British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, June 25, 1980 — Afternoon Sitting (32nd Parliament, 2nd Session)

32p 02s 800625p

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3023 ]

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Cowichan Valley PCP spill. Mrs. Wallace –– 3023

Knowledge Network of the West. Mr. Cocke –– 3024

Northern transmission studies. Mr. Passarell –– 3025

Proposed fixed link between Vancouver Island and mainland. Hon. Mr. McGeer replies –– 3026

Special Funds Act, 1980 (Bill 7). Committee stage.

section 24.

Mr. Hall –– 3027

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3027

section 26.

Mr. Macdonald –– 3027

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 3027

Mr. Lorimer –– 3027

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 3027

Mr. Cocke –– 3027

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 3027

Mr. Lorimer –– 3028

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3028

Mr. Hall –– 3028

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3028

Mr. Hyndman –– 3028

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 3029

Mr. Cocke –– 3029

Mr. Lorimer –– 3029

Mr. Barber –– 3030

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 3031

Division on report and third reading –– 3034

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1980 (Bill 34). Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Cocke –– 3034

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3034

section 2.

Mr. Barber –– 3035

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3035

section 3.

Mr. Barber –– 3035

Mr. Nicolson –– 3035

Mr. Barber –– 3036

Mr. Lea –– 3036

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3037

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3038

Mr. Lea –– 3038

Mr. Cocke –– 3038

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 3039

Mr. Nicolson –– 3039

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3040

Mr. Barber –– 3040

Mr. Nicolson –– 3041

Division on

section 3 –– 3042

section 7.

Mr. Barber –– 3042

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3042

Mr. Lea –– 3042

Mr. Barber –– 3043

Mr. Cocke –– 3045

Appendix –– 3046

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I have a very distinguished group in the

members' gallery visiting us today. They are all members of the Cariboo-Thompson-Nicola

Library Board: Mr. Herb George, who is also the chairman of the Thompson-Nicola

Regional District; Miss Hilda Barrett — no relation, I understand; Mr. Roger

Behn, who is the chairman; Mr. Harry Newsom; and a gentleman who served with

me on the Kamloops city council, Mr. Roy Mallach. I'd ask the House to make

them all welcome.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm very pleased to have three guests in the gallery

today. They are representatives from the rape-assault centre in the Cowichan

Valley — at least, we are attempting to get a rape-assault centre there; they

are down here to investigate ways and means. They are Jan Meadows, Dorothy Askew

and Pat Screaton. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. WOLFE: On behalf of the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) I have

very great pleasure in introducing two guests in the gallery from Ladner, Mr.

Dana Arnason and his fiancé, Miss Charlene Duncan. Also visiting from North

Delta is Mr. Robert Williams. Would the House welcome these guests.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It's my pleasure to introduce Miss Joanne Peck, in

the gallery today from Powell River. I ask the House to join me in welcoming

her.

MR. SEGARTY: I'd like the House to join with me in welcoming to

Victoria this afternoon Mayor Gus Boersma from Fernie. I'd also like the

House to join me in welcoming Miss Sherilyn Golley and Mrs. Margaret Troseth

from Trail, along with Carl Price and Elmer Verigin.

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's not often we have two days in a row with

visitors from Vancouver South, but would the House please join me in welcoming

Mr. David Altow, who is here today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I'd ask the House to acknowledge a rather significant event today. Our

very young Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and his wife Marjorie

are celebrating their thirty-second wedding anniversary.

MR. BRUMMET:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are two good friends of mine, very

hard workers on behalf of the Peace River–Liard Economic Development

Commission. From Fort Nelson are one of the members on the board, Mr.

John Piety, and the commissioner, Mr. Bill Anderson. I'd like the House

to make them welcome.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I rise to welcome personal friends of myself and our

Speaker, Mr. Schroeder, from Chilliwack. They are Cliff and Edith Rouse of

Chilliwack, their son and daughter-in-law, Jack and Beverly Rouse, and their

children Randy and Becky from California. I will say that Jack Rouse is one

of our fine young men who went to the United States and became a citizen of

that country. What was the gain of the United States was our loss. However,

he's there, and he's glad to be back here.

Oral Questions

COWICHAN VALLEY PCP SPILL

MRS. WALLACE:

My question is to the Minister of Environment. As the minister is

aware, we have had a PCP — pentachlorophenol — spill in the Cowichan

Valley. The minister advised by letter on June 20 that tests had found

PCP and that further tests were in progress, but the results would not

be available for one month. Is the minister aware that a private

laboratory service in Vancouver can provide test results for a fee of

$100 per sample within one week?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I

haven't been getting competitive quotes from private laboratories in

Vancouver. As members will know, the provincial government's

environmental laboratory was partially destroyed by fire some four or

five months ago and is in the process of being rebuilt. If there is

some necessity for even more urgent action, it's a possibility that

we'll look at going to outside laboratories.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the stream water looks like that

— that's a sample of the stream water that we're talking about — has

the minister decided to take some immediate action to speed up the

testing?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I might ask the member to

table the sample. Maybe the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) could

table the sample of water he drank. The answer so far is no.

MRS. WALLACE:

The minister appears to think this is a humorous matter, but it's far

from humorous for the people who are involved. I would be pleased to

table a sample after the question period for whatever purpose the

minister requires it. In view of the fact that the cattle which have

drunk the stream water have toxic levels of lead in their blood, what

action has the minister decided to take to trace the source of the lead

poisoning?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I

think my earlier remarks answer that question. I haven't seen the

results of the report. The member has the report. Perhaps the member

would also table that with her sample. Perhaps the question would be

best addressed to my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt).

MRS. WALLACE: The blood samples from the

cattle, taken by the private veterinarian called in by the farmer

involved, have indicated lead, and further samples are being tested for

lead and other heavy metals. Certainly your staff is aware of this,

whether or not you are, Mr. Minister. I would think you would be

interested in doing something about this. Perhaps for your information

I could ask: are you aware that that same private lab in Vancouver can

provide results relative to heavy metals within two or three days, for

a sum of $25 per sample?

[ Page 3024 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS: Is the member suggesting that we do away with the provincial government laboratory at the University of British Columbia?

AN HON. MEMBER: It burned down.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

It didn't burn down. It suffered some damage through the fire, but it

is in the process of being rebuilt. There are a large number of

provincial employees employed in the laboratory. I don't know if it's a

question, but if the member wants to do away with it I'll take that

suggestion as many others I've received.

MRS. WALLACE:

I asked if the minister was aware of this alternative way of handling

these samples rather than delaying for a month with a very serious

problem in my constituency. On my visit to the site on the night before

last I picked up some very interesting specimens. This area is along

the CNR tracks by the Deerholme station, and there are all kinds of

garbage dumps there. There are several of these 80W cartons — that is,

80 percent bromide. This particular carton is a Dupont product, Hyvar

Excel, and there are several of these on the site. It says very

specifically on the can that they should be crushed and buried after

use. What I am asking the minister is: what action has he decided to

take to clear up the problem in this area?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

First I would ask the member to table that sample along with the other

ones. I'll undertake to get an answer for the member as soon as

possible, but I can't answer specific questions on various artifacts

and cans that you find on the site. I am informed there are people in

the ministry looking at the matter. If they are not doing so and the

member has been there recently and advises me of that, I'll look into

it. I can't go and investigate every spill in the province personally.

I am delighted that the member had the opportunity to go out and have a

look at it.

MRS. WALLACE: It's obvious that the

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

thinks that the Minister of Environment needs all the help he can get,

and I would be inclined to agree for once with the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources.

I have discussed this matter

with the minister's staff, and because nothing has happened I'm

bringing it to the floor today. Another sample, which I will also

table, is a sample of very oily water taken from the swampy areas

adjacent to the creek on the MacMillan Bloedel property where their

machine shop is. Inasmuch as that machine shop has a great deal of oily

waste — they steam-clean all their equipment there that feeds into

swamps which are adjacent to this stream, inasmuch as we have this tank

car with the proven quantities of PCP, what I'm asking the minister is:

have you decided, at this point in time, to accelerate your

investigation?

MR. HOWARD: Say yes.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Now it would appear that other than the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum, your House Leader would like to answer the question for me.

I were to accelerate every request I got, we wouldn't have enough staff

to do the work we have to do. I've taken your earlier question under

advisement. I will inquire of my staff today and find out. But I must

say, hon. member, that we have persons within the ministry who are

charged with the responsibility of looking after the Pollution Control

Act and they take the information and evidence that they gather to

regional Crown counsel under the Attorney-General's ministry. If

charges are necessary, they are laid by the Attorney-General's

ministry. At this very moment that same process is happening in other

areas of the province. There is a procedure in place, and if you or any

other members of this House find people that are violating the

Pollution Control Act, that's the proper procedure to go, other than to

bring it here. I don't mind; I'll take the matter up here with staff in

the ministry.

MRS. WALLACE: I thank the minister for

his answer and I hope the fact that I have brought this information to

the House today will accelerate the investigation.

One final

question, this one to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair). Wells in

the area that I've been speaking about are only some 30 feet to 40 feet

deep. In recent weeks, since this pollution occurred, water has

intermittently appeared that has been brownish in colour in at least

three of the wells. Yesterday, at the request of the residents, your

Duncan representative came out and took water samples. The residents

were told that it would be some two to three weeks before they would

know whether or not the water was safe to drink. Now I'm asking the

Minister of Health, as the minister responsible for the health of those

people, whether or not he can do anything to accelerate those tests.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will try to.

KNOWLEDGE NETWORK OF THE WEST

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I have a surprise for you — I have a question for the

Minister of Universities, Science and Technology. Can the minister

confirm that the law firm of Fraser Hyndman has been hired to do legal

work in connection with the KNOW communications authority?

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rocke Robertson of that firm drew up the articles for

the KNOW authority which were tabled in the House yesterday.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, would the minister also confirm that that same firm of

lawyers, Fraser Hyndman — and I'm sure that Mr. Rocke Robertson is an

associate — is also doing the legal work for Discovery Parks?

HON. MR. McGEER:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rocke Robertson did the articles of incorporation

for the Discovery Foundation. I think that he did a superb job on both

those tasks and I would recommend him to the NDP or anybody in British

Columbia.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, has the minister decided that in the future one should spread the wealth just a trifle?

HON. MR. McGEER:

I would not hesitate, Mr. Speaker, to engage Mr. Rocke Robertson again.

He did a superb job. If the NDP know of anybody better, I'd be pleased

to learn of them.

[ Page 3025 ]

NORTHERN TRANSMISSION STUDIES

MR. PASSARELL:

My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources. The northern transmission overview study was commissioned by

B.C. Hydro to study northern transmission corridors to link potential

dam sites on the Stikine-Iskut-Liard rivers with the lower mainland. On

page 28 of this report the consultants said they were requested not to

contact the following groups, in order of priority: native people,

guides and outfitters, fishing camp operators, packers and tourist

services. Can the minister tell the House whether or not these

exclusions accurately reflect government policy?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be extremely helpful if the member would

send that to me, or table it, so that I could study the document that

that member purports to quote from. I'd be happy to study it and give

an answer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Atlin, on a new question.

MR. PASSARELL:

A second question to the minister. From the same northern transmission

overview study that was given to seven ministers of the House, a

question on page 187....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, the minister.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I took that question as notice and agreed to answer it if

I was given the information. It's the practice of this House that when

a question is taken as notice, supplementary questions are asked at the

time the answer is given.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I prefaced my remarks to the member for Atlin that it was a new question. He said....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Speaker....

MR. PASSARELL: Yes. That's right, Mr. Speaker. And he's just wasting time in here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. The member for Atlin has the floor. Until I hear the

complete question, hon. member, it is very difficult for the Chair to

rule on the point of order raised by the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources.

On the same point of order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, supplementary questions are asked at

the time that the answer is given to a question taken as notice. The

question is of the same nature and on the same question and the same

subject. I'd like to see this House get back to the practice that has

been in place in this House as long as I've been here and as long as

most of those on the other side have been here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I will still hear the completion

of the question. The member for Atlin.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for protecting me from that minister.

pages 187-188 it says: "Any construction activity in the area is likely

to disturb and interfere with game and fur-bearing animals to the

detriment of the livelihood of guides and trappers. In some instances

the food source of Indian people may be involved." My question to the

minister is: can the minister tell this House whether or not it was for

these reasons that the consultants were directed not to talk to the

people living in the area?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question does refer in a similar vein to the first question, hon. member, which was taken on notice.

Hon.

members, yesterday the hon. member for Atlin sought to move, under

standing order 35, the adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of

urgent public importance, namely the rise of water behind a dam near

Stewart. On a number of occasions it has been ruled that such a motion

is out of order where facts are in dispute, or the matter is

hypothetical, or where normal parliamentary opportunity for discussion

will shortly occur. I note that the estimates are currently being dealt

with, and accordingly the motion does not qualify under standing order

35 so that the ordinary business of the House may be set aside.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could ask the member for Cowichan-Malahat

to table the samples and specimens referred to in question period, so

that I might have....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As all members

should be aware that when an item is placed on the table it is kept

indefinitely. That is why we have a very strict procedure on what can

and cannot be tabled. Unfortunately, matters such as this cannot be

tabled. However, that would not preclude the hon. member from

forwarding the material to the minister's office directly.

MRS. WALLACE:

This is the third time I've risen to attempt to table these substances,

but in view of your findings, I would ask that the Page come and

present them to the Minister of Environment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, possibly they could be forwarded to the member's office in lieu of being placed in the House.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a similar point of order. Since the member for

Atlin referred to documents and quoted those documents in the House,

I'm sure he'll table them. Would he also table the letters and the log

of when he came to my office to talk to me about those things in

advance? Could those things all be tabled this afternoon?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. minister. The matters referred to may be tabled. They may not be instructed to be tabled.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could reply today to a question asked some

days ago by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

Leave granted.

[ Page 3026 ]

PROPOSED FIXED LINK BETWEEN

VANCOUVER ISLAND AND MAINLAND

HON. MR. McGEER: I've

had the reply for some days. but it's very difficult to get the member

when he's in the House for question period, so I thought that I'd give

the answer today rather than hold it back any longer.

The

member asked questions with respect to engineering consultants on the

proposed fixed link between Vancouver Island and the mainland. He asked

the criteria that were used for selecting engineering firms that are

doing some pre-feasibility studies for the Ministry of Universities,

Science and Communications. The criteria for selecting these

consultants were, firstly, their technical competence and, secondly,

their ability and willingness to provide some guidance on the

engineering feasibility of a fixed link within a short period of time

and at a minimal cost. The engineering consultants that have been

engaged are Willis, Cunliffe, Tait and Co. of the Victoria office;

Fenco Consultants, who are primarily in eastern Canada but have a

Vancouver office; and Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas of New

York, San Francisco and Seattle.

A formal contract with

Willis, Cunliffe and Tait has been engaged upon. The contract value is

$10,000. They should be producing their report by the second week of

July. They were asked to select a route which they believe would result

in the lowest-cost connection between Highway 99 on the mainland and

Highway 1 on Vancouver Island; to gather data on forces due to wind,

waves and tidal currents; to prepare a conceptual design and sketches

of a floating bridge to withstand these forces; and to give an estimate

of the cost of the floating bridge and the total link.

Only

telephone agreements have been entered into to date with Fenco and

Parsons, Brinckerhoff. Written contracts are expected with them once

the mails deliver the necessary contracts. It's anticipated that their

reports will be prepared by sometime towards the end of July or perhaps

early in August.

A further consultancy agreement has been

concluded with Garth Edge International Inc. of Vancouver. Their task

is to provide an independent assessment of the economic feasibility of

the project and to act as the coordinator on behalf of my ministry of

an in-house government review of the project.

Among the

ministries joining in the study are the Ministries of Transportation

and Highways, Environment, Industry and Small Business Development,

Municipal Affairs, and Finance.

Further economic and

financial assistance is being given by Professor Alan Abouchar of the

University of Toronto, who is investigating certain specialized tariff

and financial matters.

Parsons and Brinckerhoff will be paid

$24,800 for their study and reports, and Fenco will be paid $10,000.

The reason for the higher payment to Parsons and Brinckerhoff is

because of the former's acknowledged experience in the long-bridge

design and particularly because of their current work in designing and

constructing the replacement floating bridge across the Hood Canal near

Seattle. The contract with Garth Edge will be for $11,300.

MR. HOWARD:

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, which relates to the

information given to the House yesterday by the Minister of Lands,

Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). He had a lengthy reply ready to a

question which he had taken on notice, posed earlier by my colleague

from North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). My point is with respect to the

ruling of Mr. Speaker Schroeder on March 26 of this year: "if the

question is of such a nature that it requires a lengthy answer, perhaps

the best way of a return is to have the answer on the order paper as

though the question had been a written question." I wonder, with

respect to that, Mr. Speaker, whether you might not draw that to the

attention of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and suggest to

him, if not direct him, to file that particular answer that he has

ready.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The

identical point was raised yesterday. The matter was discussed at that

time and I believe it was disposed of at that time. Nevertheless, the

information that the member gives again to the House will be taken

under consideration. There should be no debate on the matter, hon.

member.

The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing on the point of order.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the ruling by the Speaker read by the member

for Skeena. It said "perhaps" that might be a procedure to elicit

certain information if the information is of a lengthy nature. I want

to say that I pointed out to the member for North Island at the time he

asked the question that the information he was seeking was technical in

nature and lengthy in detail. Based on that I suggested to him that it

would be more appropriately put on the order paper. Yesterday I gave

him an opportunity again. If he really and sincerely wants the

information, he'll put the question on the order paper. I also offered

him the opportunity to have the reply during the oral question period.

So he has a choice of either receiving it during the oral question

period or putting the question on the order paper. It'll be written out

to him in that way.

MR. NICOLSON: I rise to ask leave of the House to withdraw motion 14 standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 7.

SPECIAL FUNDS ACT, 1980

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 7; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 19 approved.

Section 20 approved unanimously on a division.

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 21 and 22 approved.

Section 23 approved unanimously on a division.

[ Page 3027 ]

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

section 24. MR. HALL:

I have a question for the Provincial Secretary and Minister of

Government Services. In this section, which sets up the fund to assist

the public libraries in the province related to automated cataloguing

and circulating systems, could the minister tell me if any money has

been expended on this program to date?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I'm not aware that funds have yet been expended. Proposals have been

requested and received from firms capable of framing this

computerization formula, and a firm has now been allocated to present

such a proposal, but I'm not aware that any funds have actually been

expended to date.

MR. HALL: When you say firms have

been contacted, do you mean computer companies to set up a program, or

are you talking about companies in the library science field to make

recommendations in library science? Perhaps I could ask a series of

questions rather than have the minister up and down, and proceed more

tidily that way.

I'm wondering if the minister has got any

research done into this already — whether he's contracted at all with

any research or consulting group already, in effect, to expend some $3

million. I'm given to understand that there's $2 million for the lower

mainland and $1 million for Victoria, and that's about it, period — all

gone. I may be wrong. I hope I am wrong, but that's my understanding of

what has happened. Has the minister anything to tell us already in

terms of the retention of any consulting companies or any expenses to

date? At this time or later on perhaps he could let me know, as a

member of the House, any names of companies or consultants he may have

retained specifically to do with this $3 million loan.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

This is probably a matter we could deal with in more detail during

estimates. But I have in front of me the names of firms approached,

which may interest the member. This is simply to provide consultant

information on the basis for this computerization program. The names

I'm referring to are: Systemhouse, Vancouver; L.M. Warren Inc.,

Vancouver; Woods, Gordon; Comstat-West Ltd.; J.A. Speight and

Associates; and Library Management Group Inc., New Westminster.

MR. HALL:

May I then finalize my questioning on this

section and come back to it

during estimates. The minister is not aware of having retained any

consultants in the library field to advise on the expenditure of this

$3 million.

HON. MR. WOLFE: To be clear, a commitment has been made to contract a firm but no funds have been spent.

Sections 24 and 25 approved.

section 26. MR. MACDONALD:

I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. We're voting

$55 million in a special transit fund — not nearly as much as we are

for Annacis Island. When is this likely to be spent?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

As minister responsible, I'm extremely pleased that the government has

shown the lead. It has shown that it's willing and prepared to take a

position in the provision of light rapid transit and other transit

facilities in the urban areas of British Columbia. This is only a

beginning; there are great things to come. I have meetings scheduled

with the GVRD and the CRD in the very near future, at which time we'll

be discussing programs. I'm sure that these regional districts will

willingly become involved in assuring that British Columbia will have a

transit system second to none in the whole of Canada.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, there have been discussions, as the minister says, for a

very long period of time. You're now going to have other discussions.

You've set up here what is, in terms of total transportation needs in

this province and highway budgets, a very minimal sum for light rapid

transit. and the minister has no idea as to whether or when it will be

spent.

You have no schedule. You're not ready for an action

program at all, or you would have told the House in answer to my

question: ''We expect to spend $30 million of it in 1981; we have a

plan." But you don't have plans yet. Go back to your cabinet colleagues

and get an action program and get a proper budget for transit.

MR. LORIMER:

Mr. Chairman, I know that the minister is unable to answer my

colleague's questions. I can answer them. For five years there has been

nothing spent on transit by this government and there isn't going to be

anything spent now. This is for the newspapers, not for action, and

there will be no money spent under this bill in the very near future.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, the timing of the meetings with the regional districts

has been established, basically towards the end of next month — at

their request. They have only recently reviewed the studies they had

commissioned. and they will not be prepared to meet and discuss all the

things they wish to see discussed until approximately the end of July.

I have responded to their request, and I will be meeting with them. But

let me remind all hon. members on all sides of the House, and let me

say for all British Columbians to hear, that no government in the

history of British Columbia has made the commitment to the provision of

transit that this government has made.

MR. COCKE: I

wonder, Mr. Chairman, if we can sort this thing out a little bit, and

we can probably sort it out by the minister answering the following

question: how much of the $55 million set aside in this

section does

the minister anticipate spending this fiscal year?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Well, Mr. Chairman, prior to committing these funds, we agreed to place

an order for the purchase of a large number of trolley and diesel buses

— that's number one. Aside from that, however, we have a formula in

place, which we will apply to the program once it is agreed upon by all

of the bodies involved. It is not our intention to try and impose, if

we can work out a good agreement with the various bodies involved to

ensure that there is a transit system developed for the lower mainland,

[ Page 3028 ]

the Capital Regional District and the smaller communities throughout British Columbia.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, is the minister aware that in the government's proposed

budget and the proposed spending this fiscal year it is anticipated

that nothing will be taken out of this fund — in the government's own

fiscal undertaking?

MR. LORIMER: Well, I was going to

let this

section go through, but after listening to the minister I just

felt it was necessary to say something further.

He states

that there has been no government that has had such a commitment to

transit as this government. There has been nothing done except a lot of

speeches being made, a few statutes....

Interjections.

MR. LORIMER:

That new streetcar, as you call it, would have been in operation today

if the New Democratic Party had been re-elected in 1975; by this time —

a period of five years — there would have been a light rail transit

system down as far as Newton; there would have been a light rail system

to Richmond; and there would have been partial tunnelling in Vancouver

and New Westminster by this time. But since that time, since 1975,

there has been nothing done in transit. There are now fewer vehicles

owned by this government or by the Authority or by Hydro than there

were in 1975. The 10-minute service is now a 15-minute service, the

15-minute service is now a half-hour service, and so on. The whole

system is falling apart. The repairs to the vehicles are falling down.

The

whole performance in transit under this minister and the previous

minister has been disgraceful, and that minister gets up and tries to

make the public believe — he knows himself that it's not true — that

there is some action in transit. He makes statements to the press quite

frequently, making some announcements, each one a little different; but

nothing ever happens. And he'll undoubtedly be doing that in the months

to come.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, prior to

recognizing the next speaker I would call to all hon. members'

attention the fact that we are now in committee. Having gone through

second reading, discussing the principle of the bill, we are now

discussing the

section and we must be strictly relevant to what is

contained within that specific section.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I will attempt to restrict my remarks to the

section

which is presently before the committee. The members opposite,

particularly the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), my

old associate in this House, know exactly what is provided in this

appropriation clause. It is $55 million to cover the capital cost of

equipment and associated works acquired by the Urban Transit Authority,

which was created by this Social Credit government and is administered

through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and my colleague (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm). What is so important about this

section is that the money

is provided before it is required rather than after it is required.

That's the essential difference between the philosophy of the members

opposite and the philosophy of this government.

For a first

year, with the UTA now in position, with decisions being made regarding

transit at the local level rather than in a minister's or a deputy

minister's office, as may have been the case in the past, instead of

having to go to the national or international money markets; the money

is provided by this clause by this bill in advance. That's the attitude

of this government and this government is in the position to provide

that money for transit. The members opposite know that. Ideas are

great, but you need some money to back up the ideas.

MR. HALL:

Would the Minister of Finance kindly give us an estimate on how much of

this money will be spent in the next 3 months, 6 months and 12 months?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I think the second member for Surrey understands, and I alluded to it a

moment ago, that essential to the development of transit in British

Columbia is the decentralization of that decision-making process. In

answering the question we have to stray from the appropriation clause,

but, very briefly, the member knows that there are transit committees

and that the regional districts are seized with the responsibility.

Where the local decision-making process should be in terms of fair

level of service and a variety of other matters.... The Urban Transit

Authority comprises elected representatives from the local and regional

levels of government in British Columbia, so it would be difficult for

any minister to accurately predict the amount of money that would be

spent, but the money is there to be drawn on as the local

decision-making process calls upon it.

MR. HALL: Is

it not a fact, Mr. Minister of Finance, through you, Mr. Chairman, that

your own figures prepared and delivered in the budget speech, which you

distributed to the taxpayers of this province at some cost to this

government, show that at the end of the fiscal year in 1980-81 exactly

$55 million will remain unspent in this fund?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

With the final approval of this bill and royal assent being given to

it, the money is available to be called upon as the decision-making

process requires. I've explained it as carefully as I can and I'm quite

sure that the hon. member who asks the question understands precisely

how it is to proceed. As soon as the respective transit organizations

and the UTA make their decision and place the order, such as those to

which my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs has referred, the

money is available to meet the provincial share of that cost.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Chairman, by the minister's own finest estimates, remaining in this

fund one year from now will be exactly the same number of dollars that

have gone into the fund. It's my suggestion that the municipalities are

not going to be able to afford the kind of moneys required, and the

money will be there one year from now.

MR. HYNDMAN: I

have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs or the Minister

of Finance. With respect to the Urban Transit Fund, into which the $55

million referred to in this bill will be paid, and with respect to the

obligations of regional, municipal or local governments to pay into

that fund, have any of those regional or local governments yet

fulfilled their obligations to pay in current amounts due or,

[ Page 3029 ]

alternately,

is the $55 million here the first of the contributions into the fund? I

would like to hear from whichever minister is most appropriate for the

answer to that. Perhaps between themselves they can determine that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, the answer is no. There's been no money set aside by

local government, nor have they been able to really agree upon the

formula — or the program, I should say — that they would wish to see

implemented over the next number of years. That's why we've scheduled

these meetings in the very near future.

I'm very pleased to

have the opportunity this afternoon of speaking about transit for the

urban areas in British Columbia. I hope there will be a great deal more

discussion on the topic, because it's one area where we've certainly

shown a great deal of leadership and one of which we can be extremely

proud.

The member for Burnaby-Willingdon made mention of the

fact that somehow they had done more, or that he felt they could have

done a great deal had they been left to implement some sort of program.

I think we only need look at the evidence, the legislation, the

programs, the negotiations that we've had with the various bodies, and

the agreements that have thus far been reached. That was a first. We

were able to do that over this last year. We have set aside $55 million

in advance of a program having been decided upon. The member for

Burnaby-Willingdon really was involved in transit as well when he was

minister during the NDP time. Right now, other than perhaps the normal

purchase of buses, which they did, which we've done — that's an ongoing

program and will continue to be — the only evidence — and note this,

and keep it in mind always — where it was done by that minister and

that government, with respect to providing transit for British

Columbia, is a train from Germany that won't fit the tracks.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised at the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who

was mayor of Surrey when we were government. He noted that at that time

Surrey, particularly, benefitted from our government by virtue of bus

line after bus line that had never been there theretofore. As the

member for New Westminster at that time, I watched Coquitlam, which had

absolutely no bus service, become bused and taken care of. I was so

proud when I would go by the Lougheed Mall and see dozens and dozens of

buses with....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I'm replying to the minister on this particular question.

He's defending the government's position with respect to this $55

million that the Minister of Finance pretty well admits is not going to

be spent this year — or any part of it. I'm telling you, Mr. Chairman,

that minister's so up to his eyeballs in trouble in terms of finance

that this $55 million could very easily find its way back into the

government coffers to be spent elsewhere. He knows that forest revenues

are down; he knows that gas revenues are down, and they're in deep

trouble. But that's not the point. The fact is there is nothing spent

yet and until that minister arrives at the conclusion of his

negotiations, which might be a good long time from now, the $55 million

sits.

It is very difficult for us to sit here, having put

together the first real thrust in transit when we were government, and

having watched nothing happen for the last four years, and now suddenly

the....

AN HON. MEMBER: They've taken buses out of service.

MR. COCKE:

That's right, they've taken many lines out of service. Now suddenly the

world is opening up again, with $55 million set aside but not to be

spent this year. What absolute significant rubbish.'

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

You

know, Mr. Minister, I think that you should really sharpen up your

behaviour with respect to your charges, talking about the articulated

bus. You know, now Mayor Volrich has announced he's going to use it.

Isn't that interesting? And it's only going to cost him $100,000 to put

into our new track. Don't forget, we were investigating new track sizes

at that time. But he's going to be able to put that articulated bus to

work, and just for $100,000, and it's going to pack a significant

number of people. Hopefully its type will find its way out into Surrey,

which might benefit some of your constituents.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On

section 26, the minister defers to the member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. LORIMER:

I intend to answer the minister's remarks, which were not factual in

any way, that didn't deal with this particular

section too closely. I

will spread myself along that route of being somewhat remote from the

section. But I really believe it's my right to reply to the charges

that were made.

The minister indicated that the DuWag was

basically a poor vehicle for the purposes required in the Vancouver

area. I wish to advise the man that anyone with the slightest knowledge

of light rail transit and light rail vehicles realizes that the DuWag

company probably sells more light rail vehicles in the western world

than any other company. The vehicle was stored on the tracks in the Big

Bend area for some months — to the knowledge of this government because

they stored it there. The track sizes were apparently all right.

However, he doesn't realize that in any placement of trackage all new

tracks have to be placed. The rail that is presently in existence in

Vancouver will not pass standards to carry high-speed vehicles. I won't

continue with that until we get to his estimates. I'll give him some

more information then that might be of some use to him as minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall...?

MR. LORIMER: I don't want to be hurried, Mr. Chairman. I'll sit down when I'm finished.

want to answer the question which was asked by the second member for

Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman). He asked the minister a question and

didn't get an answer. He was wondering about the UTA. He is not here at

the moment, but I'll answer the question. The UTA was formed because

they would not be able to produce money for transit and this government

would not have to proceed with the transit program.

[ Page 3030 ]

MR. BARBER: I resent the continuing falsehood...

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, if you are implying that of another hon. member you will

certainly have to withdraw. The member is not referring to a member of

the House?

MR. BARBER: Certainly not. I haven't finished.

...in

the form of statements made by some persons who allege that the New

Democrat administration bought a light rail vehicle for which there

were no rails. I resent the continuing claim made by some, who shall be

nameless until they apologize, that our administration bought a vehicle

that wouldn't fit any tracks. The statement is patently false and any

person who makes it should now know better. I would remind the

committee that in 1976 the then Minister of Municipal Affairs and now

Minister of Finance, on the basis of misinformation, made certain

claims as to vehicle purchases made by the previous minister, Mr.

Lorimer. The minister, to his credit, subsequently said publicly that

he had been misadvised by B.C. Hydro and repudiated those false claims.

I don't know why B.C. Hydro would be in the business of misinforming

people about our transit purchases, but it is a matter of public record

that the first Socred minister of transit in 1976 corrected the false

claims that had been made by some persons, which would have naive

people believe thatMr. Lorimer purchased a vehicle that couldn't fit any track. It is just

not so. That record should be clearly corrected, and any person who further

engages in promoting that absolute untruth should be called to account for it.

The vehicle would work, it was appropriate, it did fit the tracks, and Mayor

Volrich recently announced that it is going to be used on the tracks where it

belongs.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

At this point I would remind all members in the House that we are on

section 26. I understand there has been some latitude allowed with

respect to this section, but if we could now confine ourselves to

section 26, that would be in order.

MR. BARBER: I

expect to have the same latitude that other speakers have had. Just

because I wait until the end doesn't mean the rules should change.

We will be supporting this

section because $55 million is better than nothing;

we are in favour of some progress and this is better than nothing. But it is

important that this House and this province realize what a very small sum this

is in comparison to the investment we make in other forms of transport, especially

in the private sector, and in comparison to the real need, especially in mass

transit. It is important as well that this Legislature realize that this is

a very small investment in the whole field of rail transit for greater Vancouver.

Fifty-five million dollars will go almost nowhere to providing an effective

heavy or light rail or rapid transit system in greater Vancouver. That is the

centre and the source of greatest need. The $55 million will go nowhere near

to meeting that need. We vote for it because it is better than nothing. But

we also observe where the real spending priorities of this government lie. When

you compare this amount of money with that which the government would propose

to spend through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways on the private

automobile or when you compare the $55 million here to the $120 million-plus

that the Annacis crossing will cost, then you have to wonder whether or not

this expenditure, unfortunately for the government, reveals its true level of

priority in regard to expenditures generally for transit. I have a few questions

about the expenditures as well.

Does

the minister propose to build a monorail system out of the $55 million?

If so, can he demonstrate any support whatever from any quarter,

planning or engineering, public and political, for a monorail scheme in

greater Vancouver? Since the minister has been flying with this number,

I've had the opportunity to hear from the people I consult with

regularly in the GVRD as the Municipal Affairs critic for the official

opposition. Every time the minister stands up and says, "Let's build a

monorail system" — presumably with this $55 million, Mr. Chairman, if

he's serious — he gets laughed at. He may not realize he's being

laughed at behind his back, but he should.

Monorail is a

system of extraordinary limitation. It has some special use in special

circumstances. But the problems with turnaround, the problems with

construction generally and the physical limitations of that system are

very precise. All of the mechanical aspects of switching in monorail

system, by and large, tend to answer the question: why don't you build

a monorail, if it works so well elsewhere? Well, it's not built

elsewhere either, for the same reason that it probably will never be

built here. However, I want to know — contrary to all the expert

opinion and contrary to all the reasons that have been offered

elsewhere as to why we do not have any significant investment in

monorail anywhere in North America or anywhere at all, excepting, of

course, world fairs, which hardly count — whether or not he intends to

use any of this $55 million for the monorail that he and he alone is

currently promoting. I have a few other questions.

I refer

to sections 9 and 17 of the Urban Transit Authority Act. This

particular bill is a bit of hoax, Mr. Chairman. The government would

have us believe that this is the only way they can commit funds to the

Urban Transit Authority.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No one said that.

MR. BARBER: Oh, now, now.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You weren't listening, Charlie.

MR. BARBER:

I listen much too closely for your interests, apparently. I've

understood all along why the government does it this way rather than

the way they could. Why? Because there's a bit more mileage this way.

Why? Because when you introduce a separate bill, you get another round

of credit. Why? Because if you're publicity conscious and your

government is unpopular, you find any device you can, however

unnecessary in law, to try to take credit for doing something which is

far too small to begin with and long overdue in any case.

I may read briefly from the Urban Transit Authority Act,

section 9(

l) says: "The government may, out of money appropriated by the Legislature

considers appropriate the amounts required to enable the Authority to

carry out its powers under this act." What does that mean? Well, the

parliamentary tradition is, of course, that with that authority in law

we would then in the next year find in estimates a vote to make a grant

under the Urban Transit Authority Act,

section 9(l). That's the usual

pattern, Mr. Chairman, when a government has its house in order and

isn't desperate for

[ Page

3031 ]

every ounce of publicity it can wring out of every announcement they make 15

or 18 or 21 times in a row. No, this government chooses to do it a different

way. Instead, they choose to go the absolutely unnecessary route of trying to

take credit for the umpteenth time for one decision. They've established

a pattern for that.

How

many times have they announced the northeast coal deal? How many times

did they announce the Annacis Island crossing? How many times have they

announced denticare?

They're doing it again, and it's

unnecessary. The authority already exists in law, to be paid for in the

usual way through estimates, that moneys may be granted to the Urban

Transit Authority for this purpose;

section 9(1) makes that clear. But

if it's not clear enough,

section 17 makes the same point in the same

act. So it's just a bit of a hoax. For political purposes, not for

legislative ones, we're debating a

section that is not required in law.

They already have the authority in law to spend the money. They could

do it through estimates if they want, but apparently they chose not to.

Maybe they recognized that in greater Vancouver they have been so

heavily criticized for the cuts in the Hydro routes and the cuts in the

bus service.... They have been so heavily attacked by user groups in

the transit system in greater Vancouver that it is politically

necessary to find some new device, no matter how unnecessary or

redundant, to make the case that they're going to spend $55 million for

whatever for transit. It's not necessary; it's redundant. It's not

required by law; you have the authority in law. You don't need to do it

this way, except for obvious, blatant, crass political purposes.

The former Attorney-General smiles. He shakes his head now, but he smiled before. He knows it's true. That's why....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, at this point let me tell you that we have discussed the

principle of the bill in second reading, and we are now on

section 26.

The committee is empowered to debate the detail of

section 26. That is

all the committee is allowed to do — not to debate whether or not the

principle is acceptable or not acceptable. The second reading has been

passed.

MR. BARBER: The principle is acceptable — we

supported it then and we'll support it shortly — but the execution of

it is questionable, at least in the hands of that minister. I want to

know if he's going to fritter away money on monorail studies that no

one wants. I want to know how many more engineering firms are going to

be hired for how many more unnecessary studies by this government — for

tunnels or any other purpose or, in this case, for a monorail. I wonder

how much money is going to be spent from this fund on a monorail scheme

which the minister alone in the whole world of transit in British

Columbia is promoting — or in the whole world, I suppose. I have a few

section 26, of any share of

this $55 million for light rail transit in greater Vancouver. If so,

what is that commitment and what is that share? After the minister

answers those questions I have a few more.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Well, Mr. Speaker, the first member for Victoria says that many

politicians and experts are laughing behind the back of the minister

because he has suggested that perhaps there could be options to light

rail. I'm well aware that certain politicians, the moment they get

elected, deem themselves to be experts, so I can appreciate him putting

the two in the same category, because the first member for Victoria

certainly has all of a sudden become an expert on many issues. But

getting back to the questions....

MR. BARBER: Are you wasting money on monorails here or not?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Section 26. HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Again, Mr. Chairman, the expert calls across the floor: "Are you

wasting money on monorails?" I want to answer this question. It was

posed and I think it should be responded to because the member feels

that perhaps some of the moneys might be spent for that purpose, so I

think it's a legitimate question.

MR. BARBER: Now give a legitimate answer.

[ Page 3032 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

The first member for Victoria says that the whole world is against all

the alternatives that might exist and everybody should somehow follow

the rule that because certain experts have called upon what has been

historically a means of moving people, we shouldn't consider whatever

else there might be, though we're now going to the moon.

MR. BARBER: A good point. What was the point?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

The message I get from the people generally is that we should consider

all of the options. We should look at what opportunities are available

before a decision is made which will set us upon a course that we must

follow forevermore.

So, yes, Mr. Chairman, I do intend to

look into monorail; I'm doing it and I intend to continue doing it. I

intend to look into various other methods of light rail; I'm doing it,

I intend to continue doing it. I do intend to discuss all of these

things with the regional districts and the municipalities, because we

do not, as the NDP did, run transit out of a bureaucrat's office. We

want the people involved in the process; it's a major decision

affecting all of the people for all time in British Columbia, and it

should be well reasoned. Yes, the moneys could be spent on light rail

transit if it were decided that that was the better approach. We have

committed moneys to diesel buses, and those moneys, incidentally, were

not from this specific fund.

We have small communities

throughout British Columbia which, contrary to what the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said.... While we perhaps should be grateful

because transit was extended back in 1974 to Surrey and Coquitlam,

there are 13 small communities — and many others considering throughout

the province — now taking advantage of the transit formula which was

developed by my ministry and which has led to an agreement between 13

municipalities and the Urban Transit Authority. We must consider those

other parts of British Columbia too. We can't always be thinking only

of Vancouver and Victoria. There are other places in British Columbia

that need to be considered for transit, and just because the NDP has

done no good in rural B.C. is no reason to ignore it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member,

section 26, please.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, the question was asked: why diesel buses? Diesel buses are needed as a part of the overall system.

We have ordered a large number of trolley buses, contrary to what the first

member for Victoria said. He obviously was not listening. It's been pointed

out time and time again: we've ordered those trolley buses. This government,

again, has done that. The member asked: will some of these $55 million be used

for wiring trolley buses? Sure it's important — we must maintain that existing

equipment, and that is being done. But it's not being done through the $55

million fund. We have within my vote a very large sum — many millions of dollars

— for transit in the province. Not everything is going to come from the $55

million. That $55 million, hopefully, will be used to develop a good system

of transit, to pay for the capital parts of that program for British Columbia.

Again I say, Mr. Chairman, all British Columbians should be grateful for and

proud of what's happening in B.C., because now the lead's been set and

we're going to be first in Canada.

MR. BARBER:

Well, if they were grateful and proud you would have done a heck of a

lot better in the last provincial election. It was the administration

of Mr. Barrett that first pioneered the small communities transit

program.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Where is Mr. Barrett?

MR. BARBER: He's out doing the people's business in Japan.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Doing the people's business in Japan?

MR. BARBER: That's right. It's more than Phillips was ever able to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, for the benefit of the assembly I will read

section 26:

"The Minister of Finance shall pay from the consolidated revenue fund

the sum of $55 million to establish the Urban Transit Fund." If we can

contain our debate in committee to that section, that will be in order.

The first member for Victoria continues and the Minister of Municipal

Affairs will remain in order.

MR. BARBER: I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs has been chewing daffodil bulbs again; he's behaving very strangely today.

asked a number of questions about the relative proportions to be

committed under this fund. The minister, I note, omitted any reply

whatever to our criticism that this device is totally unnecessary in

law. He knows full well he could do it entirely through estimates. The

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

again. He knows too that it's totally unnecessary, except for politics,

to do it this way.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER:

No, I'm not finished, because it's an important issue, as the minister

says. Although not every member of the House may be interested in

transit, some of us are. My colleague from Burnaby-Willingdon and I, on

this side of the House, most certainly are.

I didn't want

another false impression to be left uncorrected — the impression that

our only interest in transit is in transit in Vancouver and Victoria.

The minister, I'm sure only unintentionally, would have left that

impression; but now that it's been corrected he won't repeat it, I'm

sure. In fact, the great pioneering work in the field of transit in

small communities occurred during the administration of Mr. Lorimer as

Minister of Municipal Affairs. That's where it all started.

But

it's equally the case that the principal capital costs for light rail

transit will obviously occur in greater Vancouver. What I've asked the

minister to do — and he's yet to do it — is indicate what commitment,

if any, apart from his wide-eyed monorail schemes, he is making of this

$55 million for light rail construction or equipment.... He's being

distracted. Are you listening? All right. What I'm asking again is:

what percentage, if you can calculate it, of this $55 million will be

spent on light rail transit in greater Vancouver? I

[ Page 3033 ]

wouldn't

want another false impression to be created by Social Credit. I

wouldn't want anyone to think that $55 million has now been committed

to light rapid transit in greater Vancouver, for instance. Because, you

know, Mr. Chairman, strangely, that's the impression that was attempted

to be conveyed when this was first announced. I remember reading the

Vancouver papers — which I read very closely — and I remember quite

clearly the impression given by government spokespersons who would have

the people of Vancouver, who are sometimes naive about Social Credit,

believe that the car dealers had finally repented and were prepared to

spend significant sums on LRT.

Well, I ask the minister a

second time to tell us what share of this $55 million.... Surely they

wouldn't simply put it in a pot and wait for it to be called upon; they

must have some idea of why it's required. Why $55 million? Why not $45

million or $75 million? The figure has been set, it must represent some

planning and some analysis of need. Don't you think so, Alec?

Interjection.

MR. BARBER:

Oh, you don't think so. Well, maybe I'm the naive one. Maybe it's just

a political figure. Maybe I am naive. I freely admit it. After two

elections I remain the youngest member of the Legislature. I turned 31

last week. Maybe I'm still naive about Social Credit too.

Nonetheless,

unless the government is going to admit that they simply invented a

figure of $55 million that doesn't represent any planning, strategy or

direction — unless they're going to admit to that embarrassment —

surely they could, to the contrary, say: "Yes, there's a plan, the $55

million represents something, and here's what it represents, Mr. Member

for Victoria. It represents this percentage commitment to light rapid

transit." I want to know what that percentage commitment is. I want a

straight answer from the minister. What's the figure? If you don't have

it, you may be embarrassed on another ground: for not having any

figures, and only a pile of money for political purposes.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, if I might illustrate it very simply, through an example,

how wonderful it would have been if during 1974, when they were

government, they could have passed a similar bill and provided a fund

like this, so that when 1975 came about and they were in no position to

provide any moneys for transit or whatever else, they could have used

this sort of fund. We can't say at this moment, until our negotiations

are complete and until we've been able to discuss programs with

regional districts, what amount of money will be required for what part

of the program. These are the sorts of things that we wish to discuss

with the municipalities, because the municipalities — and I remind the

member time and time again — must be, if at all possible, very much a

part of the decision-making process. I don't know why that member can't

understand this. It is necessary that they be a part of that process. I

will be meeting with them in July and again in the fall, or throughout

the summer, to discuss those things that they have gained from their

studies.

MR. BARBER: There's a bit of sleight of hand going on here on the part of the government benches.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if you're imputing any improper motive, I'll have to ask you to withdraw that.

MR. BARBER: No, in B.C. it's absolutely conventional, apparently.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that comment is unparliamentary.

MR. BARBER:

Well, then I certainly withdraw it. However, the gambit appears to be

this: the government would have us believe that they're establishing a

kind of perpetual fund here, like the old man used to do. Remember, Mr.

Chairman? Old W.A.C. used to set up these perpetual funds, and the

interest from them would be spent on various good purposes in

Christendom. Well, that makes sense, I suppose, if you have so little

planning ability that you have to set up piles of money and then spend

the interest on whatever comes along. If that's the best level of

planning that you can obtain, I suppose a perpetual fund then makes

some sense.

But in transit surely the planning issues at

stake are tremendously more important and far less spontaneous than

could ever be provided for by some kind of perpetual fund. When we ask

the minister to describe how the money is going to be allocated, he

says basically that they've established a pile of loot; they'll put it

in the bank, and when someone comes along with a good idea, they'll

negotiate, and on the basis of the negotiations they will spend. Well,

on that basis, what do we need this money for? You already have

legislative authority to appropriate under sections 9 and 17 of the

Urban Transit Authority Act. You have that authority. You could put a

figure in estimates that represents the minimal figure you require, and

if later in the year a good case is made by a competent authority to

spend more, you then of course have the further authority by special

warrant to spend further money. That's constitutional and proper.

That's how it works when a government's house is in order. But the

minister is clearly and inadvertently admitting that his house is not

in order and that he has selected a sum of money that has a nice round

ring to it — not $54.8 million or $62.3 million, but $55 million, which

sort of rolls off the tongue, at least if you have a Scots accent. The

sound of that apparently will be enough to persuade people that they're

serious about transit.

Well, if they were serious about

transit they'd be able to indicate clearly and in advance what their

commitments are to the following transit programs — they would name

them, detail them and tell us what their share is: and on the basis of

those programs, consistent with their policy, they are prepared to

spend this amount of money. But what the minister is clearly admitting

is that they have no plan at all. By their silence they confess that

this is a political gimmick, because they already have the authority to

bring in the money via estimates. Instead they create a fund. He can't

tell us what's going to be spent from the fund: he only says it’s up to

the negotiations. If that is the case, you can spend it via

consolidated revenue from time to time throughout the year and, when

the House isn't sitting, by special warrant. You know you can. That's

how the law works, and that's how the Financial Control Act reads.

That's what it does. They've done it for political reasons, because

they're in political trouble as a government.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, I hate to have to keep correcting you, but we are in

committee. During second reading we have had ample opportunity to

discuss the princi-

[ Page 3034 ]

ple

of this bill. The operative verb in the bill is "shall pay," and the

committee has to deal with detail

section by section. If the member

could contain himself to our standing orders that when we're in

committee we deal with sections in detail, then that debate would be in

order.

MR. BARBER: The total inability of the

minister to describe his policy, predict his spending and define the

terms of reference under which this will be committed, and the complete

inability of this government to make any significant commitment at all,

even verbally, to light rapid transit give rise to great disappointment.

We'll

support the $55 million because it's better than nothing, but it's

nowhere near what it should be. The government should be on notice from

this debate and in every debate in the future that the transit-users of

British Columbia and the opposition members of this House will be

watching very, very closely to see how you spend this money — to see

whether or not you spend it within a reasonable period of time and for

a good purpose and whether or not it is spent consistent with the best

interests of transit. Frankly, we're skeptical, and we have some doubts

that you're really serious about transit.

The Minister of Finance will shortly jump to his feet to defend his record. After he's done that I call a division.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Section 26 approved unanimously on a division.

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 27 to 32 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 7, Special Funds Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 19

Macdonald

Howard

Lea

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 34.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 1), 1980

The House in committee on Bill 34; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1. MR. COCKE:

The auditor-general has been given the responsibility for auditing the

books of the Assessment Authority. I ask the Minister of Finance

whether or not that will be a special report that we will have access

to, or whether it will just be a report to the minister. It says here:

"...report to the Authority and to the minister." How does the

Legislature...?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I didn't ask the minister of know-nothing energy. I asked the Minister of Finance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could explain in this

section and in a few

others that the acts about which the auditor-general wishes to comment

are dealt with here. This is the first one. Certainly I don't see

anything in this which would suggest that the report comes to the

minister only. Indeed, in discussing the expansion of her authority, my

conversations with the auditor-general have suggested that she clearly

expects to be able to report to the assembly on those which are dealt

with here.

MR. COCKE: I want to thank the minister. I

know that she will report to the assembly if she finds something amiss

or if she has some criticism. I would wonder, however, whether or not

it's implicit in these sections that she's being asked to report beyond

the minister. It seems to me that the auditor-general is a person whose

position is to report to the Legislature. So I just wondered if there

would be some

section that she would feel obligated to report to the

assembly in each of these areas. It seems so specific in terms of this

act. I was just wondering what motivation or direction is behind these

sections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The intention is that in

the filing of a number of reports of the Assessment Authority — to deal

with

section 1 — the Assessment Authority annual report must be filed.

It's the intention here that her comments would form part of that

report; that's clearly the intent. It's broaden-

[ Page

3035 ]

ing the accountability to this assembly, with respect to a number of agencies and so on.

MR. LEA:

On a point of order, looking through Bill 34, there are very few

ministers left out in this kind of act. As we go through it, we're

going to be wanting to ask questions, I would think, of a number of

those ministers. I wonder if you could ascertain from the government

House Leader whether those ministers are going to be here; otherwise we

could go to another act and come back to this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the committee has been struck. We are now in committee, dealing with the bill

section by section.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Section 1 approved unanimously on a division.

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

section 2. MR. BARBER:

Section 2 adds two new members to the Capital Commission of Victoria.

Section 2 is a welcome

section if the persons whom the minister

proposes to add represent the community broadly. I wonder if the

minister responsible could tell us whom he proposes to add.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I have no members in mind, pending the authority through

this bill. It is felt that there should be representatives from the

community at large and I trust that all members of the assembly will be

pleased with the selection when it's ultimately made. It's to expand

the commission.

Section 2 approved.

section 3. MR. BARBER:

Well, now Pat gets paid. Hurray! This

section exists because the

government couldn't count, apparently. The government didn't have the

political courage or wit to say in January of this year what they only

admitted in May, which is that they then, in January, had no legal

authority to pay her salary. Why did the government get into trouble on

the issue? In part because the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan)

apparently didn't know whether or not she was being paid a salary when

I asked her during question period in May.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. Again I must remind the hon. member that we

are not talking the principle, we are talking the specifies, and the

member is now....

MR. BARBER: Have you read the section?

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, it has long been the practice of this

House that statute law amendment acts are never debated in second reading on

principle and therefore the debate is allowed to go into principle because the

sections are so diverse. Now certainly the opposition could never ever again

allow a statute law amendment act to pass in this House if we are restricted

on the sections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member makes an excellent point. The Chair takes that point.

MR. BARBER:

All along the official opposition has looked forward to an opportunity

to allow the Minister of Tourism to be paid. It is a shame that the

government didn't say in January what they knew in January, which was

that there was no lawful way to pay her. They chose to keep quiet until

the day we found out. No statement was made at the time; no press

release was issued when the minister was appointed; no minister stood

up and said: "The Minister of Tourism also has an AAA rating and

deserves a salary." We didn't hear any of these things. Rather, we

heard only silence and, four months later, embarrassment from the

government benches when first of all the Minister of Tourism said she

didn't know whether or not she was getting a salary — as lame an excuse

as that one could never imagine — and secondly the now Attorney-

General (Hon. Mr. Williams), smiling all the way. said: "Don't worry.

We'll correct the situation as soon as we can." Well, it's here today

and I'm glad the Minister of Tourism will be paid her salary. However,

there are certain other problems implicit in this

section which will

now be referred to by my colleague for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON:

A year ago the government opened up the number of persons who could

serve on a board of directors — I believe it was of ICBC — and left it

open-ended. Again, we see that by this amendment,

section 10 of the

Constitution Act will now become open-ended, a blank cheque to

government to appoint as many members of cabinet as they might desire.

If this power is abused to the maximum, it will leave one lonely

backbencher in the government benches who will have to remain there in

order to serve as Deputy Speaker when the House has to go into

committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who will it be?

MR. NICOLSON:

I am asked who this lonely backbencher might be. It can't be the most

incompetent of the back bench. It does take some competence to be a

Chairman or Deputy Speaker. So it will mean that some others will go

into cabinet, and it almost guarantees that the least competent member

of the back bench will eventually find, I guess, his way into cabinet.

[Laughter.]

It is really a very serious thing! I think that

some of the speculations about the potential abuse of this

section are

perhaps humorous when one does consider the material and the

permutations and combinations made possible by this amendment to the

Constitution Act. But what this amendment does is amend

part 1 of

section 10, which refers to the executive council, by omitting the

words "not exceeding 23." Therefore it says that the executive council

should be composed of persons the Lieutenant-Governor appoints,

including the Premier of the province, who shall be president of the

council. Without this amendment,

part 1 says that the executive council

should be composed of persons the Lieutenant-Governor appoints, not

exceeding 23, including the Premier of the province, who shall be

president of the council. It also eliminates

part 2, which says that

not more than 19 of those persons appointed shall receive a salary

under this act.

[ Page 3036 ]

That

is the offending part which has prevented the Minister of Tourism from

receiving a salary to this point. Had this part, and perhaps

part 4,

which is also to be omitted, simply been deleted, that would be all

that would have to be done to amend this act and, indeed, to even allow

three more persons from the back bench into the cabinet. But there

appear to be no limits to which democracy is to be savaged by this

government in terms of opening things absolutely wide-open, being

totally permissive, and encouraging reckless abuse of the objectives of

this House.

I think that in a House that is limited to

having 57 members, the potential abuse of this House could be with some

government with a future majority of, say, 38 or 40 members — as has

happened frequently — and there could be 35 cabinet ministers appointed

very easily in this House without some limit being put on here. I

cannot imagine the present Attorney-General allowing this kind of

legislation to come into this House. There must surely be some kind of

limit that should be binding upon not only the present government but

upon future governments.

Mr. Chairman, in hoping that this has been merely an oversight or a drafting

error, I propose a remedy. I propose to move the following motion: that Bill

34, intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1980, be amended

as at

section 3, line 2, by inserting after "not exceeding 23" the

words "; and substituting the words 'not exceeding 20'. "

The actual physical effect of the amendment would be to place where presently

we see the words "not exceeding 23" the words "not exceeding

20." This would permit the payment of the minister, and I move the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before ruling on the amendment, hon. member, we'll continue with debate, and I'll reserve on it pending.

MR. NICOLSON: Just in terms of the amendment, I might refer, Mr. Chairman, to debate in Hansard

of April 17, 1973, in which a similar amendment was moved. The effect

of this is not to put an impost on the Crown to require more

expenditure; the only effect it could have would be to actually reduce

potential expenditures, if anything.

A similar amendment was proposed in 1973 and I would commend to members the words of the mover of that amendment. He said:

Mr.

Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper,

page 15. The amendment is to reduce the number of people who can be

appointed to the cabinet from 23, as it now stands in

section 3, to 19.

Mr.

Chairman, the reason for making this amendment is that it would be

absurd for a province the size of British Columbia to create a cabinet

comparable in size to the whole country. We've got 29 cabinet ministers

in Canada; to have 23 in British Columbia would be just a fantastic

absurdity. It may soon be, Mr. Chairman, that the smallest group in the

House will be not the Liberal Party or even the Conservative Party, but

the number of backbenchers in the New Democratic Party who haven't been

elevated.

I wonder who moved that excellent amendment and

spoke so eloquently to it. Well, it was none other than the present

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer).

I would hope that he was on the cabinet committee reviewing legislation

and reviewing this bill.

I would also perhaps ask the Clerk to take this amendment over to the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Williams) so that he might peruse it, so that he could consider setting

some limits. I think that if some reasonable limits are not set here....

I think that the practical limit for today is 20. If government should find

that that is too restrictive, I'm sure that, maybe in another year's

time, if they felt that one more position needed to be created, members would

consider creating a little bit of leeway. What we have with this amendment is

the freedom to create, within that limit of 20 members, ministers without portfolio

or with portfolio. If this

section were to pass as amended, we would be able

to have complete flexibility. The other proposals will remove the limitation

in terms of how many members can hold the full portfolio. It would be set at

think that the government, if it is to pretend to have any modicum of

sense and taste in terms of opening up a potential watershed of abuse,

would accept this or would perhaps get up and move the committee rise

and then perhaps bring back their own number. But to have this

absolutely open-ended, as something that we've already embarked upon,

as I say, with one Crown corporation, is, I think, a bad precedent. It

is something that, if this province continues to be a two-party

system.... If we were tempted to do the same thing, we'd say: "Well,

you did it." I think the time to stop it is right now. I can see that

with the Crown corporation it's one thing; but to do this — to make the

cabinet numbers open-ended — is, I think, absolutely.... I'm not going

to use strong language; I'll just say it would be very regrettable if

we were to allow this to go ahead.

MR. BARBER: Hansard

is a wonderful thing, Mr. Chairman, and it's a shame that the Minister

of science and technology and satellite receivers isn't here to enjoy

his own comments. He said a great deal more. I suppose all that one

need do is refer each member of the House to page 2972 of Hansard

for April 17, 1973, in order to hear extremely cogent remarks made by a

now member of the government in favour of the opposition's current

amendment.

The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, were he here, might also want to quote from Politics in Paradise ,

a book in which he also set out certain other interesting political

principles which have recently been used in committees of this House in

order that we be better reminded of the high principles of the given

member.

If it's necessary, Mr. Chairman, I'll read into the

record the entire statement of the minister now, who, as a member then,

made a very similar motion. But in order not to do that, I wonder if

the government might simply give an indication as to whether or not

they are prepared to accept an amendment which was moved in virtually

the same language some short while ago by one of their own colleagues.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the motion has not been ruled in or out of order at this time. We will permit debate to continue.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I think that the House should understand the gravity of this proposed change to legislation.

Can

you imagine some of the appointments that could be made, should this

pass? For instance, can you not see the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf),

after this passes, sitting in this House as a minister? Let's say he's

the Minister of Labour. The minister from Omineca....

Interjection.

[ Page

3037 ]

MR. LEA: No, we're going to give you the Ministry of Labour,

Mr. Member, because I think you'd do a great job in there after your

speeches about right-to-work.

Now we could put the second

member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) into the cabinet in a new

ministry created called the Ministry of Mortgages. That would work out

quite well. I'm sure the people of British Columbia would be very

pleased to see the second member for Vancouver South in charge of

mortgages in the province. That would be good.

What are some

of the other appointments that I think would frighten the people of

British Columbia? What about the member for North Peace (Mr. Brummet)

in Education? That would be a good portfolio for the member for North

Peace.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: You get music. You're okay there — you get music.

But

seriously, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this is unnecessary

legislation. Surely the province of British Columbia, through its

government, knows at this time the number of cabinet ministers that

they want to appoint. Surely they don't want to appoint more than 23

members with pay, but we have to assume, because of this legislation,

that they are going to do that.

There's another danger. The

danger is that as we approach election time, there could be members who

are considered to be weak in their ridings, where the Premier, in his

wisdom, could say: "Let's put this person in the cabinet for a short

while, just for the election, and then we'll take him out." I'd say

that me saying that before this year could be considered a wild charge.

I think people would say: "What's the member for Prince Rupert saying?

Would this government resort to these kinds of dirty tricks?" That's

what they'd say. They'd say: "If all that happened hadn't happened...."

If I got up and said, "Maybe the Premier's going to use this act for

political purposes that could be termed a dirty trick," everybody would

say: "Oh, the member for Prince Rupert is making a silly charge." But

after this year's revelations, after seeing what this government and

what this political party will do, it makes this amendment a sinister

amendment, because we know that as a political party they're not above

using this Legislature and the power of government to help them

politically. We know that, and I believe that if this thing goes

through, with an open-ended cabinet for the Premier to appoint, prior

to the next election we will see appointments to the cabinet that are

done for no other reason than to help someone in their back bench who

may be in political problems in their own riding. That is what's going

to happen.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: It

doesn't sound like anything, Mr. Member. What it sounds like is that a

government that gave us Lettergate and thousand-dollar bills contrary

to the Election Act, a government that has slush funds going into the

Premier's office from Toronto and Vancouver and not through their

party, is now prepared, in my opinion. to use this act for the same

purpose that they've used every other thing in government: to enhance

their political party, and for no other reason. This act is sinister

for that reason.

If, Mr. Chairman, we had seen a Premier who

was beyond political morality or beyond using politics for immorality

in a political sense, then we could let this go through and say we know

that the Premier is going to act according to political morality. But

knowing that the Premier hasn't used his office in that way, we have

to, as an opposition on behalf of the people, be suspicious of an

open-ended cabinet, because we are convinced, on this side of the

House, that the Premier will use this not to serve the people of

British Columbia but to serve the Social Credit Party. That's what

we're afraid of. That's why we've put forward this amendment — so that

the people of British Columbia will not be used by the Social Credit

Party in order to get them re-elected through public funds. We know

they'll do it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, you set a good example. Nunweiler seemed to be in that position.

MR. LEA:

In other words, the Minister of Agriculture is confirming what I said.

He said: "You did it, so we're going to do it." We didn't do it, but

you intend to do it, Mr. Minister. That's what you intend to do. I'll

be willing to put some money....

MR. KEMPF Where your month is?

MR. LEA:

Yes, I'll be willing to put some money where my mouth is. I'm willing

to bet any one of you ten bucks right now that before the next election

the Premier will use this act, if it's passed, for political purposes

in bringing backbenchers into cabinet for a short period of time for no

other reason than to enhance the Social Credit Party in a desperate bid

to maintain power.

HON. MR. MAIR: This is a very

interesting debate. Mr. Chairman. I couldn't help but notice that the

first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) was apparently upset because we

didn't tell him that we had appointed a cabinet minister without pay.

We knew that we had to get an amendment to this act, as witnessed by

the fact that no pay was forthcoming. The minister received no pay

right from the very beginning. Now it took from January 10 until May 6

before the quick-witted first member for Victoria picked this up. He's

the man, you may remember, Mr. Chairman, who sits around reading old

bills in his spare time in order to pick up these little mistakes, and

it took him all that time — four months — to figure this one out.

AN HON. MEMBER: He picked it up before you did.

HON. MR. MAIR:

Before we did? We knew; you didn't. If that's any evidence of the

quick-wittedness of that opposition, no wonder there is so much

trouble. No wonder they're totally incapable of being an opposition —

much less a government.

I was interested again in the member

for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) because he always does lend so much

uplifting argument to debate. He doesn't tell us that the person who

invented the game that he complains we might be involved in — and God

knows we shouldn't.... It was invented by him and his leader when they

played shuffle off to London with Strachan, and then Nunweiler came in

and it cost a half a million bucks to do absolutely nothing, and

Nimsick went to one place and somebody else went to another place. You

[ Page 3038 ]

know,

it ill behooves those who created such a shambles in the province of

British Columbia to come along at this stage of the game and say that

the Lieutenant-Governor is not entitled to have as many ministers as he

deems necessary to advise him and to pay them all.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in opposition to this amendment which would restrict the numbers....

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no amendment.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, can we have a clarification on the amendment?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The amendment has not yet been accepted or rejected, hon. member. It is

the prerogative of the Chair to allow debate to continue until a

decision has been reached. Debate on the amendment is in order until at

that time.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, one way or

another the intent of the opposition would be to restrict the original

amendment to the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, by which it is

apparent that they would have the intent of restricting the numbers in

the executive council to 20. The original restrictions on the numbers

of the executive council go back quite a long time in history to the

time when the restriction was made that there could not be more than 23

members of the executive council, at a time when the total obligations

and budget of the government was something under $1 billion for the

whole of the province of British Columbia.

Today we have a

completely different circumstance, a completely different job and

obligation and task before the government of the day, and I say that

the age-old restrictions imposed, you might say, by the Constitution

Act place an undue inability to function on the Premier and the

provincial government of the day, whoever they might be, in terms of

the ability to react to changing times and requirements. This House

does not always sit for long periods of time. This facility is required

by the government of the day. This means that portfolios must be

established and changed from time to time, and the purpose of the bill

before the House is simply to remove unnecessary technical obstacles

that might otherwise hinder the proper efforts of government to respond

to the needs of the day.

Mr. Chairman, we have a case in

point where in effect we had the Ministry of Tourism — an extremely

important function in the province of British Columbia — coupled with

another portfolio. Tourism is very high in our priorities. It's either

number 2 or number 3 in respect to the economic values it represents —

it's extremely important — and here we were in a situation where this

government needed to respond to that requirement and had some

difficulty in being able to do that without having to amend the

Constitution Act.

I think it's very obvious why the

opposition would want to keep these types of shackles on the ability of

government to function in the future. I think it's quite obvious, when

you relate this to other provinces and to the financial job before us

today — a budget of $5.5 billion — that one can well understand and

support this change in the Constitution Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, prior to proceeding, I must rule the amendment out of order. I refer members to the Journals

of the House, March 9, 1887, where Speaker Pooley ruled on a point of

order that a motion for leave to introduce a bill to amend the

constitution by a private member of the House is out of order. The

amendment is so ruled. On

section 3, the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA:

The only thing that might convince me to let this thing go through is

to hear from some more ministers. After hearing the Provincial

Secretary, I'm almost willing to take back my objection. Could we do

worse? Maybe it would be a good idea to open it up. To get a pound of

brains over there, we may need the rest of them to come in. I think

maybe after listening to the Provincial Secretary, we should bring in

the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet). He might add some

intellect over there. I think maybe we should bring in the second

member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) in charge of mortgages. I

think maybe we should bring the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) into

Environment. We saw a display here during the last few days by the

Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers). He is absolutely incapable

and not knowledgeable about his own portfolio. Maybe we do need a guy

who will drink Fraser River water.

I have to admit that

they've almost convinced me that we should withdraw our objection.

Maybe if a couple more ministers got up and spoke you could win the

day. Maybe the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), who I think was on

the Liberal benches when his colleague from Point Grey put the original

amendment, should speak. You should speak to it; it's your bill. You

should speak to it; convince us why we should let those guys in. I know

the Attorney-General. I know that he's looking for the kind of fire

power that that group down there can give him. I mean, you're going to

bring in talent if you open this up. I think I'd better quit.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I certainly can't reflect on the fact that my colleague's

amendment was out of order. However, there is an amendment that could

be put, which would not be out of order. That amendment could be put by

a government member. It strikes me that the government should place

some limitation on the number of cabinet ministers. I think that when

the member for Vancouver–Point Grey....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

No more than 30 now, but who knows? Maybe next time we'll be government

with 40 and you'll wish that you hadn't made it this wide open, but

that's not the point. That kind of discussion, I guess, goes both ways.

Really

and truly, it strikes me that there should be some kind of limitation.

The member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) at the time was

arguing for a limitation of 19. He indicated that he didn't want that

23 in there at all. Of course, right now it's wide open. I don't think

it would take the Attorney-General very long to put together an

amendment that would be in order. If he would do that, then we can see

where we're going. Along with my colleagues, I'm delighted to see that

the member for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) is finally going to be

paid for her fine work and for that crown that she's been wearing,

which she told us about in her original letter — the golden crown of

tourism. Now she's going to be able to reflect that golden crown of

tourism in her bank account.

[ Page 3039 ]

any event, Mr. Chairman, why shouldn't there be a limitation? Why

doesn't the Attorney-General stand up and indicate to us that he can

put an amendment to the committee that would be in order? Let's go

beyond the 20. Let's go up to 22 or 23, but at least limit it. I

suggest that's the way we should go.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

May I participate in this debate, Mr. Chairman, very briefly, if I

must? I wish the members to know that the question of the elimination

of the restriction on the number of persons who may be appointed to the

executive council has already been considered by the Attorney-General

and other members of the government. Quite frankly I'm a little

distressed that the motion was found out of order, because the

opposition finally got hold of an outstanding precedent brought to this

House by a member who had real talent. I don't want to reflect upon the

decision of the Chair, but if we dealt with the motion then we could

have used an equally outstanding precedent as to how the government

reacted — the same way it did in 1973; it refused the amendment.

Therefore we are following the precedent which was established by the

New Democratic Party when they were in the government of this province.

The

size of the executive council is dictated by the necessities for the

proper administration of affairs of this province. Since 1973 the

responsibilities which have devolved upon government have increased. I

would think the opposition would be pleased that the government since

1975 has been so successful in developing the affairs of this province

that we have to have more qualified people in order to carry out the

business of the people.

Consideration is being given today

to the fact that in January we appointed the Minister of Tourism. We

didn't have that problem when the NDP was in government, because the

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) said, "Americans stay home," and

just to make sure they did he let the highways get full of potholes so

they couldn't drive on them anyway. They didn't need any Minister of

Tourism in those days, because that government did their very best to

drive them all away.

The bogeyman, the apprehensions that

are being displayed by the members in debate today make one wonder

whether or not they have carefully considered the responsibility of the

executive cabinet. I guess it’s no problem, because they'll never again

have to worry about selecting anybody. I've looked back at the

selections they made in 1973. I remember when the member for Prince

Rupert was brought into the cabinet; that was a bright day. I remember

when they brought in the member for Fort George; that was another

bright day. They had to make him a director of B.C. Rail in hopes that

he'd go away and get lost someplace. And he did.

They would

never use the cabinet for political purposes. They would never have

thought of that. Mind you, they appointed the member for Atlin in those

days as a member of the executive council without portfolio — the first

native Indian to sit in this House. They kicked him out too. That

wasn't political; no, it sure wasn't.

We gave very careful

consideration to the restrictions that exist upon the executive

councils in other governments in this country. We find that the

restriction in our Constitution Act is not repeated elsewhere. We think

that in the proper administration of the affairs of this province,

whoever the government may be, the government should have the

opportunity of appointing men and women who can discharge the

responsibilities that are required. If additional portfolios are

required from time to time because of changing importance in our

society, then the government should be free to meet those needs. There

was a time when we had lands, forests and water resources all in one

ministry, even under the NDP, but the importance of those three

elements to this province is greater than the burden that should be

shouldered by any one member of the executive council. As a result,

when you split those up you get two or three persons required in order

to effectively administer those important responsibilities. To hamper a

government in moving in the direction it must is something even the

opposition should not wish to support.

MR. NICOLSON:

That was hardly a contrite response by the Attorney-General. This is

just one more wedge driven into the base of our democratic system in

British Columbia. The first one was the Government Reorganization Act

which he almost alluded to,

whereas they can shuffle ministries and

make new ministries. Now they can create any number of cabinet

ministers. It makes a complete mockery. To not set limits upon

ourselves here in this Legislature is to allow the erosion which is

something that every member of this House is bound by honour and duty

to defend. We are allowing the erosion of the Legislature itself. We

are ceding to the cabinet benches more and more authority. As I say,

they have the authority to completely reorganize and create ministries

without any acts, and now they have access to unlimited cabinet

numbers. I would have expected that the Attorney-General might have

recognized the seriousness of the matter and perhaps had some sort of a

vision of where he once stood in this House in terms of matters of

principle. His colleague the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey,

the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, did express

it well. He was arguing then the difference between a limitation of 19

and one of 23. But do not say that when we were government that we

brought in something that was absolutely open-ended, that we abolished

all limits. This is abolishing limits; it is totally.... I don't care

if the province of Saskatchewan has no limitation; that doesn't justify

this province of British Columbia removing a good principle from

legislation.

We're not objecting to the change in

part 2 and

we're not objecting to the elimination of

part 4, which created a sort

of fish-and-fowl situation in terms of limiting the number of members

with portfolio and then setting a second limitation in terms of

ministers without portfolio. If the minister would like to come up with

a practical number, let's debate that. Let's debate whether 23, 24 or

25 is too many. But to absolutely open this up is a signal that this

government.... Some of those Social Credit members who've had

experience in opposition to our NDP government did not learn by all

those years they sat in opposition. I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman. I

learned a heck of a lot about this House after we were put into

opposition. I wish I'd had the experience of having sat in the

opposition before I had the opportunity of being catapulted into

government and the cabinet.

To have such a blank cheque is

something that I.... If this is allowed in this province, I hope it can

be found ultra vires in the courts. I hope that there is some court of

appeal. I hope that our system of democracy in this country is not so

defenceless that we can allow this kind of a travesty to pass. I'm

really in a quandary as to whether I should attempt a filibuster on

this thing without even having discussed such a

[ Page 3040 ]

matter with my caucus colleagues, or what. But this is a travesty.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON:

I don't expect the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) to understand

it. But when you've been on both sides of this House.... Perhaps, Mr.

Member, if you should be so fortunate as to have the opportunity to

serve in opposition and not merely be a one-timer in this House, then

you will come to appreciate that there are certain things that stand

out as being fair, decent and correct, and they stand out a country

mile when you can look at things from both sides of this House.

HON. MR. MAIR:

I think that I just want to make one brief comment, because there seems

to be some misunderstanding, at least on the part of the member for

Nelson-Creston. The obligation to govern does not increase or decrease

with the size of the cabinet; that obligation to govern remains

constant. The size of the job remains constant. The only thing that

changes is the number of people upon whom the burden falls. Therefore

the efficiency of the government depends, in large measure, on the

number of people who can do the job. I quite agree that you could

perhaps have too many people try to do that one job. That's something

that the people will make a judgment about in due course. But I can

tell you one thing: I'd rather take the chance of having one or two too

many bearing that burden than to have one or two too few. If we make an

error and have too many, I'm sure that people will tell us that; but

they'll sure tell us a lot sooner if we have too few.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. BARBER:

The comments of the Minister of Health are really not very helpful at

all, because in fact the people, through this Legislature, should have

from time to time — more often than simply every three or four years at

the ballot box — an opportunity to comment on the performance of the

government. If the minister really believed that, then of course....

Taking that principle further — to beyond the point to which even he

would subscribe, I'm sure — why bother with the Legislature, why not

simply decide everything at election time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, that's nonsense, Charlie. Why don't you pay attention? Take the hair out of your ears and listen for a change.

MR. BARBER:

Of course it's nonsense to take it that far, and so is the whole

principle as you extend it, so is the whole principle as you would

argue it.

Parliament traditionally has two prerogatives

regarding the organization of government. Firstly, parliament shall

determine the organization of the government service by various bills

that come in from time to time to establish government departments. I'm

aware that there is a Ministry of Tourism bill currently being

considered by cabinet. It's in its fourth draft. For political purposes

the government is now writing a Ministry of Tourism act. I'll give the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) my copy if he wishes it. For

political purposes....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Have you been sneaking around the halls again? Have you been looking in the waste baskets?

MR. BARBER: Who needs to? Your government is a sieve. Your government is an absolute sieve.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, could we please have order during debate?

MR. BARBER:

We know which government it was that first introduced a shredder into

the cabinet room. It was your government and it was your obsession with

secrecy that made you do it. Previous governments commanded somewhat

more respect from their employees. This government is a sieve. Of

course we see these things and hear about them.

There is a

Ministry of Tourism act currently being considered and it will be

brought to this House in due course. The reason it will be brought to

the House is for political purposes, because on that occasion it will

serve the government's political purpose to consult with the

Legislature before creating, in name, a new department. Why do they do

that? Simply because they think there are political points to be

gained. Why do they not do that on other occasions? Because there are

no points to be gained. The first prerogative of parliament has been,

in regard to the establishment of government itself, to vote from time

to time on bills that are brought forward to create or disestablish

departments.

One of the first acts of Social Credit, as my

colleague from Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) pointed out, was an

attempt to do away with all that — to do away with that honourable

tradition and ancient prerogative of parliament by establishing instead

a new act called the Government Reorganization Act, giving to cabinet

the awesome sweeping powers to do it all behind closed doors.

that's what they did in 1976 and that's why they did it. We do observe

that for political purposes they are prepared to bring in a Ministry of

Tourism act. You see, the problem with the Minister of Health's (Hon.

Mr. Mair'

s) argument is that the reason they're bringing in a Ministry

of Tourism act defeats his own conclusion. He tells us: "We'll let the

people decide, not the Legislature. They'll be the final judge." Well,

on the burden of that argument you may as well let the people decide

everything every four years and in between run what Mr. Gordon Gibson

used to describe in this House as a four-year elected dictatorship.

is an ancient prerogative of parliament that we shall have the right to

debate and vote on the establishment of government ministries. The

Government Reorganization Act of 1976, introduced by the then

Provincial Secretary, did away with all that. Now we see the second

step which infringes on the second great prerogative of parliament.

That prerogative has been that not only may we debate and determine for

ourselves the establishment or disestablishment of ministries of the

Crown, but we may also determine in this House that however many

persons the Legislature sees fit shall theoretically be named to

cabinet positions. Why is this? Because some time ago parliament

realized the problems of cronyism, favouritism and abuse that can

result if there are no limits, no controls and no ceilings.

Some

time ago the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) said that they were

simply following the precedent of the New Democrat administration. He

knows that's not at all correct. The New Democrat administration

established a ceiling consistent with the times, introduced it on this

floor,

[ Page 3041 ]

had the courage to have it debated on this floor and saw it pass through the Legislature.

What

a world of difference between that procedure and this coalition

government, which first of all brings in a Government Reorganization

Act and secondly brings in this. What disrespect for parliament and its

traditions is revealed by that coalition. If they want to bring in a

full-time Minister of Tourism and pay her a salary and increase the

number by one, let them do so. Let them bring in the Ministry of

Tourism act, which we've seen, and let them debate these things openly

and publicly. That would be fair. If it is in the interests of the

people of British Columbia to pass a Ministry of Tourism act, fine.

Let's debate that and, if necessary, pass it on this floor. But for the

government, through the Government Reorganization Act, to assume the

awesome sweeping powers to do that for itself in private without being

held accountable in this place is a wrong thing. To compound the wrong

by then assuming for itself all the authority to determine any number

of persons as may be appointed by cabinet is to do a further wrong

thing.

The opposition doesn't have very many rights in the

parliamentary system of Great Britain. The executive council has all

the power and authority and it makes all of the decisions. That's how

it works in the British system. Sometimes Canadians complain and say:

"Why can't you be more cooperative? Why can't you run it like the

Americans do, where they have committees that are bipartisan, that

represent both sides, that draft and redraft legislation in the open at

the consequence and conclusion of public hearings, all of which is done

in public?" The reasons we can't do it are, first of all, that the

government doesn't believe in the committee system; and, secondly, that

that is not entirely consistent with the British tradition. In that

tradition the government has all the power and the opposition has

virtually none. Those few powers that the opposition does have have

consistently tended to be built around the notions of how government

shall be organized and what, within that organization, government may

do. Government still wins all the votes even though, in this House, the

opposition wins all the debates.

HON. MR. MAIR: What are you smoking? It's illegal to smoke that stuff. I'm prepared to put up with hyperbole, but that is....

MR. BARBER:

The typically well-mannered Minister of Health, as usual, declines to

debate the real issue. In part, the real issue at hand is what the

rights of the opposition are and whether those rights include the right

to determine from time to time how many persons may be appointed to

cabinet and with what authority they shall be invested. Perhaps if the

Minister of Health left the room the debate might proceed a lot faster.

What

shall the powers of the opposition be to control the far greater power

of government in the British system? Let me restate that until wiped

out by Social Credit the two powers have traditionally been, first, the

power to comment on the organization of government ministries; and,

second, the power to comment on the number of ministers who may serve

those purposes. What is wrong with that tradition? I haven't heard a

single good argument advanced yet in opposition to that ancient means

whereby the few powers that remain in the hands of the opposition shall

be retained by them in this Legislature. If the government has a need

to create a new department, let them make that need open and clear. Let

them argue, defend and make the case here. There is nothing wrong with

that.

This government of so-called businessmen, who have

made more mistakes and bungles than any other government in living

memory, should surely recognize that in the corporate sector any

manager who proposes to rearrange his administration to add to or

detract from the number of managers who carry it out is required to

report to the board of directors. In the private sector the board of

directors has the final say. In the private sector managers can't

simply stand up and say: "This is what I've decided in my room that has

the shredder in it, and I want you to approve it. By the way, I don't

even want you to have the authority to approve it anymore. See you

around, pals." Even in the private sector. where to say the least the

democratic instinct is pretty darned frail, managers of corporations

are required to go to their board of directors for approval of these

things. How much more important, therefore, is it that in the public

sector, where the public interest is crucially at stake, the managers

of this province, the executive council, shall be required to come to

their board of directors, this Legislature, and ask for permission to

reorganize and ask the consent of this House to designate another

person or two or three to the high office of cabinet?

Even

the business sector knows more about how you run things than this group

seems to, at least as this amendment provides evidence. Apparently the

coalition doesn't care much for these democratic procedures. Apparently

they prefer, instead, to be consistent with their first acts in

government, one of which was to install a shredder in the cabinet

office. Did you know that, Mr. Minister of Labour? That is what they

did. Ask the now Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy); she

was responsible for it. Why did they do it? Because they have secrets

to hide and business to do in private that they care not to be held

accountable for on the floor of this House. It's a good idea.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we return to the section. hon. member?

MR. BARBER:

It is important for the traditions of this Legislature that the

government tell us why they propose to remove one of the remaining

powers of the opposition. If you can't persuade this Ho

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32p 02s 800625p
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32p 02s 800625p
Language	en
Format	htm
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	b5b73650a6da61ef329be24bb0628b95f7ee3839

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (htm).

British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, June 25, 1980 — Afternoon Sitting (32nd Parliament, 2nd Session)

HANSARD

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 1980

CONTENTS

section 24.

section 26.

Division on report and third reading –– 3034

section 1.

section 2.

section 3.

Division on

section 3 –– 3042

section 7.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 1980

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

MR. BRUMMET:

COWICHAN VALLEY PCP SPILL

MRS. WALLACE:

HON. MR. ROGERS: I

MRS. WALLACE:

MRS. WALLACE:

HON. MR. ROGERS:

MRS. WALLACE:

HON. MR. ROGERS:

HON. MR. ROGERS:

KNOWLEDGE NETWORK OF THE WEST

MR. COCKE:

MR. COCKE:

NORTHERN TRANSMISSION STUDIES

MR. PASSARELL:

MR. PASSARELL:

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

HON. MR. ROGERS:

MRS. WALLACE:

PROPOSED FIXED LINK BETWEEN

VANCOUVER ISLAND AND MAINLAND

MR. HOWARD:

HON. MR. CHABOT:

SPECIAL FUNDS ACT, 1980

Section 19 approved.

Section 20 approved unanimously on a division.

Section 23 approved unanimously on a division.

section 24.

MR. HALL:

HON. MR. WOLFE:

HON. MR. WOLFE:

MR. HALL:

section 26.

MR. MACDONALD:

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

MR. MACDONALD:

MR. LORIMER:

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

MR. COCKE: I

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

MR. COCKE:

MR. LORIMER:

HON. MR. CURTIS:

MR. HALL:

HON. MR. CURTIS:

HON. MR. CURTIS:

MR. HALL:

MR. HYNDMAN: I

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

MR. COCKE:

MR. COCKE:

MR. COCKE:

section 26, the minister defers to the member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. LORIMER:

MR. CHAIRMAN:

MR. CHAIRMAN:

section 26. I understand there has been some latitude allowed with

section 26, that would be in order.

MR. BARBER: I

MR. BARBER:

section 9(

section 9(l). That's the usual

section 9(1) makes that clear. But

section 17 makes the same point in the same