provisions of the

Election Act.

CRITERIA FOR LOANS

TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I

wonder if someone could identify himself or herself as a member of

Treasury Board. The chairman and the Premier are missing, and I just

don't know to whom I should address the question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have no indication, hon. member.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, it would seem that nobody over there knows, but someone on

this side identifies the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) as a

member of Treasury Board. I would like to ask.... The Minister of

Education shakes his head. Well, nobody over there knows who is on

Treasury Board. I'll ask the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

then: what arguments were considered by Treasury Board and what

criteria were used when they approved $2.5 million of financing for an

American corporation to finance the jetfoil service and turned down

financial help to B.C. producers who wanted to purchase the Hambley

operation?

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Have I got your attention, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Undivided, hon. member.

[ Page 2406 ]

PURCHASE OF MAPLEWOOD

POULTRY PROCESSORS LTD.

MR. LEVI: This is to the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can the minister inform the

House what action he has decided to take in assuring consumers that

they will not have to pay increased prices for chicken as a result of

the impending Cargill monopoly?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr.

Speaker, I do not doubt the sincerity of the question. The Ministry of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs has no way of assuring any consumer that

the price of any commodity will not rise or, occasionally, fall —

particularly chickens.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, in the

discussions that presumably have taken place in cabinet in respect to

the reversal of the decision regarding Cargill — the discussion in

respect to pricing and the effects of a monopoly that Cargill could

bring to this province — did the minister not offer any protection or

warning about what could happen to consumers if this went ahead?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, again I don't doubt the sincerity, but obviously the question is out of order.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. The minister may take the question as notice; he may

decline to answer; but he may not indicate the question is out of order.

MR. LEVI:

Well, can we ask this question, then? Maybe it will be out of order and

the minister will put it in order. Did the minister make any defence on

behalf of the consumers of British Columbia in respect to the impending

purchase of this turkey operation by Cargill? Has he had any input at

all into protecting the consumer from the effect of what's going to

happen if the Cargill acquisition goes ahead?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I don't know whether the member is speaking about the cabinet

discussions to which he referred earlier, but the role of minister

within the cabinet permits any minister to discuss with other cabinet

colleagues opinions on any subject. Indeed, such a matter could have

been discussed with reference to Cargill but, Mr. Speaker, I'm out of

order, I'm not telling that member what happens in cabinet.

MR. LEVI:

I appreciate the minister's instructions to us about what cabinet

ministers can do. Let me ask him this. The minister is responsible for

the protection of the consumer. Now what action has he taken since he's

been minister, particularly with respect to the Cargill acquisitions,

to protect the interests of the consumer against a monopoly like

Cargill? Has he said anything at all? I'm not interested in what went

on in cabinet, but have you been doing your job, as the minister, in

protecting the consumers?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm glad

the member clarified that he's not seeking information from a cabinet

meeting — which he indicated earlier. The answer to his question is yes.

MRS. WALLACE:

I have just one question for the Minister of Agriculture. What I would

like to know is when he got his instructions from the Premier to sell

yet another B.C. company to another multinational corporation?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

While I appreciate the opportunity to respond to a question — not the

one that was raised by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), which is

facetious, but the one that's raised by the member for Cowichan-Malahat

(Mrs. Wallace)....

Let's just deal with the Cargill purchase

of Maplewood. I want to tell the member for Cowichan-Malahat that my

staff, myself and the turkey producers of this province have worked

long and hard to resolve this very important issue. The member for

Cowichan-Malahat should know that the Maplewood plant is the tip of the

iceberg. What is under the Maplewood plant and its future — if it opens

— are 50 turkey producers and poultry producers, broiler producers and

egg producers that face possible financial ruin if that plant doesn't

receive their product in this province.

MR. STUPICH: Cargill blackmailed you.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Cargill did not blackmail me. Mr. Speaker, I ask that member to withdraw. I find his remark offensive.

Interjections.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. The minister has asked for a withdrawal of

a remark from the member for Nanaimo. As custom dictates in this House,

if the member would withdraw any imputation he may then proceed.

MR. STUPICH: I'll withdraw it in here, Mr. Speaker. I'll say it outside.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: For the record, the member withdraws. The minister continues with his answer to the question.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I would also advise the members of this House that Pan Ready Poultry

indicated to me by telegram some weeks ago that they were prepared to

make an offer on the Maplewood plant. After they investigated the

Maplewood operation they withdrew their consideration to make an offer.

Since that time we have worked with the turkey producers and other

parties to attempt to resolve the matter of a Canadian purchaser for

Maplewood. Unfortunately we were unsuccessful. I don't think there is

any question in my mind that I would have preferred to have seen a

Canadian producer purchase that plant.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I would say to the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) that since

that time I have had correspondence, telegrams and phone calls from

turkey producers, the Turkey Association, the B.C. Turkey Marketing

Board,

[ Page 2407 ]

the

B.C. Broiler Marketing Board, the B.C. Broilers Growers' Association,

the Vancouver Island Egg Producers Association, the union of the

employees of the Maplewood plant, and the mayors of Abbotsford and

Matsqui, indicating that a serious problem was developing, that a

decision would have to be made, and that they supported the purchase of

Maplewood by Cargill.

Mr. Speaker, I find that the comments

that have been raised in this House this afternoon by the members for

Nanaimo, Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) and Cowichan-Malahat

indicate the level of debate in this House. I have worked long and hard

hours and this government has attempted to assist in resolving this

problem. I would advise this House that my concern, as Minister of

Agriculture, is to ensure that we have a turkey industry in this

province and that that industry survives. In order to do that I have

had to reverse a decision that I made.

MR. BARBER: Shame! That was your decision all along.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

The first member for Victoria says: "Shaine!" It's amazing that he

would rather have those union employees in Maplewood out of work.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. HEWITT: He'd rather have them out of work. He'd rather have the turkey industry fall down and collapse in this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

You know, Mr. Speaker, what he would really like is a government-owned

turkey plant, and this government is not going to own any turkey plant.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, just as questions must not be argumentative, the same applies to responses in question period.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT:

A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture. The

minister has informed the House that he has been working long and hard

to resolve this problem. Would the minister not admit that the problem

would not have been created if the sale of Panco had not been allowed

to go to Cargill in the first place?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

In response to the Leader of the Opposition, as I have said in this

House, I am not here to defend Cargill, but I would like to make....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Isn't it amazing how they respond?

The

purchase of Panco by Cargill had a five-year management plan for

expansion of turkey and broiler kill and for the further processing of

poultry products. Since that time, because of the community plan in the

district of Surrey, they were not able to proceed. They then approached

Maplewood with an offer to purchase. The offer was accepted subject to

FIRA. Their plan, which has been indicated to me in writing and

indicated to FIRA as well, is that they will make one plant for turkey

processing, further processing of turkey products, and for spent fowl

products, and the other plant for processing of broiler chicken. In

order to do that they will spend something like one and a quarter

million dollars.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I say that I'm not here

to defend Cargill, but when the Leader of the Opposition indicates that

the strategy all along was to move in that way, I can just advise him

that that is not the reason for this movement into this field. I would

also say that, in meetings that I have had with Mr. Hayward, they are

quite prepared to reduce their amount of turkey processing in this

province, but in order to upgrade both plants and to make efficient

operation both for broilers and for turkeys, they require the second

plant because of the community restrictions in the Surrey area.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LAUK: If members have points of order, they should rise in their place instead of speaking from their seats.

Everyone

who has taken an interest in schools in this province knows that the

Ministry of Education has had the Evans report for some time; they've

been reviewing the public schools act; many members of the civil

service in that ministry have been working long and hard hours — and

this thin little bill is the most that this minister can come up with?

It's a scandal! When he comes into this chamber and says, "Well, I'm a

new minister," that kind of ego investment in a portfolio is also a

scandal.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I cannot accept that. We have Bill 20 before us.

MR. LAUK: Have you read it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Latitude is allowed in second reading.

MR. LAUK: Have you read the bill?

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Please don't lecture the Chair, hon. member. I would just ask you to

maintain parliamentary language and to speak to second reading of Bill

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking directly on the bill; I don't

know what the problem is.

You

know, for a new minister to come by and say, "All right, I don't have

much experience in this portfolio and I'm going to hold public forums

and visit school districts and so on," is fine for a few short months.

But has he talked to his ministry officials? Has he read the Evans

report? Has he talked to the B.C. Teachers' Federation and the school

trustees? He says he's visited only 10 school districts. Good heavens,

in less time I visited 17 and spoke to more people than the minister

has spoken to in the whole area. I'm not the minister, he is; and he

hasn't even spoken to his officials.

I don't think it's

funny, Mr. Speaker, for the minister to sit back arrogantly and bring

in these pitiful amendments after four or five months in his....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member!

MR. LAUK: What is your problem, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, I would ask you once again to please observe all the

courtesies of parliamentary debate and to speak to the general

principle of Bill 20, the bill that is before us now.

MR. LAUK: I realize you're smiling, Mr. Speaker, but you're wrong. I'm speaking to the principle of this debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, the Chair cannot allow that statement, I'm sorry. Would

you please stick to the principle of Bill 20, the bill before us.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the principle of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Well, why is Mr. Speaker interrupting me then? Could the Speaker explain?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair found your remarks unparliamentary.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, which remarks? I'm entitled, as a member of this House, to know what you're talking about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The word "arrogant" is considered unparliamentary, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: The word "arrogant" is considered unparliamentary? Good Lord!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue on Bill 20.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 20, Mr. Speaker.

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

HON. MR. SMITH:

In explaining the purpose of this bill, I can say that it's a

collection of amendments, many of which were asked for for some years,

particularly those that deal with the teachers' grievance procedures

involving transfers of teachers from one school to another, and also

involving the dismissal procedure that is followed if a teacher is

suspended or loses his job. These changes modify that procedure in

keeping with a recommendation made by Mr. Stan Evans, long-time

assistant general secretary of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, after a

considerable number of interviews with the teachers' federation and

also with the B.C. school trustees. He made recommendations which

informalize and make more flexible the procedure of these appeals, and

which also provide school boards with more discretion in the way in

which they can ultimately resolve these difficult matters.

I should say that generally the other changes in the bill are ones that have

been asked for by school districts and by the B.C. Teachers' Federation

and BCSTA, one or the other. There are changes there that bring into line the period of office that a school

trustee takes, in keeping with the period of office of elected municipal officials.

There is, of course, the provision that allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

to make alterations in the stipends for school trustees.

will be speaking to the individual rationale of those sections when we

move into committee. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that rather than engage

in some wholesale revision of the School Act, as it is now called, when

I became

[ Page 2408 ]

Minister

of Education I thought that to introduce into the Legislature some

wholesale revision of this act would be premature, and that I should

first of all try to get around to the educational institutions of the

province and talk to teachers and the people who are involved in

education — parents, trustees and students — and learn something about

the public's overall perception as well of education before I embarked

upon a wholesale revision of

an act which many people thought needed

some revision — it's 20 years old. I felt that when the revision came

it should be an informed one and a comprehensive one. So all that we

have introduced into the amendments to this bill are the long-overdue

or urgent ones that were requested by various sections of the

educational community. It is not a particularly controversial bill, I

don't think, but the individual sections and the rationale of them I

will be delighted to deal with when we move into committee.

might say, Mr. Speaker, that I have tried, in the limited time

available to me in mornings and on weekends, to get around and visit as

many schools as I can, to have informal visits in schools and to meet

with teachers; I have done this in approximately ten school districts

in every part of the province, and I am continuing to do so on a weekly

basis. As I go around the province, I have found that, contrary to some

of the myths that we hear in education, there is generally very good

work being done under the institutions governed by the School Act.

I would conclude my remarks by moving that the bill be now read a second time.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LAUK:

The opposition is not opposed to this bill, but when the minister says

that it's not controversial, I'm not sure I can agree with him. It's

controversial not for what's in the bill but for what's not in the bill.

The

Ministry of Education has been moving to draft a new public schools act

for years. They've been moving; they've been studying it; they've been

drafting.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: If members have points of order, they should rise in their place instead of speaking from their seats.

Everyone

who has taken an interest in schools in this province knows that the

Ministry of Education has had the Evans report for some time; they've

been reviewing the public schools act; many members of the civil

service in that ministry have been working long and hard hours — and

this thin little bill is the most that this minister can come up with?

It's a scandal! When he comes into this chamber and says, "Well, I'm a

new minister," that kind of ego investment in a portfolio is also a

scandal.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I cannot accept that. We have Bill 20 before us.

MR. LAUK: Have you read it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Latitude is allowed in second reading.

MR. LAUK: Have you read the bill?

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Please don't lecture the Chair, hon. member. I would just ask you to

maintain parliamentary language and to speak to second reading of Bill

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking directly on the bill; I don't

know what the problem is.

You

know, for a new minister to come by and say, "All right, I don't have

much experience in this portfolio and I'm going to hold public forums

and visit school districts and so on," is fine for a few short months.

But has he talked to his ministry officials? Has he read the Evans

report? Has he talked to the B.C. Teachers' Federation and the school

trustees? He says he's visited only 10 school districts. Good heavens,

in less time I visited 17 and spoke to more people than the minister

has spoken to in the whole area. I'm not the minister, he is; and he

hasn't even spoken to his officials.

I don't think it's

funny, Mr. Speaker, for the minister to sit back arrogantly and bring

in these pitiful amendments after four or five months in his....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member!

MR. LAUK: What is your problem, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, I would ask you once again to please observe all the

courtesies of parliamentary debate and to speak to the general

principle of Bill 20, the bill that is before us now.

MR. LAUK: I realize you're smiling, Mr. Speaker, but you're wrong. I'm speaking to the principle of this debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, the Chair cannot allow that statement, I'm sorry. Would

you please stick to the principle of Bill 20, the bill before us.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the principle of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Well, why is Mr. Speaker interrupting me then? Could the Speaker explain?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair found your remarks unparliamentary.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, which remarks? I'm entitled, as a member of this House, to know what you're talking about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The word "arrogant" is considered unparliamentary, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: The word "arrogant" is considered unparliamentary? Good Lord!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue on Bill 20.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, it is not enough for the minister to say that he is a new

minister. It is not enough for him to say that he's trying to get out

of the House to visit school districts. He's done less of that than I

have, and he is the minister. What he's trying to do is delay the

essential and

[ Page 2409 ]

necessary

amendments to the public schools act, which have been overdue for 20

years. We are now in a society that has evolved since the war into a

totally new way, a totally new perspective, with technological

advancement, with new skills required, with new attitudes and skills

developed by the teaching profession, with new attitudes in school

districts and among communities. The public schools act is totally out

of date. He doesn't need to do a tour of the province to find this out.

Yet he comes in with this pathetic effort after four or five months in

office and claims: "I'm a new minister."

We know the

minister; we know he's very well educated, articulate — he tells us

that every day. He is perfectly capable of discerning what is required,

and required immediately. All of these amendments in the public schools

act have indeed been requested and demanded over the years by both the

school trustees and the Teachers' Federation; he's picked out the most

innocuous and the bare minimum to offer by way of amendment to the

public schools act. That's just not enough.

What's going to

happen this fall if the minister does his tour in his public forum,

travels the province on some sort of public relations exercise? And

what if he is not the minister a year from now? Is there going to be

another public tour, another public relations exercise? It's not enough

for the minister to personify his office. When he accepted

responsibility to be a minister of the Crown for education, he took on

the responsibility to deal in a timely and seasonable way with needed

reforms to the public schools act, and to schools generally in this

province. These speeches, these handshaking tours and these say-nothing

remarks of the minister for the past five months are an excuse for

total inaction in the Ministry of Education. We've got to start

pressuring this minister into action as far as reforms in the schools

are concerned.

I Many, many questions are now arising. The

minister has had a honeymoon period. The press have been good to him.

The teachers have been sitting back and watching his performance.

They've given him a chance. And now he introduces practically the

thinnest bill in the history of the Legislature on public schools,

which have one of the largest statutes of the province. I say that's

too bad, and it's not enough. The minister better get to work and stop

making excuses.

As far as the bill itself and its actual

sections are concerned, most of them are required. We're going to vote

for them, as quickly as possible, and we hope that the minister's

colleagues will allow him to get out of this place and get to work —

get to his office and start drafting a total revision of the act before

this session is over. We'll give him plenty of opportunity to do so.

AN HON. MEMBER: Plenty of time.

MR. LAUK: He'll have plenty of time, heaven knows.

far as public forums are concerned, certainly have public forums; those

are fine. But any changes in the attitude of the ministry with respect

to revision of the School Act that come about as a result of those

forums can be made in the next spring session. The Evans report is

there, the recommendations of his officials are there, and his excuses

are no longer going to be accepted by the people of this province and

by the people involved in education.

Mr. Speaker, I heartily

urge the minister to get off his seat and to do something up-to-date

with education, to meet these vast changes that have occurred in the

community. We haven't got time for him to learn his job. We've only got

time to see a reform in the School Act.

HON. MR. SMITH:

I want to thank the first member for Vancouver Centre for his kind

words and for his studied disagreeability, which really smells of the

lamp; he worked hard all morning to get so angry. I'm really quite

surprised that this tiny'bill and these measures of reform would elicit

such a response. But in any event apparently they have.

I'm

also amused to see that attempting to go around the province and listen

is now denigrated as a public relations exercise. About the thinness of

the bill, I will say that unlike the member I don't believe all the

ills of the world or the province of education can be cured by

legislative volume, but that a lot of the problems that face us in

government are best solved by attitudinal changes and by working the

system and the legislation, as it now is, in a harmonious way. That's

what I'm trying to do.

Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill

20, School Amendment Act, 1980, read a second time and referred to a

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

the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

CORPORATION CAPITAL

TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker,

in moving second reading of Bill 4, the Corporation Capital Tax

Amendment Act, 1980, I have a few remarks and will attempt to keep them

brief. As members of this House know, the corporation capital tax was

introduced in 1973 and imposes a one-fifth of 1 percent tax on capital

used by a company to carry on its business within the province of

British Columbia. The base for capital taxable under the act is

generally share-capital: surpluses, reserves, advances or loans by

shareholders and all indebtedness evidenced by bonds, mortgages, lien

notes and other securities issued by a company.

Two

significant changes to the Corporation Capital Tax Act will be

accomplished by this amending bill. The first is a change effective

January 1, 1980, retroactively removing the banks, trust companies and

loan companies accepting deposits from the public from the taxation

base applicable to all other companies. These three types of companies

now will have a separate taxation base and, because this base is much

narrower than the normal base, they will have increased rates of tax to

ensure that revenue to the province is not diminished as a result of

the amendment. This change is being introduced primarily because,

although the banks, trust companies and loan companies receiving

deposits from the public are similar industries — if I may Use that

word — competing for the depositor's dollar, the existing legislation

is not able to be applied equally to them, so their resulting tax

burdens are disproportionate in comparison to their operation.

These

new taxation bases and rates [illegible] tax will provide more

equitable treatment for these companies, reflecting a better balance in

the revenue from this source. There will be approximately $100,000 in

additional revenue to the province on an annual basis. The proposed

taxation base has the

[ Page 2410 ]

advantage

of simplicity of calculation both for the province and the taxpayer.

The rate of tax for this group of companies is also identical to what

is now being imposed by and in the province of Ontario. By adopting

similar legislation, we are, therefore, removing the need of these

companies to do separate tax calculations for British Columbia taxing

purposes, which, as a result, obviously would make their administration

more costly and more difficult. The companies affected have indicated,

since this bill was introduced, that the Ontario base is acceptable to

them.

The second change is the requirement that all

companies with a tax liability in excess of $25,000 pay quarterly

instalments to the province. Previously, as all hon. members would

know, corporations were required to pay their tax in full within six

months of their fiscal year-end. This amendment will now require the

larger corporations, commencing in the 1981 calendar year, to make a

prepayment of one quarter of their tax liability 15 days after the

close of each quarter, with the balance of the tax to be paid within

six months of the fiscal year-end. Then for the fiscal year ending

March 31, 1981, it's anticipated that this adjustment will accelerate

the provincial revenue from this source by about $6 million. When the

instalment is fully implemented, the accelerated revenue will be about

$20 million per year from approximately 250 corporations.

Mr.

Speaker, I commend these amendments to the House as a further

refinement of the Corporation Capital Tax Act, and I now move second

reading.

MR. STUPICH: The opposition will support

these amendments to the Corporation Capital Tax Act and indeed would

support even further amendments. As a matter of fact, we'd support

amending it out of existence, if that were possible.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you agree with that?

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, I think I heard an aside from across the floor asking

whether or not I would agree with that. That's what I said. I said that

we would support an amendment which would legislate this particular

legislation out of existence. I think it's worth recalling just how

this started in the first place.

HON. MR. GARDOM: How did it come in?

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, I'm being invited to tell you when it came in and that's

exactly what I would like to do. I was afraid that I might be

challenged and that I was getting beyond the scope of the bill by doing

that. But let's just take a few moments to remind ourselves how this

came into existence. The NDP administration did feel that corporations

should be bearing a larger share of the cost of government services and

looked into the possibilities of getting more revenue. It was

recommended to us that we follow the route adopted by Ontario; that is

that rather than increasing the corporate tax rate by one point we

introduce a new tax, the corporate capital tax. We followed that route.

However,

our experience with that was anything but satisfactory, and certainly

there were a lot of objections from the people who were obliged to make

the calculations and the payments. Indeed, in some cases it was not a

tax on income but a tax on debt, on money borrowed even to finance

inventory. We became increasingly aware of the unfortunate way in which

this tax was applied, and the tendency was to reduce it during our

administration. As I say, now we've come to the point where we'd like

to see it eliminated altogether.

I believe in corporations

paying their share of tax. A one-point increase in corporate income tax

would bring in a little less revenue than the corporation capital tax

is bringing now, but it would certainly reduce the cost to government,

reduce the cost of administering the....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They brought the damned tax in.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development is

saying we shouldn't have brought it in. In the light of today's

knowledge, be's right. We should rather have increased the corporate

income tax by one point, and that's what I'm saying fight now. We know

now; we profit from the experience. Surely this government would also

like to profit from the experience of the last eight years. It now has

the opportunity to do what should be done now. Now the government have

an opportunity to correct what the minister says should not have been

done. Indeed, if the government will support the amendment that I

propose to move in committee, then we can achieve that. There is an

amendment on the order paper that would achieve exactly what the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) are saying should be

done. The opportunity is there.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I asked you a question; I didn't say anything should be done. Don't twist what I said.

MR. STUPICH:

The opposition will support the legislation before us as being just a

piecemeal way of dealing with this legislation, of going part way.

We're looking forward to the day when the government will get rid of

this legislation completely.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think

we will have an interesting discussion in the Ministry of Finance when

we review Hartsard a few days from now and determine possible future

courses of action. At least the government has taken its position. I

will not speak of the amendment at this point; that is only appropriate

in committee stage. The member has indicated the position of the

official opposition on this bill at this particular time, and I thank

him for his comments. I move second reading of Bill 4.

Motion approved.

Bill

4, Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1980, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 23, Mr. Speaker.

TRADE AND CONVENTION CENTRE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 23; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

section 1.

[ Page

2411 ]

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, if you would bear with me a moment, it doesn't

particularly flow.... You may not find an immediate connection between

what I am about to say and

section 1, but it is there. The other day we

were provided with a listing of bills which we were informed were going

to be dealt with on second reading in that order, and we're prepared

accordingly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon.

member. I appreciate the fact that you advised the Chair that it would

be with some difficulty that I might see the relevance to what you are

addressing. You were correct. As you are aware, it is not in order to

discuss inside the House the arrangements that are made outside the

House. I appreciate the member's concern, but I must ask that we go

back to

section 1 of the bill.

MR. HOWARD: I fully

expected what you just said, Mr. Chairman, but I had to take the

occasion to point out that it is a very poor way to conduct the

business of this province, to hop, skip and jump all over the place, to

give one set of suggestions about the order of business and at the last

minute adjust them to suit the convenience of who-knows-what. We are

better off to have no suggestions about the order of business and take

it as it comes, rather than be misled in the fashion in which we were

misled.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must ask you to

withdraw the word "misled." It is not in the best parliamentary

tradition at all. I ask the member to withdraw.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to. It was my understanding that it is

unparliamentary to say "deliberately and consciously misled." But I

have no hesitation....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member does

make the point, but in regard to something that takes place outside the

parameters of the chamber. It greatly aids the Chair, and I thank the

member for his withdrawal.

Section 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 49

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Fraser

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Mussallem

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Hyndman

NAYS — I

Passarell

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

section 2.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, on

section 2 I think it would be appropriate if you

follow the same course of action and identify how people are going to

vote on it by having a division.

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 49

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Mussallem

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Hyndman

NAYS — I

Passarell

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

section 3.

MR. HANSON:

I want to indicate my support of the convention centre in Victoria.

However, I do want to register on the record my objection to the lack

of leadership by this government in the process by which this proposal

has been put forward — for public land and public money. The public

should have been involved and some leadership should have been exerted

by the government to allay the kinds of apprehensions that now exist

here in Victoria.

The history of the Reid property was

outlined by my colleague yesterday. It is clear that public money is

going into this convention centre, and my objection is to the process

of setting up paragovernmental bodies that bypass locally elected

councils, locally elected representative groups and exclude people from

participating in what could have been, from the outset, a structure

that could have had public input into design, and public needs

expressed through its architecture, and through its use of space and

public property, and so on.... I think it is indicative of this govern-

[ Page 2412 ]

ment.

They have been characterized in their recent actions by going to

private organizations, looking for people sympathetic to their views in

the community, at the expense of the broad-based community input that

could have been a part of this structure.

MR. BARBER:

I'm surprised the bill is here today. We were given a very different

commitment by the government Whip yesterday. Nonetheless, I recall

debating yesterday in second reading a number of specific criticisms

which I wished to put forward, and a number of general remedies —

positive remedies — that I hoped the government would consider.

would like now, if necessary, to restate every one of those criticisms.

But if it is not necessary, perhaps the Deputy Premier could simply

reply to each of those criticisms and tell us whether or not the

government is prepared to consider the proposals put forward, in order

to ensure that what we want comes to pass.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: What you want?

MR. BARBER:

Yes, that's right, what we want — what we in Victoria want for this

convention centre in our city, which is that when it's built, it be

something which the whole community can take pride in, which the whole

community can feel responsible for, and in which the whole community

has a say. That's an important principle.

If the minister

has forgotten the remarks made yesterday, I'll restate them today. But

if that is not the case, I would appreciate a specific reply to each of

those eight areas of criticism, and a specific agreement or statement

of nonagreement to the three positive proposals that I've made. That

will, I think, retrieve the convention centre in Victoria from the

current controversy and disrepute in which it finds itself because of

the actions of this government.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Chairman, the only disrepute that surrounds the Victoria trade and

convention centre is that which has been created by two defeated NDP

candidates in the past federal election. It has been stirred up by

them. It is interesting to note, in the concerns regarding public

input, that when the plans for the Victoria centre were put on public

display, all of four people turned up to see them. Now I hope that will

not be the case today, this evening, and in the ensuing days, when that

public display will be there at the McPherson theatre. The first blush

of that public display has certainly not bolstered the argument put

forward yesterday. There has been a great deal of public input needed;

yet it seems that the public input has already been received. The

public are quite convinced that there is a good plan for this trade and

convention centre in Victoria, and that it will go ahead. It is because

of the leadership of this provincial government that it is a fact of

life in this province today.

Mr. Chairman, there were some points which the hon. member made part of his

address in the second reading debate yesterday. But may I say that some of those

really do not fall within the purview of my bill, which is before the House

today. They more likely refer to the management of the capital. region's

commission, and the opportunity to debate that comes within the estimates of

the minister responsible. I'm sure it will be possible for the member to

avail himself of that opportunity in the future.

terms of public input, I am quite convinced.... I'd like to assure this

House that there has been considerable input, as was expressed tome by

members of the city council, and there has been no indication to me

that the city council of Victoria does not represent the people of

Victoria and their wishes.

I also would like the member to

understand that, although the residents of Victoria will have a very

personal, proprietary interest in this centre, it is also a centre for

all of Vancouver Island. It is also a centre for all of British

Columbia and the leadership that is shown by the government will be

carried out, I'm sure, by the local city council, which along with the

provincial government has combined to undertake the project. If the

member would like that assurance, I'd certainly be pleased to give him

that assurance, and if that's what he's asking for today, there is no

difficulty for me to give this at all — it has been demonstrated by the

city council heretofore.

MR. BARBER: Well, Mr.

Chairman, by my standards public consultation has not been authentic or

adequate; by my standards a group of businessmen who meet in private to

determine in private the allocation of public funds does not provide

for adequate public consultation. Maybe that does by Socred standards,

but not by mine. By my own standards, a capital commission that meets

in private, that closes its doors deliberately to all of the people who

have a right to be there, to have a say and a share in determining the

outcome of those deliberations, is not meaningful or adequate public

consultation by any stretch of the imagination.

The minister

correctly reports that she's not specifically responsible for the

Capital Commission. That's certainly true; however, this act in

section

3(2) and (3) makes specific reference to the Capital Commission and

other agencies with which the government may care to enter into a

contract for the planning, the management, the construction and the

operation of a Victoria trade and convention centre. So it's not good

enough to say, "talk to another minister," because this is hot water

for me. In fact, this minister is responsible for negotiations with Pan

Pacific and with the Provincial Capital Commission. I made some

specific proposals about that and I'll restate them now.

my judgment, for what it's worth to the government, Pan Pacific is not

a credible public operating authority for the convention centre. Why is

that? Because at the moment it is composed exclusively and entirely of

business friends and associates of the Social Credit government.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. As the member is aware, in the committee stage we must

strictly stay to the specific section, and we are presently debating

section 3(1), (2) and (3). For the member to re-introduce the broad

discussion that he engaged in previously under the second reading would

be very much out of order, and I would ask the member to very carefully

restrict his discussion to the specifics of

section 3, and not go into

the broad debate that was carried in second reading.

MR. BARBER:

I certainly will. And what I'm looking for are specific commitments,

the centre and heart of which may be found in

section 3(1), (2) and

(3). Why is that? Well, it's because "the Provincial Capital Commission

may ac-

[ Page

2413 ]

quire land...for the purpose of constructing on

that land a trade and convention centre and...do all necessary things

for the purposes of planning, developing, constructing, maintaining,

managing and operating a trade and convention centre...." I'm referring

specifically to this proposed bill. It also says that "the commission

may enter into agreements with other persons to carry out the duties

and exercise the powers of the commission under this section." The

Chairman knows that in law a person is a corporation, and the

corporation that the government has been dealing with and apparently

intends to deal with under the authority of

section 3(2) is a

corporation or a person called the Pan Pacific Society. So I think the

Chairman will find my remarks are specifically and clearly in order.

What

I'm asking the minister to recognize is the fact that Pan Pacific has

done a very, very good piece of work representing the business interest

of Victoria. After all, that's who they are. They've done a very good

job of putting together business opinion about the trade and convention

centre, but in my opinion, referring specifically to

section 3(2), Mr.

Chairman, which allows the government to enter into a contract with

persons for the management and operation of the centre, Pan Pacific is

no longer an appropriate public operating authority. I think the

government would be well advised to thank Pan Pacific for the very

dedicated work they have done in the last couple of years — especially

in the last eight months — to dismiss them, and to establish in its

place a body composed broadly and not narrowly in Victoria of persons

who are concerned with more than just the business point of view, but

also have something to say about downtown development in the Inner

Harbour and about community use of this facility who have another point

of view to offer than that simply of downtown business people.

This

section we're debating now, Mr. Chairman, gives the minister the power

to enter into an agreement with Pan Pacific. I want to know if that's

her specific intention. If it is, I want to know whether or not she's

prepared to reconsider on any basis whatsoever; if she's not, I'd like

to offer a warning that the continuing controversy and conflict — to

call Peter Pollen a defeated NDP federal candidate is amazing, and only

from the author of the secret police stories, without assuming any

credibility....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. BARBER:

Nevertheless, I'd like to warn the minister that if they are not

prepared to broaden the base of this public operating authority, they

will inevitably continue to bear a tremendous public criticism in

Victoria from a very broad range of people, many of whom have nothing

whatever to do with my riding or yours, Madam Minister, but who have a

lot to do with public enterprise in Victoria, and who have a profound

commitment to the belief that public enterprise and public money have

got to be spent in public by people appointed from the broad range of

public opinion, not from just one small range, which is business

opinion. Pan Pacific has done a good job representing business opinion,

but that's as far as it goes, and that no longer goes far enough.

this stage in the public debate and the public participation in the

design, site, management and operation of the centre, the government

would be darned well-advised to reconsider entering into such an

agreement, to thank Pan Pacific for its dedicated efforts, and to go on

to create another body that represents a, far broader and more

sensitive range of public opinion than can ever be represented by

simply a group of business people meeting in private, as they've been

doing, to determine in private the one and only proposal that would be

put forward to the people of Victoria.

The minister

correctly comments that it's a centre for all of Vancouver Island and

all of the province. Of course it is, but that's not what's in dispute.

What's in dispute is the way it's been handled in this riding, in this

city, by that government. If this government had been brave enough to

take the people into their confidence from the beginning, to open the

meetings of the Capital Commission, to open the meetings of Pan

Pacific, to open all of that business to public scrutiny, they wouldn't

be in this trouble today.

It's a matter, I think, of public

knowledge in Victoria that the mayor of our city and an alderman

proposed at a recent meeting of the Capital Commission that the

meetings be opened to the press and the public. Congratulations, Mayor

Tindall! Congratulations, Alderman McElroy! That was a good motion. But

what the government has got to know is that the motion failed; the

Capital Commission wouldn't agree. They have the power to open their

meetings but they seem not to have the inclination. That's darned

foolish from their point of view, or at least it should be. It's

foolish from the government's point of view to continue to try to

defend secret meetings of the Capital Commission, an agency

specifically named in this section. It's just foolish. It's mindless.

It serves no purpose.

I want to say again what I predicted

yesterday. As we've discovered with meetings of the advisory planning

commission and of hospital boards, once they are opened up to the

people, lo and behold, there's no longer any great mystery, and lo and

behold, there's frequently no controversy at all. People then learn for

themselves what goes on behind closed doors, and they're often

relatively pleased. So from both points of view, surely there's no good

purpose served by continuing to deal in private with exclusive clubs of

businessmen and with allegedly public agencies which insist upon doing

their business in private. What possible gain is there to continue

operating on such a basis? Your government doesn't gain, Mr. Chairman.

In the long run, the business people won't gain either. And the public

support that could be created for a convention centre will be

significantly denied because of the process.

May I say it

again? We support a convention centre in Victoria. The idea is good and

necessary, sound and worthwhile. But we object to a process which again

and again, for no reason or rational purpose, pointlessly and stupidly

excludes the public. I suspect that if the meetings of the Capital

Commission had been open all along, this dispute today, if here at all,

would be insignificant. I suspect that if the Pan Pacific Society were

representative of labour, of ethnic groups, of other than business

interests, of community groups and all of the other legitimate

spokespersons for community opinion in Victoria, this controversy would

not be here today, or if it were, it would be much diminished. But for

some reason that the minister has not yet explained, this government is

prepared to continue to allow both the society and the commission to

meet in private, to do their business in private and thereby to exclude

the people of Victoria. There is no reason for it.

So the

specific criticism is obvious. Don't do it in private; it's the

public's business. With the exclusive exception of personnel matters

and the specific purchase of land, neither of which are issues here,

there is no good reason to allow Pan

[ Page 2414 ]

Pacific

or the Capital Commission to do their business in private. None!

There's not a single good reason. Again to the credit of the mayor of

Victoria, I"m reliably informed he attempted to open up the Capital

Commission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member,

you are now canvassing precisely the same matters that were canvassed

by the same member yesterday in....

MR. BARBER: Well, it was a good speech; it's worth hearing twice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That may be the member's opinion...

MR. BARBER: Yes, it certainly is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...but unfortunately it's not shared by the Chair. I must ask the member to come back to the specifics.

MR. BARBER:

The specifics are these. Will the minister reconsider entering into an

operating agreement with Pan Pacific? Will she attempt to re-establish,

on a genuinely broad and representative base, whatever public operating

authority is created in order to manage the affairs of the centre? Will

she give an undertaking to this House that she will ask the minister

responsible for the Capital Commission, the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Curtis) — who is about to get to his feet — to tell the people of

Victoria that starting now and forever after, the Capital Commission is

open, because it's all public business and public money? I'd appreciate

those commitments. Upon hearing them, I'll go on to a few more points

and then be happy to vote in favour of this section, as we voted in

favour of the others. Those are important commitments. I think they're

modest and reasonable, and because there is nothing to hide or fear,

there's no reason for the government to deny them.

MR. HANSON:

I think probably the

article written on the Victoria convention centre

that characterizes the attitude of this provincial government more than

any

article was an

article in the Victoria Times

on April 16 which recounted an advisory planning committee meeting that

was held the previous evening, at which time the local businessmen

living within one block of the Reid property were allowed to speak. No

one else was allowed to register their point of view on what should be

a public structure and a public facility.

Let me just

recount to the minister some of the items that were covered in the

reporting of that evening. A dozen downtown Victoria property owners

and merchants "having an interest in property" within a block of the

Inner Harbour commercial zone were allowed to speak. That phrase became

the key issue when several neighbourhood activists were not allowed the

same privilege.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, as I just finished advising

the previous speaker, when we are in committee, and particularly as we are specifically

section 3, the only comments the Chair can permit are those that are strictly

relevant to the item or the clause under consideration. The Chair is having

some difficulty relating the comments of the member at this point specifically

to the clause-by-clause examination as we are in

section 3(1), (2) and (3).

MR. HANSON:

Your comments are well taken, Mr. Chairman. What I am trying to ask —

as my colleague has been conveying before me — is that the minister

reconsider the general approach that has been taken. Our objections are

primarily based on the processes that have been in place. I think I am

specifically addressing the clauses which give the authority to the

Capital Commission to carry out the administrative functions that will

bring this convention centre into fruition. I'm recounting that

particular evening because it characterizes the attitude which I think

has been passed on to local people, committees and paragovernmental

bodies that have been excluding the public and alienating my

constituents from this process. They are asking to be heard. They want

to register their complaint, and I am doing it on their behalf.

The

minister made a comment about defeated New Democratic Party candidates.

One of the main objectors at the meeting to allowing the public to

speak was a former Social Credit executive assistant, who is a local

businessman here in Victoria. I think the record should show that that

person who probably was....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: You'll build it right away up in Fort St. John.

Mr.

Chairman, we have a community here in Victoria that happens to want to

participate in public decision-making. As my colleague has pointed out,

we're not afraid of that. We think that more voices bring a variety of

views and in the end result we have a better facility. It's something

that everyone is happy with and can live with. Here things are done in

secret — the way this government provides the leadership. It's done in

secret and then later on they have to back off. They got away with it

on the jetfoil. They pushed that through very quickly. But here they

tried to do it again, and they've been stopped. I think some of the

principal people have recognized that the jig is up; that the public

wants and demands a say and they should have a say. That is the point

that we're trying to make. I don't know whether I have the ear of the

minister, but I would like her to reconsider and take seriously the

proposals that were outlined by my colleague that would remedy the

situation — open it up and allow the fresh air in.

Mr.

Chairman, I would like just to summarize by saying that public projects

in the future should be opened up to allow the public — community

groups, ethnic groups and trade union groups — to participate. Let

everyone have their say in the open light of day. Let them come out of

the dark holes which they're hiding in here and there in Victoria and

other places in this province and let their skin get a little colour.

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Chairman, I have just one question on the clause we are debating at

the moment, and that is to do with the reference in the clause, as we

find in the other clauses, to the words "the minister." I'm asking the

question out of some concern if perhaps the government is aware of the

fact that, to my knowledge, this is the first time a bill has ever been

presented before this House with "Deputy Premier" at the top of the

bill. I'm just wondering what constitutional validity there is to

presenting a bill before this House, brought in by the Deputy Premier,

and yet references throughout the whole bill are to "the minister." Why

is the

[ Page

2415 ]

bill

not brought in by the Minister of Human Resources? I think that this is

a rather interesting question, because in the years I've been in the

House I've never seen a bill brought in in this fashion.

think we're all concerned; those of us who did support the bill, with

many reservations, would not want to find out that this bill cannot be

proclaimed because of an error. I wonder if it could be explained to

me, through the minister, why the bill does not state at the top:

"Minister of Human Resources...."

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, hon. member. If I may just interrupt briefly, the part of the

discussion that the member is now engaging in is not relative to

section 3. The name at the top is the sponsoring member, and it is not

a part of the bill itself. But certainly this is not in relation to

section 3.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: If the member will

refer to the

Interpretation Act she will have an explanation of the

terminology in the

section to which she is referring.

MRS. DAILLY: I wonder if I could beg the indulgence of the minister to explain to me just what that means.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, while the information would be greatly appreciated by

each side, it certainly doesn't fall within

section 3 of the debate

that we are currently engaged in. If the minister chooses, she may wish

to answer, although it would be most irregular. But possibly for the

purposes of accelerating the progress....

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

The member refers to subsection (3): "The minister may make and carry

out an agreement...." The

Interpretation Act gives capability to a

minister to enter into an agreement, and by order-in-council one can

designate the minister. It would not necessarily, be me, although I am

sponsoring the bill. It could be a minister who is in charge of the

Capital Commission, for example, in dealing with the principals that be

on the Victoria centre. I think the member can understand that.

MR. NICOLSON:

The member for Burnaby North has brought up a very good point. As I

would see this, the entire bill up to this point is out of order,

introduced as it was by a minister who is supposedly the Deputy

Premier. Standing orders 66 and 67 say that....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. Again, with all due respect, it is not for

committee to determine whether a bill is or is not in order. That must

be done in the House proper at second or third reading.

MR. NICOLSON:

Well, Mr. Chairman, it would seem that there is a great deal of time to

be wasted. Of course the matter must be brought up at the first

opportunity. The member having brought this to our attention, I believe

we should definitely examine this point, because it would appear that a

bill has been brought before the House which can only be brought before

the House by a minister of the Crown. I'm not aware of any portfolio

having been created called "Deputy Premier."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has already advised

hon. members that the wording at the top to which the member is

referring, "Deputy Premier," in fact has nothing to do with the

specifics of the bill. That advice was given to the member preceding

the hon. member who is now addressing the matter.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, it's also in Votes and Proceedings and in Orders of the Day ,

Mr. Chairman. Really, at this point we do not know who has conduct of

the bill. In other words, when the committee rises to report, who shall

report referral of the bill for action?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, I must advise that in committee stage we can only consider

the wording. Whether the bill is or is not in order is not for the

committee to determine. We are going through

section by section, and

this is the sole function of the committee — not to determine whether

the bill is in order, although the Chair has indicated that the wording

that the member is referring to is not of major consequence.

MR. NICOLSON: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS 20

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Passarell

NAYS 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalin

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

Mr. Howard requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 3 pass?

MR. BARBER: It shall not pass yet, Mr. Chairman. I am asking the minister to make four commitments to the people of Victoria.

Firstly,

I am asking her to undertake to create a genuinely public operating

authority to act on behalf of all the people and not just a few, to

manage and administer the affairs of the Victoria trade and convention

centre.

Secondly, I am asking her for a commitment to

influence those responsible for the Provincial Capital Commission,

which is named in this section, to give an undertaking to the people of

Victoria and the province, for that matter, that with

[ Page 2416 ]

the

exception of personnel in land acquisition matters their meetings shall

be held in public. That is the second undertaking I am asking for.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer's no.

MR. BARBER:

The answer's no. What have you got to be afraid of, Minister of Lands,

Parks and Housing? What public inquiry might be made into your affairs

that you don't want them to have access to?

Thirdly, I'm

asking for a commitment that the minister establish a community rate

for community use of that building during the off-hours and the

off-season. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) made a statement

some time ago, I gather, that he would like to see the trade and

convention centre used for a variety of public and cultural purposes as

well as for trade and business purposes. I agree totally; we are agreed

entirely. However, that minister will know that many of the community

and cultural purposes to which he and I agree the building should be

put cannot afford a commercial rate. Accordingly, if a reduced

community rate is not offered, the practical fact of access to that

facility will be denied because no one can afford it.

agree with the Minister of Finance: make it available for community

purposes during the off-hours and the off-season. What I ask is that it

be made affordable as well. If the minister will give that undertaking

I'd be very pleased to report it to the people of Victoria, because it

would be a good and worthwhile undertaking. The three buildings will

not be used every hour of the day, every day of the year. It's

understandable; I don't complain about that. I would just argue that

when it's not being used for commercial purposes it be available for

community purposes at a reduced rate.

The fourth commitment

I would like the minister to make is to reconsider the design itself,

because I think it has several major flaws. I referred to them

yesterday and want to refer to just one again today. Last night I went,

as did many others, to the foyer of the McPherson Playhouse. I looked

at the latest drawings, although I'd seen earlier drawings; they're not

significantly different, although better rendered. The government

continues to insist that a parkade will be built. I myself don't see

the sense of it. I think the government would be well advised to

abandon any commitment whatever to significant private automobile

parking at the convention centre. It would be just as well advised to

make an equally important commitment in favour of public transit here.

I want to point out one more time that when a thousand realtors from

Vancouver and points east show up in their Cadillacs for a convention

at our centre in Victoria they're not going to have a place to park

anyway, because the parkade will be used by people who park downtown —

by businessmen who work downtown and by others who are passing through.

AN HON. MEMBER: Park them in the Gordon's Towing lot.

MR. BARBER: Gordon's Towing is no remedy for this problem either.

The traffic congestion on Wharf Street, if the private automobile is pandered

to with this design, will be worsened beyond even the dreadful point it reaches

at certain hours day in and day out. I want to point out again that the Kingdome

in Seattle was planned by people who understood the importance of public transit

and who had the guts to stand up and say no to the private automobile.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the chair has great difficulty in relating the Kingdome

and public transit to the

section currently before us. I must ask the

member to return to

section 3 of the bill.

MR. BARBER:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I expect you have great difficulty following

it because you've forgotten what subsection (1) says, which is that the

Capital Commission "may acquire land...for the purpose of

constructing...and...the purposes of planning, developing,

constructing, maintaining, managing and operating a trade and

convention centre...." I'm talking about the planning aspect. The

planning at the moment includes planning for the private automobile; it

includes a parkade. Thus I think you'll find my remarks are entirely in

order.

What I'm asking the minister to do is reconsider this

commitment, which will cost the people of Victoria a couple of million

bucks, to build a parkade as part of the planning for the convention

centre. The parkade will be in the basement of the convention centre on

three levels. I'm asking the minister to consider that perhaps this

latest public planning commitment to the private automobile just might

be mistaken. I'm asking the minister to wonder whether or not it's

possible that public transit would be a suitable replacement for the

two and three levels of parking in the basement of the trade and

convention centre in Victoria. I'm asking her to recognize that, at the

Seattle Kingdome, public transit works and private transit is not

available. Because we have precedent and because some people have

imagination, it's possible to conclude that a parkade at this site is a

mistake, a $2 million mistake that will add to the traffic problems of

Wharf Street and do nothing whatever to enhance the viability of the

convention centre itself.

There is an additional benefit. If

the parkade were abandoned, as I think it should be, according to the

designers in the employ of the Capital Commission with whom I spoke

last evening it would be possible to lower the profile of the building

so that it no longer blocked the view of the harbour and the hills.

Many people in Victoria are bitterly resentful, because it will be lost

with the current high-profile design on Wharf Street. This, which some

of us are proposing, seems to me a possibly happy combination: abandon

the parkade; abandon this predictable but naive commitment to the

private automobile; replace that need for public transit with public

transit that works, and not a bunch of cars parked in a basement — and

while you're doing all of that, save the city $2 million on the cost of

the parkade; and while you're doing all of that, lower the profile at

that site — if the Reid Centre site is going to be where it's built —

so that the view, which is most important and an extremely — to say the

least — vigorously prosecuted public issue in Victoria, a view which

for a lot of important esthetic reasons must be maintained and

enhanced, shall not be denied. At the moment this design denies that

view, and a major access and visual entrée to the Inner Harbour and the

Sooke Hills is lost. However, if you scrapped the parkade, you could

lower the building, and then you would have the view and you wouldn't

have the private automobiles. I think that's a pretty sound

combination. You would also save $2 million, and that's a pretty good

idea too. So those are the four commitments that I asked the minister

to consider and, if she's willing, to make today — or, at the very

least, to reply to today.

[ Page

2417 ]

In

summary they are — in order: (1) a commitment to a broadly based

and authentically representative public operating authority to manage

the place, that's composed of a great many more people than just

businessmen; (2) a commitment to open up the affairs of the Provincial

Capital Commission to all of the people all of the time; (3) a

commitment to establish a preferential community rate for the use of

that building for community purposes; (4) finally, a commitment to

reconsider the design and to consider the possibility of abandonment of

the parkade altogether, the lowering of the building's profile and the

saving thereby of $2 million and an invaluable view. Those are four

commitments that I hope the minister will consider and, if she's

prepared, enter into this afternoon.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the ideas advocated

by the first and second members for Victoria about the need to have

public participation and involvement in the development of the trade

and convention centre make tremendously eminent sense. It seems to me

that, coupled with the great emphasis that the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) gave to the tourist aspect of the trade

and convention centre and how it will aid in tourism — putting those

two together — one should come to the conclusion, pursuant to

section 3

here, that the appropriate "minister make and carry out an agreement

Capital Commission respecting a trade and convention centre...." It

would more appropriately be — and probably should be — the Minister of

Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), and I think it would be incumbent upon this

House to so identify her. Accordingly I would like to move that

section

3(3) be amended as follows. Insert between the words "minister" and

"may" the words "of Tourism," so that it would read — if the amendment

went through — "The Minister of Tourism may make and carry out an

Provincial Capital Commission respecting a trade and convention centre

to be established in the city of Victoria."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment moved by my colleague

makes eminently good sense. I think that it's a real blow to the dignity

and the self-image of the Minister of Tourism to have another cabinet minister

usurping her function, usurping her ministry and, you know, destroying her

self-image as a brand-new Minister of Tourism. To have the trade and convention

centre, which is basically designed to enhance tourism, introduced by some one

other than the Minister of Tourism is tantamount to a vote of non-confidence

in the Minister of Tourism. It is enough of a blow to the dignity and self-image

of the Minister of Tourism that she doesn't even receive her ministerial

salary. But to have yet another insult of another incursion into her jurisdiction

perpetrated by a colleague is absolutely devastating and, I believe, unprecedented

in the history of this Legislature. We don't want to see the Minister of

Tourism victimized in this way. I wouldn't even mind seeing her get paid.

MR. LEA: It's not bad, though, because they're old enemies.

MR. KING:

Yes, they may be old enemies, but I think it is totally unfair, Mr.

Chairman, when the Premier is out of the House and out of the province,

to have the Deputy Premier usurping the role of the Minister of

Tourism, who was presumably appointed to her portfolio by the Premier.

I want to support the amendment. I think that the Minister of Tourism,

who is a neighbour of mine in the interior of the province, has been

victimized and downtrodden and submerged by her colleague, the Minister

of Human Resources, for too long. I think it is time she came out and

sponsored her own bills and got paid a ministerial salary for doing so.

I support the amendment.

MR. BARBER: So do I.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The noes have it, hon. members.

MR. BARBER: Wait a minute, the ayes have it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is a division called?

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear you call for the noes. I'm sorry, you just said that the ayes have it.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, the Chair may call for the vote, have both votes heard at

the same time and make a decision. The Chair made the decision in this

case that the noes had it. Was there a question as to the....?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe they were louder, hon. member. Anyway, is division called?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, a division.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A division has been called.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Passarell

NAYS — 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

[ Page 2418 ]

Williams

Gardom.

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

MR. HOWARD: On behalf of the member for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), I request that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

section 3.

MR. BARBER:

What on earth will the Lumby loggers say about that vote? The

government itself denies a vote of confidence in the Minister of

Tourism. However, one cannot reflect on a vote already taken, and I

won't. But if I could, I would point out that we would like to see the

Minister of Tourism responsible for this act. The Minister of Human

Resources might not, but we would, and we are disappointed our

amendment didn't pass.

I did ask the Minister of Human

Resources to comment at least on the four commitments which I have

requested that she make. At least saying no would be better than saying

nothing. What I've asked is that a new public operating authority be

established that represents the whole of the community and not just the

business sector. What I've asked is that the Provincial Capital

Commission be opened up to public participation and to public

involvement in public meetings. What I've asked is that a preferential

community rate be established for the non-commercial purposes to which

the building should certainly be put. And what I've asked is that the

government reconsider the design and consider as well abandoning a

parkade, abandoning the usual commitment to the private automobile,

enhancing instead public transit and guaranteeing in its place the

aesthetic requirement of an open view of the harbour and the hills

which would go a long way to meeting a great many of the objections

expressed by a great many people in my riding. Those are the four

commitments that I've asked the minister to undertake. I would

appreciate her comments on each of them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 3 pass?

MR. BARBER:

I have asked politely for her comments on those four requests. The

requests have been put in a perfectly plain and reasonable way. If the

minister wishes to say no to each of them, well, so be it. But saying

nothing is not being responsible to this House or to those issues. Once

again, politely, I ask for the minister's specific comments on those

four requests which I make on behalf of many people in my riding who

have expressed them to me directly through the media, through public

meetings and through other elected representatives. That is all: just

comments on those four specific requests. Yes or no.

I yield to the minister, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: How can you yield when she's not standing?

MR. BARBER: She was indicating that she was rising in her place, Mr. Chairman. That is why I yielded.

The reason that these four provisions are being put forward is that this minister

and this government have indicated that they would rather entrust public business

to secret societies than actually allow it to come into a truly representative

body. That is what those four provisions are about. We are talking about public

money; we are talking about a public place. Some cultures do have secret societies

— it is a part of the culture — but we don't. We are supposed to be a democratic

society. We are supposed to allow truly elected and representative elected people

to act and to have business conducted in the open. That is why we objected to

the way the Flying Princess and the hydrofoil setup was arranged. It was out

of the public domain.

Section

3 empowers the minister and the Capital Commission to carry out public

business, but it is not to be carried out in public. That is what these

four conditions that we are respectfully submitting to the minister are

all about. That is why we keep rising in our place. We would happily

yield to the minister to have her deal with those four points. The four

points, again, are:

We want to have a governing body that is

not a secret society, that is a truly representative body of the

constituency of Victoria. That is one of the things we want.

want changes on the, design. We want changes to allow for public

transit as opposed to having thousands of automobiles jamming Wharf

Street. This is what we're talking about. I know that some of the

Social Credit cabinet and caucus don't have car lots, but many of you

do, and there is an orientation for automobiles with the Annacis Island

crossing. We want public transit. We don't want more cars.

want community involvement in this public facility. We want community

organizations to be able to participate at rates that they can afford

and we want them to have a voice in the design.

We want the elevation lowered.

was wondering — if the Minister of Human Resources cannot respond — if

perhaps the Minister of Tourism could respond to these four provisions.

Perhaps we'd get some sensible and creative and constructive movement

on these particular areas, because the Minister of Human Resources

doesn't seem to want to move on these legitimate grievances. These are

real, serious concerns.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: First of all, could I just say that today this bill, which is before us on third reading.... Second

reading took place yesterday, when the member who has just taken his

seat could have contributed to that debate; all of those points could

have been made yesterday. On third reading, let me say that the bill

and the clause that is before us gives us the avenue to build a trade

and convention facility in two cities in British Columbia — one in

Victoria and one in Vancouver. These two centres are not to be designed

and built, brick by brick, by a bill on the floor of this House, but

have been entrusted to responsible people in the two cities in order to

assist those cities in having the very finest facilities. Frankly, I

resent having the city councils of Vancouver or Victoria being called

secret societies. They're duly elected every bit as much as the two

members representing the city of Victoria, who are sitting here in

their places. I would suggest that the comments of the members who are

attempting to plan a building are premature until this bill is passed.

The authority to build and finance the building is before us right now

— not only that building, but also the Vancouver trade and convention

centre.

The esthetic qualities of the centre are very near

and dear to us on this side of the House, and to those of us who've

been involved: the hon., Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), the

[ Page

2419 ]

hon. Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), the

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

Phillips), those members from the city of Vancouver who have been

involved in the planning, and the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Hon.

Mr. Smith), who has also been involved in the Victoria centre along

with his colleague, the Minister of Finance. I'm happy to give the

assurance that we are very, very concerned about the esthetics, In

fact, one of the things that we had....

My involvement has

been more with the Vancouver than with the Victoria centre. My

colleague, the Minister of Finance, has had most of the Victoria

negotiations, along with his predecessor, Sam Bawlf, as I mentioned

yesterday. I can tell you that very, very high priority in the minds of

all of us has been the attractiveness, the appeal of these centres,

which will have an invitation to the world and, as such, must be worthy

not only of the two cities that they represent, but worthy of this

province of British Columbia.

We're not here today to debate

whether or not Victoria will alter its parking regulations. That comes

with the building and the debate on the centre. I think it's really

nonsense to delay the business of this House, implying that there is

some unfavourable liaison to exclude the public. It's an implication

that I don't accept, and I think it's a terrible reflection on those

citizens of Victoria; it says something about the members who have

represented Victoria that they would cast such aspersions on those

citizens of Victoria.

It will be of great interest to the

members of the Victoria business community — and others who are

represented and involved in the building of this very positive facility

— that they are not thought of as members of the public. I'm surprised

that they don't think of them as members of the public. Next time they

ask to have an invitation to a chamber of commerce meeting in Victoria,

at which are many small business people who all consider themselves

members of the public, they'll be interested to know that these members

don't think of them as members of the general public. I certainly do.

There

is no controversy in the city of Victoria, Mr. Chairman. But now we

certainly know why we have the support of the New Democratic Party

opposition in this House. It's very unusual. It was even noted

yesterday in the debate that it was unusual to have such unanimity of

thought. I was very pleased with that and I paid tribute to it in the

closing of the second reading debate. I see now that the NDP wish to

have it both ways. They want credit for an economic plan, which this

government has brought forward through the great leadership of the

Premier of this province, which provides the dollars to provide a trade

and convention centre for the city of Victoria; and at the same time

they try to scuttle the project by delay, controversy, and trying to

build the straw man of some mythical Victoria controversy. I don't

accept that, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. members, before recognizing the first member for

Victoria, I would remind all hon. members that we are here for the

purpose of orderly debate, and the respect we show for each other is

always appreciated by each member.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. BARBER:

The minister who just spoke misrepresents the case. She misrepresents

my argument, and she misrepresents the legitimate expression of

differing public opinion in the city of Victoria.

I presume

she does so naively. I presume she is, in fact, genuinely unaware that

there is controversy in Victoria. If she was aware of the controversy

in Victoria, she would not deliberately misinform the House to the

contrary.

The reason there is controversy is because of the

way the government has failed to consult with the people of Victoria

about the design, the process and the decision-making related to the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Deputy Premier on a point of order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that the member who has just taken his place

withdraw the comments "deliberately misrepresent, misled."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member withdraw if he...?

MR. BARBER: What can I withdraw? I didn't say "deliberately misrepresent." To the contrary, I gave you an out. I said maybe you were naive.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Misled. You said I was deliberately misleading.

MR. BARBER: I said maybe you were naive and weren't aware of the controversy in Victoria.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member withdraws, and continues on

section 3. Shall

section 3 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. BARBER: No, no. Not yet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Victoria on

section 3, in committee on Bill 23.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not have any criticism of, nor did I make any criticism of, the city administration of Victoria.

do criticize the provincial administration on this issue, I do

criticize the secrecy of the Provincial Capital Commission. And I do

criticize the fact that the current operating authority does its

business in private and is composed of a very narrow spectrum of the

community of Victoria.

Let me restate that they correctly

and well represent the business point of view at good old Pan Pacific.

I don't object to that. They don't purport to represent anyone else,

and they most certainly do not represent anyone else. They speak for

business and that's fair. But they don't speak for everyone.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not you.

MR. BARBER:

No, not me. That's right. They don't claim to speak for me. I don't

allow them to speak for me. I speak for myself, as do many others in my

community, many of whom are saying precisely this. In order to obtain

the greatest possible public support for the convention centre it

[ Page 2420 ]

should

be administered in the broadest and most publicly composed way. That's

all. Now that may not go over big in the Cariboo, I suppose, where

Brother Fraser runs everything like a fiefdom. But in my riding, where

public participation means something, the notion of public involvement

in the operating authority for the convention centre is an important

debate.

The minister may; naively represent that there is no

controversy and no conflict. The minister may naively believe that

everyone thinks that groups that meet in private behind closed doors

have been entrusted by the people of Victoria with their affairs. But

that's not true.

The minister also says the debate on the

design is premature. With all respect, the minister doesn't know what

she's talking about. With all respect, the minister is talking through

her hair. In fact, the design is well underway. In fact, today is

probably the last legislative opportunity we will have to debate the

design. So for the minister to represent the debate of the design as

premature is to misrepresent the facts. But I know she does so naively.

MR. BRUMMET: Are you a professional designer?

MR. BARBER: No, I'm not. But I have ideas about what the city should look like, just as I trust you do.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We are not debating the design of this bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All hon. members....

MR. BARBER:

It is not premature to debate the design. In fact, now is the time —

and this is likely the last time — we will have to do so in this

chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we have had second reading. We are specifically on

section 3.

MR. BARBER: You bet! And I'm talking about

section 3(2) — planning, design, and administration of the centre.

The

minister would have us believe that the only proposal for parking at

the site came forward as the result of the city's own parking

regulations. That's not correct. The minister simply doesn't know what

she's saying. In fact, this government has within its command the

authority to enter into an agreement which would not provide for

private transit, but which would provide in its stead for public

transit at the parkade.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Quit playing games.

MR. BARBER:

These are no games to the people of Victoria, Mr. Minister. They may be

games by your standards, but here they're deadly serious business. The

people want access to those decisions. The people want a say in those

decisions. The people want a convention centre of which they can all be

proud. That's what they want, and we're serious. We're perfectly

serious about all of that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are you for it or against it?

MR. BARBER: I'm for it, but I'm for it being done the right

way. The right way is public participation. The right way is public design.

The right way is public transit. The right way is opening the meetings to all

of the people with nothing to hide and nothing to fear.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No faith in the planning department of Victoria!

MR. BARBER:

The planning department of Victoria is not planning the building. Don't

you understand that? They are not planning the building.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order! The Chair will ask all hon. members to come to order, please. If

the first member for Victoria will address the Chair, and if all other

members will come to older, then the debate can proceed in an orderly

and courteous manner. The member continues.

MR. BARBER:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the information of the minister for

Cargill, the plan was not executed by the planning department of the

city of Victoria. The plan has been executed by a private architect

hired without tender, bid or public competition by the Pan Pacific

Society in its relationship with the Provincial Capital Commission. It

has not been made by the city of Victoria. Thus I have no criticism of

the city of Victoria. My criticism is of a provincial administration

which purports to do the public's business in private. Get it? That's

all there is to it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER:

Do you even know the name of the architect at the city of Victoria who

designed it? No, of course not. Because there is none. It wasn't

designed there; it was designed elsewhere.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 3 pass?

MR. BARBER:

Not quite yet. The minister would further have us believe that the

business community is solely representative of the whole community.

She's wrong. The business community represents an important segment in

Victoria. But it does not represent the trade union movement; it does

not represent the religious community; it does not represent the ethnic

community, or the very old or the very young; it does not represent the

neighbourhood groups or the environmental groups; it does not represent

the professional groups; it only represents itself. I don't object to

the fact that it represents itself. I do object to a government which

would have us believe that it represents everyone else as well. It

doesn't. Business represents business. That's fair, fine and good, as

far as it goes. But the problem with Pan Pacific is that it doesn't go

far enough, that's all. We want it to go to such an extent that it

represents all those other diverse points of view, each of whom

legitimately and truthfully have a right to have a say.

AN HON. MEMBER: A vicious attack!

[ Page 2421 ]

MR. BARBER:

It's not a vicious attack; it's a positive proposal. Open it up. Open

the meetings, the membership, and the debate. Be unafraid of public

participation, and you'll be a better government for it.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER:

The mayor doesn't claim to be the only voice in this. The mayor, to his

credit, wants public opinion. Don't you understand that either? To his

credit, Mr. Tindall wants public opinion. To his credit he pushed

through the public exhibit currently underway at The McPherson

Playhouse.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we must come

to order, please. The first member for Victoria is speaking in

committee. Hon. member, I will remind you that we've had much

discussion about the principle of this bill during second reading. We

are now in the committee stage discussing

section 3. If we could speak

relevantly to the section, that would be most appreciated.

MR. BARBER:

Yesterday we debated the principle of the bill, and I voted in its

favour. Today we debate the execution of the bill, and I have

questions. I question whether or not a private society can do the

public's business in the administration of this centre. I question the

necessity that the Capital Commission do its business in private. I

question the design, at least in regard to its provision for private

enormous influence and which excluded the parkade might serve the three

simultaneous purposes of reducing the cost by a couple of million

dollars, of thereby enhancing public transit, which could be better

provided at the site, and of reducing the profile in order that the

view of the hills and harbour be properly maintained. Also, supporting

the principle but examining the execution, I ask for a commitment from

this government — in concert with and on behalf of the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), let me say — that the community purposes

that he and I and everyone wants the building to be put to in the

off-season and the off-hours be affordable. This, of course, means a

community rate. That means a community rate reduced below the

commercial rate. Therefore, examining the particulars and the process,

and no longer debating the principle which we supported unanimously

yesterday, I ask the minister for four commitments: firstly, to

reconstruct the operating authority in order to include a much broader

base of public opinion than simply business opinion; secondly, to

reform the Capital Commission so that it is required to do its business

in public, as some of its members would currently like it to have been

done; thirdly, to establish commercial and community rates and to make

the community rates the more affordable; fourthly, to reconsider at

this point the design, and to contemplate abandoning the parkade —

abandoning that further investment in private transit — and instead

committing funds for public transit. I would observe again the

successful precedent of the Seattle Kingdome which made that decision

some years ago. Having made that decision, they've benefited

tremendously from it.

That's all — four commitments. They

are modest, reasonable, prudent, and in total cost cheaper than the

government's current package. I think those commitments are fair to

entertain. The minister has yet to reply to even one of them. I'm

asking for specific comments on those specific proposals. If the

government would do no more than give us the courtesy of saying "no,

no, no, no" to all of them, at least this part of the debate could be

ended quickly.

HON. MR. CURTIS: We've had some hyperbole from the first member for Victoria, but that....

MR. LEA: What does that mean?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, I'll look it up. As soon as I find out I'll send you a note. But it seemed like a good word at the time.

Some

members are going to watch a hockey game in a while. We have a play

here, Mr. Chairman. It's called "Blencoe to Brewin to Barber," and

that's precisely where we're at.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister....

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I will now address myself to the section. The member has

repeatedly asked this afternoon for four commitments, and I don't think

the government is in a position to give those commitments. In fact, Mr.

Chairman, being in the chair is always a difficult problem. I suspect

that occasionally — more than you have indicated — the debate has

strayed from this particular

section of Bill 23, the Trade and

Convention Centre Act, 1980.

MR. BARBER: Don't lecture the Chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

If the member wishes, we can debate this more appropriately, perhaps,

in estimates, when the Provincial Capital Commission comes forward

under the Ministry of Finance — as I am the minister responsible.

However,

speaking specifically to this matter, Mr. Chairman, I have already

indicated to representatives of Pan Pacific Society — this indication

went forward some time ago — that I would seek an expansion of

representation from the community at such time as an agreement is

signed. In the argument which has been advanced today — I didn't hear

the member speak yesterday — it is assumed that there is a signed,

sealed and delivered agreement between what we know now as Pan Pacific

— the organization which has done a great deal of work and which I

certainly thank for the work which has been done with respect to the

Victoria conference centre.... However, I realized last year and

indicated some time later, and have repeated that indication, that the

organization, should an operating agreement be arranged, would have to

be on a much broader base than is the case now. In saying so, I don't

indicate that every single representative group that the member

opposite has enumerated for the committee today will be accepted; but

we want broader representation.

I think that it's

unfortunate — if I heard the debate correctly today — that there's been

reference to a secret society, a closed organization, an organization

meeting in private, because, indeed, the bulk of the discussion and

debate which has gone on for some time with respect to the Victoria

conference centre has gone on at the level of the Victoria city

council. Some members of that council have agreed with the direction in

which the project has been moving and others have disagreed; that's

fair enough. They are duly elected, as my colleague, the minister

sponsoring

[ Page 2422 ]

this

bill, has indicated. I hope that the member opposite is not being

critical of the members of the Provincial Capital Commission, which is

specifically referred to in this bill, because certainly that's not

some business clique — and the member knows that. If he was developing

that theme, it isn't a business clique.

Who is the chairman

of the Provincial Capital Commission? Mr. J.E. Brown — Ev Brown — known

to a number of members of this House, a former Deputy Minister of

Municipal Affairs and a citizen of very high esteem in the greater

Victoria area and throughout the province. He's not a businessman — not

that there's anything wrong with a business organization, Mr. Member. I

happen to believe that business has a great deal to contribute; perhaps

we could debate that some other time.

The chairman of the

PCC is J.E. Brown. Then we have the municipal representatives: Mayor

Tindall of Victoria, Mayor Hill of Esquimalt — I don't think Mayor Hill

is a businessman in that narrow sense — Mayor Couvelier and Mayor

Watts, who is another very highly regarded public servant in British

Columbia. Alderman McElroy of the city of Victoria is a member as well.

He's not a businessman in that sense. Mr. Philip Holmes is indeed a

businessman here, but what a fine record the Holmes family has in

greater Victoria in concern for the environment and concern for the

quality of life.

MR. BARBER: Open the meetings.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I'll come to that point. Mr. Chairman, I listened to the member

quietly. Sir, you do not have a monopoly on concern for this community.

Carrying

on with just two more members of the Provincial Capital Commission,

there are Mr. George Giles, Deputy Minister of Public Works earlier and

now the chief executive officer of the Provincial Capital Commission —

again, a distinguished servant of the public of British Columbia, and

I'm pleased to have him on the commission — and finally, Mr. G.K.

Patton, who serves as secretary but carries a professional status as

well. That is the Provincial Capital Commission. I may have missed one

member, but that's essentially the Provincial Capital Commission.

MR. BARBER: You missed Mike Young.

HON. MR. CURTIS: And Mr. Michael Young, former mayor of the city of Victoria. Thank you very much.

With

respect to the possibility of opening meetings of the Provincial

Capital Commission — and here I wonder if you might not call me to

order, because I think it's more an estimates matter, frankly, than it

is one of committee stage — the government will certainly give that

most earnest consideration. That is an undertaking, and I can say no

more than that.

The design of the conference centre.

Individuals will disagree. I believe that in the general stage of

design that we are at now — and there are some refinements further to

be developed — we are going to have a conference centre in the city of

Victoria for the people of this area, for the people of Vancouver

Island and for the people of the province in which we can all take

pride.

As I said earlier, while I did not hear the comments,

I do understand that yesterday the first member for Victoria (Mr.

Barber) made reference to a mass of concrete roof or, if I may

paraphrase, essentially a sea of concrete. Well, Mr. Chairman, it's

just not going to be possible to see that roof from anywhere with the

possible exception of the upper floors of the Dogwood Building, and not

too many visitors or greater Victorians are in that particular location

— the fourth, fifth or sixth floor of that building. From Bastion

Square you will not see the roof expanse of the conference centre; from

Wharf Street one will not see the expanse of the roof of the conference

centre; from the Inner Harbour certainly one will not see the expanse

of the roof of the conference centre.

With respect to the

community use of the facility, of course in that regard I share the

member's interest, and I certainly will attempt to see that that is....

We discussed this in estimates last year. I believe that the conference

centre in Victoria, which is unlike the one in Vancouver — in terms of

mass, in terms of size and in terms of the kind of conference it's

going to attract — will present an opportunity for lower cost community

cultural activities. But that's not news, because we canvassed that

very thoroughly in estimates in the summer of 1979, and nothing has

changed in that regard — community purposes.

I want to see

this bill passed. I want to see the continuing discussion at the city

council level...the discussions and the comments which have taken place

this week and which conclude very soon. I want to see the building

under construction in order that it may be enjoyed. I also would remind

members opposite that this city could use the construction activity

which will flow immediately upon the commencement of that building.

That is not to suggest that we should just put up any kind of building

so that jobs are provided. I believe that we are going to have a

conference centre, the official opening of which all members of this

House will want to attend.

MR. BARRETT: I have sat

through this debate on this

section because of a particular interest as

a British Columbia citizen. I want to thank the minister for a very

good, very thoughtful and, frankly, calming statement to the House. As

the minister said, no one has a monopoly on concern. But no one has a

monopoly on knowledge and desires either. I want to thank the minister

for assuring the member for Victoria, who is only trying to do his

duty. As much as it's difficult for some backbenchers to understand,

there are rare moments in this House when agreement on a bill in

principle doesn't mean an automatic "yes" in committee. Committee is an

exchange of information and opinion.

Some of the rancour

could have been avoided. And I may respond this way on the same basis

as the members carrying the bill responded, by making some editorial

comments. Some of the rancour could have been avoided had the minister

herself responded as calmly and rationally in assuring that member what

he was asking for, instead of getting up and suggesting that somehow we

are an anti-businessmen's group. I thank the minister again for

explaining the wide group who are already on there. It's a matter of

public confidence. After all, we are talking about elected officials in

this city who are doing a magnificent job and who in many instances are

voluntarily serving on this committee. But I'd like to point out to the

minister concerned — perhaps it escapes her attention — that it is

obvious that Victoria feels that, in terms of this Legislature, sending

Social Credit members is not the best route to go, and it has elected

two NDP members to speak and fight for that particular point of view

here in this chamber. If you don't like the results of an

[ Page 2423 ]

election,

you can't gerrymander every part of the province, Madam Minister. Those

two members have a legitimate reason to be here and to make the

suggestions.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

Political! My dear friend, the only absence of politics this afternoon

were the four questions asked by that member and a thoughtful statement

made by the minister that it's long overdue. I think, quite honestly,

that the motion made — which I won't reflect on — to have the Minister

of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) bring this bill through was a mistake; it

should have been the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who seems

to have intimate knowledge and a deep awareness of the concerns. This

city belongs to every citizen of British Columbia. This is our capital

city. Everything we have here, every bit of our history, every bit of

our heritage — as short as it is — is right here in this city. In our

lifetime those heritage aspects of this city should be protected.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Deputy Premier on a point of order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

In his remarks the Leader of the Opposition said — and I believe I'm

quoting correctly — "You cannot gerrymander every constituency in the

province." Mr. Chairman, I'm asking the Leader of the Opposition, if he

is suggesting that I have at any time gerrymandered any part of the

province, to withdraw that imputation.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, on this point of order I would like to point out that it

is normally appropriate to wait until the statement of a member is

over. However, since a question has been brought up by that member, I

make it very clear that she is asking if there is a particular

interpretation. I say interpret it the way you want — the statement

stands. You interpret it, and if you interpret it on a basis of guilt,

so be it, but my statement is within order.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me complete my remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The Chair will ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition, if he has imputed

any unparliamentary conduct to a member, to withdraw it.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I have not imputed any motive; I have raised a question

in my mind. That is all. How it's interpreted is a matter of guilt —

let that be the record. Mr. Chairman, I have not imputed any motive;

I've made a statement.

I would point out too that that

minister reveals, in interrupting my speech, that same rigid political

approach to what should be a most mature debate this afternoon.

conclusion on my remarks on

section 31 would like to share with the

House the observation that one of the reasons why these points are

raised is that we do have some memories of attitudes and approaches in

this House. May I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that had the roles been

reversed and the New Democratic Party been in power, and had we named

all trade union leaders to a committee to deal with this, guess who

would have been up in the House screaming about secret guns and armies.

Three guesses: the first two don't count, Mr. Chairman.

The

Minister of Finance has given an assurance that has been rightly asked

for by the two members for Victoria, and if they hadn't asked for that

assurance, I would have been publicly criticizing them. In response, I

want to thank both members, in spite of somewhat unnecessary political

comments, for standing up and fighting for other points of view that

the Minister of Finance understands in terms of building a better city

that will last a lot longer than any one of us. That's really what we

want to leave; that's really what we're here for. We want to make sure

that when taxpayers' dollars are spent, there is an exchange of points

of view, an exchange of information and in some rare instances, an

exchange of knowledge.

If I may make one analogy before I

sit down, if this calmness in terms of response that we had from the

minister today had been applied to the Heroin Treatment Act, we would

have saved $14 million of taxpayers' money in this province.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief. The Minister of Finance has made some

important commitments here on the floor of the House. I'm very glad

he's done so. He has agreed that the membership of the operating

authority shall be broadly expanded to include a wider cross-section of

the community of Victoria. I thank him for that. This is an important

commitment, and I'm glad it's been won. I believe he said that the

government has under review the possibility of opening the meetings of

the Provincial Capital Commission.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I said we would consider it.

MR. BARBER:

It's under consideration. I thank him for that as well, and this too is

an important achievement in today's debate. I did never say — for the

benefit of Barney and Fred — that the Provincial Capital Commission is

a closed circle of businessmen. I never said that; I was referring to

the Pan Pacific Society, which has been accused of being composed

exclusively of businessmen and representing consistently and uniquely

the business point of view. I didn't say that and I resent that any

implication is made to the contrary. The Provincial Capital Commission,

a different body, should do its business in public, and I appreciate

and thank the minister for his commitment to reconsider whether or not

they should do their business in public. If they do it in public, I

will congratulate him again, because that too will have been an

important achievement of today's debate.

Thirdly, I

understand the minister to agree with the proposition that if the

building is to be made available for community purposes it must be made

available at community rates. I took that from what he said and I'm

grateful for that commitment, which has also been won as the result of

today's debate. Those three commitments are very important. I thank the

minister for them and I thank him for, in the words of the Leader of

the Opposition, the perfectly calm and perfectly rational way he made

them.

The fourth commitment he's not yet prepared to make,

and I appreciate why. That's fundamentally a personal and human

disagreement, I suppose, about esthetics: what the building should look

like, where it belongs, how high it should reach into the sky, what

proportion of the site it should occupy, what view it should amplify or

cut out. I myself am disappointed with the design. I think going 35

feet above the street presents a not very attractive aspect to people

in Bastion Square, to people further up towards Government Street,

[ Page 2424 ]

people on Fort Street, to people who walk by and go by on the buses. I

just don't find it very appealing. The minister, apparently, thinks to

the contrary. That's fine, but at least it should be considered.

Contrary to the opinion of the Minister of Human Resources, I share the

opinion of the Minister of Finance that these are things that can be

debated here and as well in his estimates, but they can be debated

here, and that's a good thing. Nonetheless I thank the Minister of

Finance very much for these three commitments now expressed formally on

the floor of the Legislature. I look forward to their execution and

will support this section.

MR. HANSON: I would also

like to add my vote of thanks to the Minister of Finance. I think

movement