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, APRIL 2, 1980

Afternoon

[ Page

1809 ]

CONTENTS

Introduction of Bills

The Human Rights Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill M204).

Ms. Sanford.

Introduction and first reading –– 1810

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions.

Bank of Canada interest rates. Mr. Howard –– 1810

Administration of justice. Mr. Macdonald –– 1810

Refit of the ferry Queen of Surrey . Mr. Barber –– 1811

Permit for Keremeos sewage treatment plant. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 1812

Supply Act, No. 1, 1980 (Bill 11). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 1813

Supply Act, No. 1, 1980 (Bill 11). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1813

Mr. Stupich –– 1814

Mr. Cocke –– 1814

Mr. Nicolson –– 1815

Mrs. Dailly –– 1815

Mr. Lea –– 1816

Mr. Hanson –– 1817

Mr. Gabelmann –– 1818

Mr. Lockstead –– 1819

Mr. Hall –– 1819

Mrs. Wallace –– 1820

Ms. Brown –– 1820

Mr. King –– 1821

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1821

Supply Act, No. 1, 1980 (Bill 11). Committee stage.

section 2.

Mr. Stupich –– 1823

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1823

Report and third reading –– 1823

Special Funds Act, 1980 (Bill 7). Second reading.

Mr. Cocke –– 1823

Mrs. Dailly –– 1825

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1826

Mr. Nicolson –– 1827

Mr. Brummet –– 1830

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I'd like to introduce two gentlemen who are in the gallery today. Both

of these men have given of their personal life to serve in public

office, and I've had the opportunity and privilege of serving with

them. The first is Mr. Frank Laird from the city of Penticton. He is

the former mayor of the city of Penticton and is visiting us in

Victoria today. Mr. Laird has been involved in many areas of public

life, the regional hospital and CMHC as well. The other gentleman is

Mr. Fred Stinson, former resident of the city of Penticton, former

alderman of the city of Penticton, who now resides in Kamloops. I'd

like the House to welcome both these gentlemen.

MRS. WALLACE:

I would like the House to join me in welcoming a delegation from the

National Farmers Union who met with our caucus today: Mr. Jack McCloy,

Mrs. Ruth Viener and Jean Leahy. I would like the House to join me in

welcoming them.

Also, Mr. Speaker, while I'm on my feet, it

was mentioned the other day by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Smith) that he had brought his son to work with him. Well, my son is in

New Zealand, so I can't do that, but today and this week I have in the

Legislature with me my MP's daughter, who is understudying politics. I

would like the House to welcome Heather Manly.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud indeed today to welcome to our House Ken

and Marilyn Adrian from the Central Fraser Valley. Marilyn is one of

those people who make a tremendous contribution to the future of our

province — she is a teacher from my community. Would the House please

welcome Ken and Marilyn Adrian.

MR. KING: Mr.

Speaker, I have a number of guests in the gallery today. Mrs. Lorna

Duncan of the city of Revelstoke is here, along with her son Scott, her

daughter Emily and, in addition, her sister, Mrs. Kutyk, from the city

of Victoria. I would like the House to join me in extending a warm

welcome to these visitors.

Additionally we have, originally

from the fair city of Revelstoke and now studying at the University of

Los Angeles, Miss Joan Wasylyk. I would like to extend a welcome to her

also.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, one of the

attractions for which British Columbia is justly renowned is our

aquarium in Vancouver. In your gallery today are some of the people who

are responsible for this magnificent development: the director, Dr.

Murray Newman, and Mr. and Mrs. James Graham. I'd like the House to bid

them a warm welcome.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join with me today

to welcome a personal friend who goes back to 1946, Kay Sumpter. Kay is over

in Victoria as a co-director of publicity for the ACMR which is the Association

to Control Mortgage Rates. They are having a national meeting on April 13 in

Vancouver. I would ask everyone to welcome her here today.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, you will be very pleased to know that not only has British Columbia a famous magazine, Beautiful British Columbia ,

but the format of that magazine has been undertaken by the western

Australian state government's Department of Industrial Development. In

the gallery today, and visiting with the Ministry of Tourism and the

government of British Columbia, are Mr. and Mrs. Ian Parkes, of Perth

in western Australia. They are here to visit us in the House, and most

importantly to renew their views on Beautiful British Columbia

magazine, and to take back some new ideas to Australia as well as leave

some of their very fine ideas with us. Joining them in the gallery,

from a very beautiful city in British Columbia, Vernon, are Mr. and

Mrs. Bill Shields and their children Cheryl and Derek. I'd ask the

House to welcome all these visitors, who are here to watch democracy in

action in British Columbia this afternoon.

MS. BROWN:

We are very fortunate to have three young people from Burnaby-Edmonds

visiting us today because it is the spring break. They are the Parken

children, and they have brought their parents along with them. I wonder

if the House, in bidding them welcome, would also bid a special welcome

to the daughter, who is celebrating her birthday today.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

I see a number of familiar faces in the gallery today, members of the

number one industry in British Columbia — more specifically, the

Council of Forest Industries. I understand that the Council of Forest

Industries hosted the NDP caucus at dinner a couple of nights ago, and

will be doing the same for the Social Credit caucus tonight. I would

ask the House to please welcome these members of our very important

forest industry in British Columbia.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

From the constituency of Dewdney and the town of Maple Ridge, some

friends and neighbours are visiting this city and this parliament

today: Mrs. Betty Millward, her daughter Tricia and son Michael; Mrs.

Pauline Thack; and Mrs. Sylvia Jorauer, with her children Jacqueline,

Amber and Gordon. I wish you would make them welcome.

MR. STRACHAN:

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome a couple from Prince

George, Mr. and Mrs. Don Buchanan. Don is the general manager of

Northern Mountain Helicopters Inc. and had the honour to be featured as

a centrefold in the spring edition of B.C. Economic Development . I would ask this House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Buchanan.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I am very pleased to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in your gallery today

is a young man from Terrace, Darcy Preston. Darcy is accompanied today

by his grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. S.G. Preston, who live in Victoria. I

would ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I would like to refer the House to

the statements that have been made many times by the Premier of our

province

[ Page 1810 ]

and

the former Ministers of Tourism of our province about the impact one

person can have in promoting British Columbia and in bringing the word

of welcome from British Columbians to other parts of the country.

I have here a full-page

article that appeared in the Calgary Herald

on March 22; it's there because a good friend of ours in the fourth

estate, Jim Hume, had a friend by the name of Mike Burn visit him. They

spent a day together in Victoria, and this is the result of Mr. Hume's

efforts.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, visiting with

us today in the gallery is a young gentleman by the name of Terry

Allen, a student from South Delta Senior Secondary School, who has come

over here specifically to spend the day with us. I ask you to bid him a

very warm welcome.

Introduction of Bills

THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE OF BRITISH

COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

On a motion by Ms. Sanford,

Bill M204, The Human Rights Code of British Columbia Amendment Act,

1980, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

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

today.

Oral Questions

BANK OF CANADA INTEREST RATES

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations. The question is based upon the decision

today by the Bank of Canada to boost the bank rate to 16.2 percent — a

jump of more than three-quarters of a percentage point from what it was

last week. I ask the minister whether he will take the course of

the Bank of Canada itself, protesting on behalf of the people of B.C.

and the Legislature this continued escalation in interest rates.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Hon. member, I have been having some discussion with a member of the

I replied to that question in an earlier question period, and I'd like

to inform the hon. member that this government is extremely concerned —

as no doubt are Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and the general public

in British Columbia — about the advancing interest rates.

MR. HOWARD:

There's no question about the concern of Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition, which is why we're asking the minister to communicate with

the government and with the governor of the Bank of Canada and not wait

until towards the end of this month for the governor to come and visit

the Western Premiers' Conference. Is the minister aware that if the

escalation in interest rates continues it will be close to 19 or 20

percent by the time you meet the governor of the Bank of Canada at the

Western Premiers' Conference?

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question to the Attorney-General

relating to one of his internal investigations. I ask the

Attorney-General whether he, his officials or Mr. John Hall received

any evidence whatsoever about Mr. Brian Weddell complaining about

interference on the part of the Deputy Attorney-General in the conduct

of the Michael Moran case.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice and refer to my notes of those discussions.

MR. MACDONALD:

Did the Attorney-General or his officials receive a letter from a Crown

counsel of the province of British Columbia complaining about such

interference and setting it out?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not to my recollection, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD:

May I ask then that the Attorney-General take that question as notice

and report definitely to the House whether it exists or not?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I said I would check my file with regard to this matter. I'll be happy to respond fully to the member, as I always have.

MR. LAUK:

My question is to the Attorney-General re the member for Central Fraser

Valley (Mr. Ritchie). In a letter to a Ms. Katherine Brennan of

Vananda, B.C., dated March 20, 1980, the Attorney-General responded to

an inquiry by Ms. Brennan with respect to, among other things, the

Ritchie case. The Attorney-General stated, in part: "You also wonder

why Mr. Ritchie was not given his day in court. I ask you to appreciate

that charges are only laid in cases where there is a prima facie case

established." The Attorney-General stated that he has not read the RCMP

report and that he is relying on the opinion of his Associate Deputy

Attorney-General that no charges should be laid. The Friesen affidavit

in the RCMP report set out a prima facie case against the member for

Central Fraser Valley. Why were charges not laid?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The member has read a portion of a letter which gives the answer to the

question. The opinion was expressed by a highly credible and

experienced member of the ministry, who is charged with the

responsibility of making such decisions. I didn't seek the opinion of

the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: By that answer, is the Attorney-General saying that Mr. McDiarmid gave you the opinion that there was no prima facie case?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's the law, and I would have thought the member would have known it.

MR. LAUK:

In the body of the letter, the Attorney-General states that the

associate deputy minister, who is head of the criminal justice division

of the ministry, concluded that there was not a proper case for the

laying of a charge. Is the Attorney-General now stating that that means

that there was no prima facie case in the affidavit or the RCMP report?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I was writing to a correspondent whom I considered was perhaps not as skilled in legal

[ Page 1811 ]

phraseology as the hon. member, and accordingly I used language which I thought would be appropriate for her to understand.

MR. LAUK: Then why is it that at the bottom of your letter you refer to the words "prima facie case"? Why did you choose those words?

new question. The RCMP report indicated that there was a prima facie

case. What new evidence did Mr. McDiarmid have for him conclude that

there was not a prima facie case?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The member is basing his question upon matters of which I have no

knowledge and of which he should have no knowledge as well. The

question with respect to what was or was not in the police report was

one posed to me by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald)

which I have taken on notice.

MR. LAUK: The regional

Crown prosecutor, Mr. Allan Hoem, is alleged to have had the opinion

that there was a prima facie case when the minister authorized Mr.

McDiarmid's actions in this case. Was he aware of Mr. Hoem's opinion?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, the action taken by Mr. McDiarmid was not authorized by

me. It was carried out by him in accordance with his responsibilities

as the Associate Deputy Attorney-General.

MR. LAUK:

This House cannot cross-question the Associate Deputy Attorney-General.

It is the responsibility of the Attorney-General to find the answers to

these questions and bring them before this House.

Again I

ask: will the Attorney-General bring back to this House, after having

read the RCMP report and interviewed Mr. Hoem, the conclusive evidence

— the conclusive decision — that there is no prima facie case against

the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

In the conduct of the administration of criminal justice, decisions are

made by qualified officials of the ministry. They are not decisions

made in this House. What the member might consider to be conclusive may

not be the same as other persons who have the responsibility and are

charged to carry out that responsibility. You don't try these matters

here, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: This is not a case

involving not a private citizen but a member of this House who is still

sitting in the chamber. I ask the question of the Attorney-General. He

believes that he should not be tried in this chamber. Should he be

tried in the back rooms of the Attorney-General's ministry?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I assume that was a question. No, he should not be tried in this

chamber nor in the back rooms of the Attorney-General's ministry. And

he was not.

REFIT OF THE

FERRY QUEEN OF SURREY

MR. BARBER: I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development. We now know that B.C. Steamships spent at least $54,000 to obtain drawings for the refit of the Queen of Surrey

for its proposed use on the Victoria-Seattle run. With what authority

did Mr. Elworthy proceed to obtain such drawings for the proposed refit?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if there's a Minister of Economic Development

anymore in the province. Maybe the member would like to direct his

question to another minister.

MR. BARRETT: What did you stand up for?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Just to help out. I always try to help the member out.

MR. BARBER:

You can help us out by answering the whole question as it comes to you.

The minister was on the board at the time the refit drawings were

commissioned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What minister?

MR. BARBER:

The minister to whom I addressed the question — the minister of

industry and small development. I specifically ask that minister with

what authority Mr. Elworthy commissioned the drawings for the refit of

the Queen of Surrey — Mr. Elworthy being the president of the board on which that minister sat and still sits.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

In answer to the small member for Victoria, we had a board of directors

who met from time to time to make policy decisions with regard to the Marguerite . Every individual decision that was made in the operation of the Marguerite

was not made by the board of directors, and so far as I'm concerned

what the member is trying to create here was a decision which was made

by the management of the Marguerite .

I might remind the member that the management has changed in the B.C.

Steamship Company in recent times. Maybe, if the member would use his

head, without me saying too much more he might understand why.

MR. BARBER:

I certainly understand the hint about attempting to scapegoat Mr.

Elworthy for decisions that he cannot properly be held responsible for.

Did the minister personally advise Mr. Elworthy on any occasion that

the vessel Queen of Surrey was to be made available on the Victoria-Seattle run in 1980 for B.C. Steamship Company?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, I think that the statement the member for Victoria made

with regard to a slur on the character of Mr. Elworthy should be

withdrawn, even though he made it in this chamber under the immunity of

the law.

MR. BARBER: Of course, I withdraw any slur.

There was none intended. Nonetheless, would you answer the question

directly: did you personally advise Mr. Elworthy at any time that he

could have the vessel Surrey for the Victoria-Seattle run? Yes or no.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, through you to him, let me answer the member's question this way. I had many discussions about the Marguerite with Mr. Elworthy, and he had many discussions with me. During those deliberations he told me that the Marguerite had to go. I said to him:

[ Page 1812 ]

"Mr. Elworthy, why does the Marguerite have to go?" He said: "Come

down and look at it." I said in this House last year that I didn't

know anything about running a steamship. I wouldn't know a boiler from a

turbine. Anyway, I said to Mr. Elworthy: "Now listen, you're telling

me that the Marguerite is no good, unsafe, rotting and she's doing all this.

Would you go and get me some concrete, hard evidence about the Marguerite ?"

Then, the first time we went out, Mr. Speaker, we had some people who know something

about ships and the operation and the hulls do some studies so we could make

an intelligent decision. That's exactly what we've done. That's

why this government is responsible. That's why we made the decision and

that's why we're sticking by it.

MR. BARBER: It's hard to imagine a more irresponsible answer to a serious question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. If question period is to serve the purpose for which it is intended, we must....

MR. BARBER: Then answers should be given plainly.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, hon. member. If argumentation is going to take the place of

question period, we lose the value of this exercise. I ask the first

member for Victoria to continue.

MR. BARBER: I spoke

this morning with Mr. Arthur Elworthy in Vancouver. He is available by

telephone now to the press at 261-7670. He informs me that he met with

you, so that there should be no doubt as to the authenticity of this

information and the credibility of the minister in reply — such as it

is — in your office on the morning of Wednesday, September 26, and

specifically promised that the vessel Surrey was to be made available....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What's your question?

MR. BARBER: Will you listen? "Art, you have the Surrey ."

You went on to tell him that the arrangements would be handled by the

Minister of Finance, that the announcement would be made the following

day at 1:30 p.m. together with your colleague the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), and you further

indicated that he should inform the board of directors of your decision

that the Surrey was being

made available, and further that details for transfer would be handled

by the Ministry of Finance. Does the minister deny the truthfulness of

Mr. Elworthy's statement to me this morning that you did in fact

promise the Surrey to him, on

the basis of which promise they then proceeded to waste $54,000 to

obtain drawings for a ship they were never allowed to use? Is Mr.

Elworthy telling the truth or are you?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

In answer to the first member for Victoria — and I'll stack my

credibility up against his any day — I would like to say that there

were many alternatives discussed in the course of doing business with

Mr. Elworthy. I don't wish to talk about Mr. Elworthy. If he wishes to

make a statement, that's fine. We discussed lots of possibilities.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I ask leave to answer a quite lengthy question on which I didn't wish to take up the time of question period.

Leave granted.

PERMIT FOR KEREMEOS

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

HON. MR. ROGERS: The question

was from the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), and it pertained to the

status of Keremeos and pollution control permit PE-5270. The village of

Keremeos was issued pollution control permit PE-5270 on September 29,

1978, for the treatment and disposal of its sewage effluent on the

ground near the Similkameen River. Construction of the sewage treatment

plant has been delayed due to several appeals relating to this permit.

The first appeal was to the Pollution Control Board, with the request

that pollution control permit PE-5270 be rescinded. The Pollution

Control Board upheld the appeal. The second appeal was to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It sought a reversal of the board's

decision. The second appeal was also upheld, and permit PE-5270 was

restored. The village of Keremeos is presently undergoing tender for

the construction of a sewage treatment plant and disposal facility.

MR. SKELLY: Is the permit in effect?

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's in effect.

Orders of the Day

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

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I move that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund

there may be paid and applied in such manner and at such times as the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine a sum not exceeding in the

whole $1,470,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses

of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March

31, 1981, not otherwise provided for and being substantially

one-quarter of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for

the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, as laid before the Legislative

Assembly of the province of British Columbia at the present session.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution and asks leave to sit again.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the resolution as reported be considered?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Now, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the report of resolution from the Committee of Supply on April 2, 1980, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the resolution be now read a second time.

[ Page 1813 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The resolution is that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund

there may be paid and applied in such manner and at such times as the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine a sum not exceeding in the

whole $1,470,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses

of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March

31, 1981, not otherwise provided for and being substantially

one-quarter of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for

the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, as laid before the Legislative

Assembly of the province of British Columbia at the present session.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, what point are we now at in these proceedings?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question proposed is that this House doth agree with the committee and the said resolution.

Motion approved.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. CURTIS: At the next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Ways and Means; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

MR. KING:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, surely the bill should be

distributed to the members of the House before we go into committee

consideration of the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has been advised that when the bill is introduced it will be distributed. We are currently dealing with a resolution.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I move that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund

there may be paid and applied in such manner and at such times as the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine a sum not exceeding in the

whole $1,470,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses

of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March

31, 1981, not otherwise provided for and being substantially

one-quarter of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for

the fiscal yearendingMarch 31, 1981, as laidbefore the Legislative

Assembly of the province of British Columbia at the present session.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the report of resolution from the Committee of Ways and Means on April 2, 1980, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. CURTIS: At the next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

SUPPLY ACT, NO. 1, 1980

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I present Bill 11, intituled Supply Act No. 1, 1980.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would ask you to remain in your seats for a few minutes while the bill is circulated.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Leave granted.

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report recommending the introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports, recommending the introduction of the bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time. It would

perhaps be appropriate to make a few remarks at this time, with leave.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, while the veterans discuss this — and I respect their

assistance today, inasmuch as this is a relatively complex procedure

for interim supply — hon. members will be aware that this is the start

of a new fiscal year for the government of British Columbia. As such

[ Page 1814 ]

there

are no funds available to make payments of expenses in this new year.

To provide for such funds it is the practice to introduce an interim

supply bill, and therefore we are undertaking this activity today.

The

interim supply act, Bill 11, which is before all hon. members at the

present time, provides the sum of $1.47 billion, being substantially

one-quarter of the total of the main estimates. As in past years the

amount is arrived at by taking the total of the main estimates, in this

case $5,549,629,000, and adding to it the total of advances made or

recoveries deducted — $328,635,000 — for a gross expenditure of

$5,878,264,000, one-quarter of this amount being substantially the

$1.47 billion.

To assist members the advances made and

recoveries deducted include advances regarding rural school taxes, $145

million; recoveries re post-secondary education, $11.4 million;

advances to regional districts, hospital districts and other local

government entitities, $29.5 million; recoveries of $52.8 million for

expenditure on highway construction in connection with British Columbia

hydroelectric construction projects, of which amount $100,000 is

required for the Juanita-Nelway highway in connection with the Seven

Mile Dam, the balance relating to highway 23 and Mica Dam; recoveries

by the Queen's Printer, $14.5 million; and other similar advances or

recoveries. These recoveries have been added to the total main

estimates as the expenditure is made in the first quarter with

recoveries made at a later date.

MR. STUPICH: Mr.

Speaker, I would think that if the people in the galleries were

confused by the proceedings of the last half hour they would realize

that the members in the House were also confused. I think if the

Minister of Deregulation were still in office one of the things he

might undertake is a review of this whole procedure. I recall the first

time that I ever experienced it in the Legislature. It was being

presented by a person who was really unsurpassed in his knowledge of

the rules of the House: the Premier of the day, W.A.C. Bennett. It was

the first time I ever saw him confused by a procedure that he was

piloting through the House, and he had a fair amount of trouble with it

as well. So I think if people are confused it's only natural that they

would be, and I would suggest that somebody undertake some review of

this and see if there isn't a way of handling it a little better.

With

respect to the bill itself, the minister mentioned a few items in

particular, but one point that I would like to take from this

legislation is that — and I'd invite the minister to comment on it when

he closes second reading — from my reading of the bill it's clear that

it limits the government in that it may spend up to one-quarter of the

total estimates. It limits the government further in that it may spend

this money only on the estimates that have been presented on those

votes; but it doesn't limit the government in spending within any one

of those votes; that is, the total amount of a particular vote could be

spent once this bill, as I understand it, has been given royal assent.

I'd like the minister to concur, or to perhaps give me some other

explanation.

As I see it, those are the only limits: the

total amount to stay within the estimates that have been presented, but

to spend any amount of money within any particular estimate, any

particular grant, that could be paid out in full in this period, or not

at all, depending on the choice of the minister and treasury, etc.

Apart

from that, the presentation of interim supply is something that was new

when I entered the Legislature, but it has become a pattern that is

fairly well established. Even though we can't follow the procedure,

it's something that I suppose will be with us. Sessions have grown

longer; the work of government has become much more complicated; there

are more members in the House now than there used to be, and I would

think that the presentation of interim supply is something that is

going to be with us from now on.

I don't intend to go into

any more discussion of any of the items before us at this point.

Certainly there will be lots of opportunity in the days and weeks and

months ahead for us to discuss the particulars of government spending,

of estimates, and to hold the ministers accountable for what they have

done and what they are doing, but I do know that a number of my

colleagues want to take

part in this second reading discussion of Bill

11. Mr. Speaker, I have nothing more to say. The opposition is going to

cooperate. We will not discuss it for long, but we do want to discuss

some of the items.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the fact

that I had chosen to say a few words on this bill was one of the

reasons that I didn't get up on a point of order with respect to

procedure. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and his assistants

called across that

section 81 would be the way to get this bill through

three readings in one day. It's not extraordinary; it's not urgent,

because, you see, we have another day, and we've been informed that

it's not necessary until around April 6. Therefore we needn't put it

through under

section 81. If the government decides that they don't

want to ask for leave, then they should inform us that they're going to

fight and use closure and all the rest of it in this House. Then we'd

be interested in talking to them about that.

Mr. Speaker, I

would like to say that one of our problems, of course, is that there

has been very little debate on the whole budget, the estimates to date,

because the estimates only came up a week or so ago. That's as a result

of a very late call of the House, as is becoming a habit, and I would

think that we'd be a lot more comfortable voting this government well

in excess of $1 billion if there had been some more debate on the

estimates. This government, which was once opposition and famous for

the phrase "not a dime without debate," has made a mockery of that

phrase. It would, in a way, be justified if this opposition decided to

take that same kind of course. Now, naturally, that's very unlikely

because of our responsible position.

But, Mr. Speaker, in

light of some comments by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) in the

last couple of days, after he was asked to spontaneously reply to

questions with respect to the nurses and some of the hospital workers

getting an increase, he then began flying a kite about an increase in

not only hospital costs, tying them to some sort of COLA, but also

decided that he would fly another kite or balloon around the whole

medicare thing.... We deem those costs to be very, very bad forms of

taxation. They are counterproductive; they tax the poor. We want to

serve notice that at this time, when one can speak about budgets and

supply, the minister and that government should very definitely think

long and hard before they go in that counterproductive way with respect

to charging a tax larger, to an extent, than they've already done.

When

that government was first introduced in 1976, they doubled costs,

tripled costs and every other form of multiplication that one can

imagine. Particularly in terms of health-care costs, ambulance costs

tripled, medical-care costs doubled — that is, the insurance aspect of

it — and, of

[ Page 1815 ]

course,

hospital costs went from $1 to $4 a day. If the minister is thinking

along that line, then he should have been talking about it during his

estimates, not now at a very crucial time in our parliament. We're

totally in opposition to any more retrograde forms of taxation. They do

not work. All they do is make sure that the working poor have less

access and greater burden. Just to give you an idea, in medicare a

person earning $5,000 a year qualifies to pay the full medicare

premium, as does a person earning $50,000 a year. Yet they both pay

exactly the same premium. Think in terms of those percentages. The

member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) in his normal, sympathetic way, says:

"Oh, gosh!" He has a great deal of concern for his constituents. He has

lots of them in the category of which I speak. I would dare that member

to go up to his constituency and talk the way he does down here.

MR. KEMPF: They don't want to see you anymore; they saw enough of you in 1974.

MR. COCKE:

I am sure he is adding a great deal to this debate, as he does to every

debate we have in this House. I'm not speaking to him. I'm speaking to

intelligent people across the way. I hope the Minister of Health will

listen to it in the way I mean it. That is, if he goes the way he says,

then it's going to be a very, very counterproductive way indeed for

this province.

MR. NICOLSON: First, at the risk of

being considered a curmudgeon, I would like to disagree with the

opening comments of my colleague. I think that it is good that we are

forced to adopt the ancient practice of parliament, and that we are

reminded from time to time of the roots and the long-standing tradition

of what is going on here in Committee of Supply, Committee of Ways and

Means and so on. It is very serious thing that we are doing, and it is

something that is not to be taken lightly.

I like the manner

in which the bill is drafted, inasmuch as it does not pro-rate the

amounts to be spent, but allows some flexibility as long as any one

amount set out in the estimates of the fiscal year is not exceeded. It

creates problems. I concur with my colleagues who said that an earlier

start of the Legislature seems to be in order — or perhaps we should

move the fiscal year up to June 30 or something, if we're going to

start sessions in February or March.

I would like to relay

to the Minister of Finance my very real concern. I often hear people in

the various branches and ministries of government saying that they

cannot initiate a certain program until the estimates are passed. In

fact, I even remember hearing that when I was a cabinet minister. It's

very difficult for those people waiting for grants to be told that

certain amounts are not forthcoming because the estimates have not been

passed.

I'd like to centre in on a couple of things. For

instance, in the activity centres or sheltered workshops around the

province, there are volunteer groups undertaking a tremendous portion

of what is really the government's responsibility to provide meaningful

work and activity for ex–mental patients whom we have decentralized all

over the province; also for mentally handicapped and sometimes for the

profoundly handicapped. These people undertake a tremendous amount of

responsibility for which they get no financial remuneration. They are

faced with the problems of people who have debts of $100,000 and

$50,000. I hope we can get that money out to them.

The other

problem with interim supply is that I think it leads to surpluses being

generated. It happened in the vote concerned with activity centres,

which comes under the Ministry of Human Resources' estimates, in fiscal

year 1978-79 — it might have been the 1977-78 fiscal year. I recall

that we voted $3.8 million for that particular vote. We only spent $3

million; in other words, we underspent that vote by $800,000. People

were being told that, first of all, they couldn't get the grant because

they hadn't passed the estimates yet. Then we find out: "You can't have

it; the budget is all spent." And then, one year in retrospect, I get

to see the public accounts, and I find out that that is not true, that

the budget was indeed underspent by $800,000 — a $3.8 million item for

people that really need it underspent by $800,000. I can assure you

that here in Victoria there is a sheltered workshop that could have

used that money; in Nelson there is a sheltered workshop that could

have used that money; in Vernon there is one — all over this province.

am very concerned that this dependence on interim supply leads to

underspending in areas that should not be underspent. In areas where

government comes to us and asks for $3.8 million, we gladly,

unanimously, in this House vote $3.8 million; but it ends up there

being only $3 million spent. So I would hope that, particularly for

activity centres where they are requesting some capital funding — I

know there is a new formula — in addition to the $1 per client-day

allowance that they are given under formula, this money would be spent,

and that all efforts would be made to make sure that what is in the

budget this year is totally spent and does not go into surplus to then

be put into projects which I think are of much lower priority.

the area of habitat protection in the fish and wildlife branch, we

don't even have a specific item in the estimates anymore, under the

present system of keeping estimates. A good number of the projects for

habitat protection should be funded right away, so that if we are going

to enhance, for instance, streams for spawning, those projects should

be finished before August. They can only be done at certain periods of

the year, and those moneys for various kinds of projects should be

forwarded, and a special effort should be made not to prorate the

authorization of those funds. This is my concern.

I would

also ask the minister, just out of curiosity, whether or not the

computers have been held at bay. Are they printing cheques at this very

moment, perhaps in contravention...you know, without any authority?

What are the computers up to right now? Are they stilled at this

moment, or are they awaiting the speedy passage of this bill in order

that they might go ahead? Perhaps the minister could address himself to

that question in summing up debate.

MRS. DAILLY:

There are two issues which concern me and which I would like to bring

to the attention of the Minister of Finance this afternoon.

The

Minister of Finance, as we all know, is a former Provincial Secretary;

therefore I know he is very much aware of the very fine work done by

the public libraries of this province. Recently our whole caucus met

with the B.C. Library Trustees Association. They expressed to us a

particular concern about the budgeting practices which seem to be

imposed upon them by inadequacies in the Ministry of Finance. They have

informed us that they don't know when they are going to receive their

grants from government, and they don't know how much. This results in

many instances

[ Page 1816 ]

where

they have to borrow money at high interest rates because of this lack

of communication with the government on the amounts of money and the

timing of receiving it. And they feel that the Library Trustees

Association and, ultimately, the taxpayers of British Columbia are the

ones who are suffering unnecessarily because of obvious inadequacies

imposed upon them through something that isn't working in the Ministry

of Finance. I would be most pleased if the Minister of Finance could

comment on this, to assure us that the library associations of British

Columbia will no longer be subjected to this hit-and-miss way of

receiving their grants from the government.

The second point

I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance....

And I wish to do this by just reading a

section of the bill which we

all have in front of us —

section 2(1):

"No

sum out of this supply shall be issued or applied to any purpose or

activity other than those provided in the main estimates, or in excess

of the estimate of expenditures in them" — and this is the

part I wish

to emphasize: — "and the due application of all money expended under

the authority of this act shall be accounted for to Her Majesty."

The

way I read that, Mr. Speaker — to the Minister of Finance — is, of

course, the whole area of how the ministries of this government are

accounting for their estimates and their budget, ultimately for

application and investigation by the auditor-general.

think we're all aware — and I'm certain the Minister of Finance is

aware in detail — of a number of the criticisms which the

auditor-general has levelled at the general accounting practices of

many of the government ministries. It seems to me that

section

specifically states that it is the responsibility of government that

those moneys be duly and properly accounted for. I wonder, in view of

the recent very positive criticisms of the auditor-general, if the

Minister of Finance can assure the members of this House that he will

be looking into this whole area very seriously, so that as Minister of

Finance he will be following to the full letter of the law the bill

which he has presented before us.

MR. LEA: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to talk for a few minutes about money that may be

spent out of this interim supply on port development in the province of

British Columbia, more specifically on the port of Prince Rupert. For

the past ten years there has been active work done on behalf of Prince

Rupert by three provincial governments: the previous Social Credit

government, the NDP government and the present Social Credit

government. I must say that I've had nothing but cooperation from this

government — the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) and other members of the cabinet — in trying to get

Prince Rupert a viable and busy port.

We had nothing but

good rapport and good policy out of the federal Conservative government

which has just been defeated. We have had nothing but problems with the

federal Liberal government for over 100 years; and it can be no more

specifically pointed out than it can be around port development in

Prince Rupert — one broken promise after another. The latest slap in

the face comes from the Minister of Transport, Mr. Pépin, in a recent

announcement in British Columbia that he's going to change the ground

rules once again. I don't know what Mr.Pépin is up to — whether he is

serious about changing the ground rules, or whether he is trying to

blackmail British Columbia and Alberta into putting more money in than

was previously agreed to by this province and Canada while the

Conservatives were in government.

When I grew up in the

interior of this province, Mr. Speaker, I woke up every morning feeling

I was a Canadian. The more I'm around government, the more I see the

workings of the federal government as it pertains to Liberalism, the

more convinced I am that every morning I wake up I'm feeling less of a

Canadian and more like a British Columbian. You know, there are a lot

of western Canadians who are waking up every morning feeling more

western Canadian than they are Canadian because of a Liberal Party and

a Liberal government that has treated the west with nothing but

contempt for year after year after year. This latest slap in the face

is more than any of us should take, regardless of party. The nerve of

them, to go down in absolute defeat in the west — they had two members

elected west of Ontario — and say they're going to change their tune.

They say that they're going to start treating us like they're treating

central Canada. They're not. As far as I'm concerned, the federal

Liberals are now going to say to the west: "You didn't vote Liberal;

now you're really going to get it, and this is the first mark of how

you're going to get it. We're going to change the ground rules around

port development in Prince Rupert."

I know that the minister

and the Premier and the government have to be a little nicer to the

federal government; they have to negotiate with them. But my experience

in negotiating with the federal Liberals is that right up until the

federal election everything seems to be coming into place, deals are

about to be signed, everything looks good. And after the election you

see all of those deals, all of those promises, all of the negotiations

floating out the window, or floating out into the atmosphere like mist

off a pasture in the morning. All you ever get out of the federal

Liberals are promises, promises, promises; but after the election they

don't keep any promise to the west — none. One promise they don't have

to keep is double-tracking; everybody knows that was a boondoggle.

But

I maintain that the reason we have the federal Liberals is that people

in central Canada perceived Joe Clark and the Conservatives as a

government and a political party that were going to decentralize the

decision-making process into the west, and they weren't going to put up

with that. They don't like Trudeau any more than they did before, when

he was defeated in eastern Canada and in central Canada, but they knew,

from their point of view, that at least he wouldn't give the west an

even break. I have heard rumours from people who have visited Ottawa in

the last while — not from government but from private industry — that

they've had the word directly out of the Primer Minister's office:

"They didn't vote Liberal and we're going to give it to them." There's

no better example than what they've done now to port development in

this province. I hope it's a pitiful attempt on their part to try to

blackmail this province into more money, but if Mr.Pépin is going to

throw out the window the deal that's already been made between the

Conservative government and the Social Credit government, or the people

of this province, then it's imperative that Mr.Pépin give to this province at least some idea of which way he intends to go. It's my understanding that he hasn't done that.

Mr.

Speaker, I will gladly vote for interim supply if some of this money is

going to be used to try to convince the federal Liberals that the west

needs the opportunity to produce so that we can better our lot as a

people. In this particular area I

[ Page 1817 ]

have

faith that the minister and the government are going to act properly on

our behalf as citizens. But boy, you've got a rough road to go, because

I have lost all faith in the federal Liberals. It's a poor time to

admit it, but I once voted Liberal federally. It almost makes you

ashamed to have even voted at all, because those people have no

intention at all of giving the west an even break.

separatism ever rears its head in this province, in my opinion you can

only thank the federal Liberals for a hundred years of inactivity and

decisions made purposely against the west. Unless they change their

ways and start treating us with the courtesy we deserve, unless they

start treating us in a manner that makes us equal with central Canada

in our opportunity, I think we're in a sad state. The next four or five

years that we see Pierre Elliott Trudeau and those Liberals down there

is a sad day for the west.

Through this interim budget I

urge the government to take the hardest, most severe position it can

take with the federal Liberals, because it won't be enough. As far as

I'm concerned, they've sold us out and are going to continue to sell us

out. I want every member of this House to join me in condemning the

actions of those federal Liberals and the manner in which they've

treated port development in this province. On this specific area I wish

this government nothing but the best of luck dealing with a group of

pirates.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I would just like

to take a few minutes while we vote for this tremendous sum of money —

$1.4 billion — in this debate, to pay the bills for the next three

months while we continue debating our estimates. With that amount of

money, it makes me sad when I see the problems in my own constituency

of Victoria that could be attended to with a relatively small amount of

money. I'm thinking of 60 people who live within two blocks of this

building in a residential hotel called the Glenshiel.

If you

could cast your mind back a few years, Mr. Speaker — and I know you

remember this — the NDP government purchased the Glenshiel Hotel to

allow senior citizens living within the legislative precinct to

continue living in a hotel that they were very fond of, was most

convenient for them and was their home. What happened over the next few

years after the present government took office was that there were

several occasions when those residents became very fearful of their

security because there were rumours that the government was going to

sell the hotel. The most recent one was quite founded in fact; the

government intended to bulldoze the hotel and turn it into a parking

lot. Over several years, when the person who maintained the building

had been let go, gradually the Glenshiel deteriorated somewhat and

certain major structural things — for example, a repair of the roof —

were not attended to. It should have been clear to all of us then that

the government didn't intend to keep it going. Recently, as a result of

public pressure and a courageous organizational effort on the part of

the residents, they forced the government to cease and desist and to

allow them to live there for the rest of their lives.

However, it isn't really a happy story, because can you imagine living

in a hotel that when one individual...? These are homes; this is not a hostel.

This is a collection of homes where people have lived for up to 14 years. Some

of them have gone blind in that hotel, and they know their way around; they

know their way up and down the hall and to the dining-room, to the Provincial

Museum and over to this building. Those people came to the government and said,

"We'll fight you all the way," and the government backed off.

But as I say, the decision was not a happy one, because the government said

they would not allow any new tenants to come in. As people move or pass away,

a little nail goes in their door, or a lock goes on, and no one can move in.

So over the next couple of decades people will gradually be living in a hotel

alone. If that isn't the stupidest decision I've ever heard!

wish this government would take part of that $1.4 billion and give

those residents of the Glenshiel Hotel a secure home, well-renovated —

spend money on plaster, a new roof, a carpet and a paintjob. We have a

serious shortage of senior citizen accommodation here in Victoria. If

money could be taken from this interim supply and a decision could be

made today by the Minister of Finance, the member for Saanich and the

Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis); if he could tell his deputy, "Look, Treasury

Board will allocate a certain amount of funds into the vote of Highways

for the repair of that hotel," he would make 60 people very happy, he'd

make 25 more who could move in there very happy, and that hotel could

provide accommodation for years.

The course you are

following makes no sense on economic, social or humanitarian grounds. I

implore you to change your mind, reconsider and do as I have suggested.

Secondly,

when I look around my riding I see the condition of the marine waters,

all polluted. The shellfish are no longer collectible; they're polluted

with domestic sewage. Here I have a nice glossy booklet from the

Ministry of Environment on new policies for commercial fisheries and

mariculture. Mariculture is fish farming, the farming of scallops,

prawns, mussels, clams, crab, geoducks and so on. Here we have this

glossy pamphlet proposing fish farming in waters that cannot support

any kind of edible molluscs. It's incredible! Fish farming where? Fish

farming way up the northern coast?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

For

the first time in recent years Ladysmith harbour is now closed. Parts

of the Cowichan estuary are closed. Salt Spring Island is closed.

Saanichton, all the Saanich Peninsula — the Minister of Finance's own

constituency. His own constituents cannot go down to the shore and

collect clams and other shellfish, because the water is polluted. Is

money allocated within this interim supply bill to provide proper

sewage treatment facilities for this area? No.

What else?

The Royal Jubilee Hospital and the Victoria General Hospital have

waiting lists to get in. Some 2,500 people are waiting to get into

these hospitals. Are these minor things? Are these cosmetic things,

nose-straightenings and face-lifts? No. These are people who have been

hurt at work, cartileges, hernias, cataracts. Some of them have cancer.

They're waiting. Can you imagine waiting month after month to get into

a hospital with something where an early diagnosis is important?

I'm

going to be voting for interim supply so the government can pay its

bills, but I really wish that attention was paid to some of the really

important issues. All these "high flyers" — B.C. Place, huge monumental

edifices to try to take political heat off bad management.... I wish

they would just about-face and reorient themselves to the real needs of

British Columbians and of my constituents, which are health, proper

accommodation, employment and clean water.

[ Page 1818 ]

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Speaker, my comments, too, will be brief. I'd like to deal more

specifically with the principle involved in the legislation before us.

In introducing that I would like to say to people who are with us in

the galleries today, and to those thousands of British Columbians who

at least skim, if not read, the Hansard

reports of our debates, I think it would be fair to say that a great

many people really wonder what it is we're doing here. Certainly the

first half-hour of today's session could leave a lot of people in some

confusion.

I think it is important for Hansard

readers, if for no other reason, to say in very simple layman's terms

that what we are doing is approving, without full consideration, a

quarter of the annual budget in an hour or so this afternoon. We are

doing that, in a sense, in violation of all the British parliamentary

traditions, which are that legislators, the entire parliament, consider

carefully, scrutinize carefully, all expenditures before they are

expended. What we are doing today is allowing the government to spend a

quarter of the annual budget without scrutiny, without comment in

specific terms.

While I am going to vote for the bill — no

alternative faces me — I find the procedure and the situation entirely

objectionable. I don't believe that this is the way we should be

scrutinizing — to use that word — the expenditures for three months in

this province. When students come to the building, I usually try, in my

few minutes talking to them about what it is we do here, to give them

some understanding of what the Legislature is for, what its purpose is.

I simplify it a little bit by saying: "We do two things here." One is

we pass and/or amend legislation — laws. The other thing we do is make

decisions about how to raise the money and how to spend it — that is,

their money, not our money; not some individual's money, but the

public's money, all two million plus people out there. It is their

money. They have elected 57 of us to make comment on the ways in which

that money is raised and spent. As long as I've been in and around

these chambers, not just the government in power now, but other

governments — so I'm not making an attack on the current government at

all when I say this — increasingly over the years have resorted to

interim supply.

Now it may seem that this is an issue which

only concerns legislators and wouldn't have much public interest. But I

discovered during the election campaign last April and May that, in

fact, there is some public interest about this precise topic, because I

raised it. I remember in a couple of all candidates meetings — one in

Campbell River and one in Port Hardy — I raised the issue.

Interestingly, after the meeting a number of people came to me and said

that that was an important issue, one they hadn't thought of before.

That included a very interested series of questions from the editor of

the Port Hardy North Island Gazette .

I proposed in the election campaign, and want to propose again now — we can't

do it probably for a few years — that we should get ourselves into the position

of thinking about a new system for financial estimates. I am not proposing that

the fiscal year be amended; it seems reasonable that April 1 be a starting date.

But why not move up the whole process of departmental estimates that go through

the bureaucracy and the cabinet in the late fall and into the winter? Why don't

we move that whole process up, move the starting dates for estimates up a little

bit — up quite a bit, in fact. We could have a session of this legislature in

December — December 10 through 15 — for a few days, and do whatever emergency

business there might be for those few days, and also lay before the parliament

and the public the estimates for the year starting April 1, which would be three

or four months later. We could do that in December. We wouldn't be the only

jurisdiction doing that. It is not without precedent; it happens elsewhere.

Then

we, as MLAs, would have an opportunity to use the month of January,

after the Christmas holiday, to go with that budget to our constituents

and say to them: "Here's what the government is proposing as to how we

raise our budget and how we spend it. What do you think?" I would like

the opportunity, for example, Mr. Speaker, to take that budget and put

it into some non-partisan form that would allow me to distribute it to

public meetings around my constituency. And, in a non-partisan way, to

say to those public meetings.... [Laughter.] The Minister of Highways

(Hon. Mr. Fraser) and others laugh, but I am making a serious proposal,

and when I say....

MR. KEMPF: We know how non-partisan you are.

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Speaker, I'm as partisan as anybody in this House. But I am talking

to you now about a non-partisan approach, a non-partisan proposal which

I would ask members — if not to agree with, because that's fair enough

— to listen to. I know it's hard for some members on that side to deal

with something new, but for those members who can deal with it, like

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), I would like to continue

with the proposal.

Why shouldn't every MLA in this House

have the opportunity, if they so wish, in January to go through their

constituencies in public meetings, saying to their constituents:

"Here's how the government proposes to tax you in this next fiscal

year, and here's how the government proposes to spend the money they

are raising from you. What do you think? Do you agree with it? Do you

think there should be more on highways, less on highways, more on

health, less on health? What's your opinion? It's your money. I'm in

Victoria to represent your views. What are your views?"

They

could then come back to a session of the Legislature called for about

February 1 and would have all of February and March to consider all of

the estimates, and we could be finished with the estimates by April 1.

We would never need interim supply again. If we had that kind of

system, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it would be more democratic. I

in general — whether it's NDP or Socred doesn't matter — if we open up

the processes of government to the public.

I really believe

it's a procedure, a system, that is well worth considering. It would

mean that the bills would then be debated from April 1 on. It might

mean shorter legislative sessions, which, I'm sure, would be in the

interest of the government of the day. Although it has not been

canvassed widely in this province, it might be an idea worth

considering. The presentation of the budget to the House in a quick

one- or two-day session in December, discussion with our constituents

in January, full debate of estimates in February and March, and we're

done. We never need interim supply again. We can scrutinize the

finances. That's all I want to say on this interim supply. I will vote

for it, although, as I said earlier, I do so even though in principle

I'm not sure that I want to.

[ Page 1819 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

On this particular bill, I wish to suggest to the government one way in

which they may save money and add to the huge surpluses they talk about

at every opportunity — which, by the way, they got off the backs of the

people. We're all aware that the government is spending vast sums of

money to turn a day ferry into a night ferry and a night ferry into a

day ferry, etc. Yesterday we heard the most incredible speech by the

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

McClelland). He told this House — incorrectly, in my view — that the Princess Marguerite

was unsafe to sail between Victoria and Seattle over the summer season.

In my view and in the view of the Canadian Coast Guard, the federal

Ministry of Transport and the American Coast Guard the Princess Marguerite is a safe vessel, and it should be replaced on that route during the summer. Compared to the $10.2 million cost to refit the Queen of Surrey and the $2.5 million cost to refit the Queen of Prince Rupert ,

for the relatively small sum of $1.5 million we could have a suitable

vessel on the Victoria-Seattle route this summer. The net result would

be that the Queen of Prince Rupert

could remain on its central and north coast route, and those people on

the central and north coast of this province would not be left

stranded. I'm attempting to suggest ways for the government to save a

few dollars and add to their surplus. It makes good common sense; it

really does.

Mr. Speaker, are you aware that the CP vessel Princess Patricia , sister ship to the Marguerite , is going to be sailing to Alaska this summer? As it turns out, the Princess Patricia is one year older than the Princess Marguerite .

It's a perfectly good vessel. There's nothing wrong with it. This

morning I spoke with an engineer who was involved in testing the hull

of the Marguerite . He told me

that there's no problem on that route. It could actually sail for four

more years on that route, as far as the federal government is

concerned. That vessel is safe. I think the government should

reconsider its very, very bad decision. Don't leave those people up the

coast stranded.

Mr. Speaker, are you aware that within four

days 114 people will be laid off at Ocean Falls? That's the same time

they're taking the vessel off. Due to another bad government decision,

there's no way those people are going to be able to get out of Ocean

Falls. I'm asking the government now to reconsider that terribly bad

decision they made some time ago. I hope that at least in cabinet the

minister will speak for the proposal I'm putting forward now.

MR. HALL:

I want to make sure that this interim supply bill goes through as

quickly as possible for a number of reasons. One, it's traditional that

both sides of the House cooperate in ensuring that our public servants

and our programs are paid, as well as all the necessary things the

minister announced when he introduced the bill. I wish I could share

the confidence of my young colleague for north Island (Mr. Gabelmann)

about doing things a different way. But when we see the report of the

auditor-general.... Time and time again during this last little while

we've seen financial statements being filed late, and it's no wonder

that we're faced with interim supply time and time again. It's a pity.

I hope one day we'll get to the stage where we can look at the

suggestion by the member for North Island about how to deal in a

different way with the budget and the debates on estimates. But until

that happy day when we can do correctly that which we are supposed to

do, it will have to wait.

There is a crisis in money in this

province. It's quite obvious. The government's information service has

completely broken down. I don't know what's happening in the Ministry

of the Provincial Secretary; I don't know what's happening at all in British Columbia Government News

or British Columbia House in London. Obviously, some serious mistakes

are being made. I want to make sure that at least one-quarter of the

money allocated from interim supply to the government's advertising,

its communications systems, is dispatched as fast as is humanly

possible.

Quoting, if I may, from Toronto's Globe and Mail

of today, April 2.... As you know, Mr. Speaker, we are being honoured

by a visit at this time by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. The

Prince of Wales is in Vancouver. He was being shepherded through a

crowd in Vancouver, "by Provincial Secretary Grace McCarthy at a B.C.

government reception."

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Who?

MR. HALL: "Provincial Secretary Grace McCarthy."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Who?

MR. HALL: Exactly, that's my point; you're not really telling the story, are you? If the Globe and Mail , that wonderful newspaper, can't even get the positions correct, you're not doing a very good job.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Are you criticizing the press?

MR. HALL: I'm criticizing somebody who can't get a story out to the Globe and Mail .... Let me finish.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're saying the press is wrong?

MR. HALL:

Let me finish. "...Provincial Secretary Grace McCarthy at a B.C.

government reception. The prince was introduced to a string of obscure

Social Credit Party workers and adherents." I don't know what an

adherent to a Social Credit Party worker is. Maybe that's one of those

"Smile" buttons you stick on your collar.

"Learning that one girl was a Social Credit worker, the prince inquired,

'What happened to them in the last election? They were wiped out, weren't

they?' " [Laughter.] It seems to me the money you're spending on your

advertising programs and your British Columbia Government News is an incredible

waste of money! Either get them more money or cut them off at the pass.

The Prince of Wales doesn't know you exist! The trademark vivacious smile

of Mrs. McCarthy, the Social Credit Deputy Premier and hostess, froze for a

moment. You bet your boots it froze! I tell you, the temperature must have gone

down in Vancouver overnight at least 10 degrees Celsius.

If that's an example of what we're doing with Mr. Lillico at B.C. House in London, what British Columbia Government News

is doing and what all the millions and millions of dollars.... The

member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) has been over to the United Kingdom

— he tells the people in Kamloops — eight times since he has been a

member. Eight times he's been to the U.K.! I don't know how many

steam-baths the minister for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has

had along Charing Cross Road, but it must have been several. Nowhere

have they left their mark on the people who

[ Page 1820 ]

are

coming over here to talk about education and colleges. It really is a

poor affair. I think we should get this vote through as fast as we can.

Let's get them all straightened out.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Speaker, I felt that I just had to say a few words in this debate

on the bill relative to interim supply. I can only reiterate some of

the statements that have been made relative to the necessity of having

such a bill presented to us.

For many years it was the

precedent set by this Legislature to convene in late January. By the

time April 1 rolled around, all members of the Legislature had had an

opportunity to fully discuss the expenditures proposed by the

government, and to have a good debate about the direction in which

those expenditures were going to take the province. This government has

departed from that procedure. Instead, we find ourselves always in this

rather strange situation of having to pass judgment on a vast sum of

money before we have really had an opportunity to discuss the various

implications that expenditure of that money may entail.

It's

interesting to note, in the wording of the bill, the method in which

this $1.5 billion is to be expended is strictly at the determination of

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. They could, in fact, spend all of

it on one ministry. They could spend all of it on one particular item.

There is nothing to indicate that that is to be allocated to various

ministries, or that it is to be expended in line with any of the

discussions that have occurred in these chambers.

One of the

things that comes to my mind that causes me a great deal of concern

about previous government spending is the point that came up very

recently on the floor of this House relative to information that

taxpayers' money was being diverted under the Farm Income Assurance

Program to a multinational corporation, namely Cargill. In supporting

this bill, I am wondering if we in the opposition are being asked to

give support to a continuation of that kind of expenditure. It seems to

me the reputation which Cargill has built up for itself around the

world should certainly make this government and this chamber very wary

of giving any taxpayers money in its support. In fact, there was a

report done not too long ago by Brian Yaworski.

One of the

things he said in his report was that over the years Cargill has become

especially adept at tapping public financing. I think we must be very

cautious so as not to give support to a money bill which would allow

taxpayers' money to continue to go to such a corporation. This is a

corporation which controls 25 percent of international grain sales. It

makes decisions daily that determine who lives, who dies and who goes

hungry. It has 300 plants and offices in 38 nations and employs some

20,000 people. Yet we are supporting their local hog farm by

contributing funds from our Farm Income Assurance Program to a

corporation of that size. It's the world's largest grain-trading

corporation. Although it engages in other activities as well, the

greatest portion of its returns do come from the grain trade.

have a corporation of this size with a very unsavory record as far as

being a good corporate citizen goes. In fact, it is a private concern

that was started back in 1830, I believe. It's a family corporation, a

private concern whose books are certainly not made public. It was quite

a shock to a lot of people when the company was trying to buy the

Canadian Portland Cement Association some time ago and had to disclose

their assets at something like $5.2 billion. They are a company that

does $9 billion of trade annually. It's a huge company, Mr. Speaker.

What

about their record? Well, their record includes some rather interesting

escapades, I might say. They were fined $66,000 by the Canadian Wheat

Board for committing over 100 violations. Yet this is the company that

this government and this Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) has

allowed into our province, not only at Mount Lehman where they

purchased a private hog operation, but by selling them Panco Poultry.

This is the company that was taken to court in a dozen American states

for being part of a conspiracy to keep the price of chickens

artificially high. Yet this is the company that this government and

this ministry have allowed into the chicken processing business in

British Columbia. This was the company that was convicted of

artificially driving up the price of wheat on the Chicago commodity

exchange. It was the company that set up a curious corporation in

Panama which was allegedly used to avoid the taxes and government

regulations in connection with the U.S.-Soviet wheat deal. It was the

company that was named by India in a U.S. court for short-weighing

grain destined for hungry children. Yet this is the company that this

government has allowed our tax dollars to go to under the Farm Income

Assurance Program.

I am concerned when I am asked to support

an interim supply bill without having an opportunity to debate items

like this under the specific estimate. I'm concerned that in supporting

this bill I am supporting this kind of continuation of taxpayers' money

being diverted into the pockets of corporations such as Cargill.

course we are faced with this position of having to support an interim

supply bill because of the tardy call of the Legislature. We have no

choice. But, Mr. Speaker, I do regret that we are in this position,

because there is no reason why this House couldn't have met in January

and been well along at this point in time. We would have had the

estimates discussed. We would have passed the budget, and we would have

been assured that the funds being asked for were being spent on

programs that had been discussed and debated thoroughly on the floor of

this House.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, while I must support

this bill, I do have to express my concern at being forced into a

position of having to take this stance while we have so much yet to

discuss under the estimates of the various ministries.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in support of this legislation, because I

know that the community groups have been waiting for some time to get

their funding. They've had to wait for many months to find out whether

they were going to be funded, and now they've been waiting for some

time to get their funding. I certainly hope that when the minister is

winding up the debate he will assure us that those groups are indeed

going to be getting at least the first quarter of their funding in a

very, very short period of time. Some of these groups are living on

borrowed funds. They've had to go to the bank to get the money and

they've had to pay interest on this. I'm not quite sure whether the

government is prepared to pick up the tab for the interest charges, but

certainly that is something that the minister should bear in mind and

maybe respond to when he is closing this debate.

I would

really like to suggest to the minister that there should be a better

way of dealing with community groups and with their funding. Because so

many of them operate with volunteers, with probably just a handful of

paid staff, the amount of time that they have to spend each year

preparing

[ Page 1821 ]

their

budget, not just to account for the funding which they received the

year before but to justify asking for additional funding, is very

significant. It might not be a bad idea, once a group's credibility has

been established, that departments should be looking at longer-term

funding. Maybe they could be funded for two years instead of one year,

or possibly even three years.

A number of these groups have

been in existence a long time, and this business of having to go

through the process each year of reapplying for funds and never knowing

from one month to another whether their budget is going to be approved,

and whether they're going to have to take a cut in their budget or if

there is going to be an increase and to what extent, is very

debilitating. It makes it almost impossible for them to successfully

carry out their responsibility.

So, Mr. Speaker, in rushing

to close this debate, because the member from Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr.

King) is breathing down my neck, I hope the minister responsible is

listening and in closing the debate will respond to my suggestion that

maybe the community groups should be funded on a longer term rather

than annually, and say whether the government would be prepared to pick

up the interest charges for those who have had to borrow money from the

banks to carry on their funding until they receive their cheques.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make some brief comments on it too. One of

the things that concerns me about interim supply in the province of

British Columbia is that it's becoming the practice rather than the

exception. Interim supply in most parliaments of this nation and the

British Commonwealth has been a provision to deal with an unforeseen

circumstance or indeed an emergency. Rather than being that rare

exception in British Columbia, we find that this particular government

is organizing its affairs in such a fashion that it is impossible to

deal with a proper debate on estimates on a new budgetary provision

before the end of the fiscal year. The only reason for that, Mr.

Speaker, is the government's unwillingness to convene the Legislature

at a time early enough in the year when the proper business of the

people can be considered, fully weighed, fully debated, fully

scrutinized and passed in orderly fashion.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Interim

supply is a device that government traditionally used when for some

unforeseen reason, such as the intervention of an election or something

of that nature, there was insufficient time. There is no such

justification before the House today, it is simply the intransigence of

this government in terms of convening the Legislature at a time early

enough in the year to do the people's business and to provide for the

passage of the new budget with full debate and full scrutiny by the

opposition members. I don't like that tendency, I don't like that

trend, and I hope the minister in his closing remarks on second reading

will deal with the government's intention in this way. The opposition

certainly has no desire to be obstructionist, but at the same time we

do not want to see the rules of parliament perverted in the way that is

becoming the wont of this government.

I'm concerned about

passing blank cheque legislation. This particular bill provides for

$1.25 billion. It's not too many years ago that that used to be far in

excess of the total budget for this province; in fact, I was in this

Legislature when the budget exceeded $1 billion for the first time. Now

we're passing this kind of money on a few hours' notice and to some

extent giving carte blanche approval to the various ministries of the

government without their having to come before the House with full

accountability. I resent that kind of approach just as a method of

indulging the incompetence of a government that either can't get its

books in order at an early enough point to convene the Legislature or

has such a low regard for the democratic process that it doesn't think

it's important. In either event this is a dangerous way to go.

Mr.

Speaker, I second the call of my colleague for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms.

Brown), who called for a commitment from the minister that, when this

provisional interim amount is passed, the government will extend to

those agencies relying upon the government for funding — and I refer

specifically to the libraries of the province, and various other

agencies such as hospitals and schools that rely on funding from the

government, so that they in turn can budget appropriately — the same

kind of budgetary provision as they demand for themselves through this

bill. We have no assurance in the passage of the bill that that in fact

will be the case.

This is blank-cheque legislation. It was

the Premier of this province who ran around the province shouting: "Not

a dime without debate!" Mr. Speaker, although we are obliged to pass

this bill expeditiously, because we certainly want the public servants

and the senior citizens of this province to receive their cheques on

time, we want to do so by serving notice on the government that this

kind of sloppy approach to the parliamentary business of the province

should not be taken as something that is going to happen automatically

in the future,

I want to make one last comment with respect

to the bill itself, and that is on the

section of the bill which

indicates that it comes into force on April 1, 1980. That is yesterday,

Mr. Speaker. I submit to you that it is a dangerous precedent and it is

contemptuous of parliamentary tradition to pass retroactive

legislation. There is absolutely no need for it. It can be justified in

unusual circumstances, in emergency situations. But once again, we find

this particular government, as they have on many other occasions,

flouting the will of parliament and flouting the traditional respect

for parliamentary rule. It is a dangerous concept, a dangerous

precedent, to write statutory law in a retroactive fashion. If we tried

to do that with respect to criminal statutes, I would say that it would

be overturned by the supreme courts of this province, and possibly of

the nation. It's something that shows a rather contemptuous attitude on

the government's part. I hope that they get their act together, and in

future convene the Legislature early enough that the people's business

can be done in an orderly kind of way, so that, in fact, they don't

have to start this tendency toward overthrowing, and showing contempt

for, the traditional rights of parliament and the tradition that holds

that you don't write retroactive legislation in other than absolute

emergencies.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Finance closes the debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I stepped out into the Speaker's corridor for just a moment, but I

heard the remarks which were made at that time, and I thank most of the

members opposite for their comments. I will deal in just a couple of

minutes with the remarks of the last speaker, the hon. member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke.

I think, with respect to members of this House, that a fair

[ Page 1822 ]

amount

of the debate which has taken place this afternoon, in second reading

of an interim supply bill, belongs more properly in estimates.

Notwithstanding the comments which have been made, there is no

suggestion, no indication, nor indeed any fear — there need be no fear

— that Committee of Supply will not continue. It's a precedent activity

as far as this House is concerned at this time, and each minister will

take his turn under the gun, as it were, in answering with respect to

activities in his or her ministry, and the responsibilities relating to

that ministry.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for North

Island (Mr. Gabelmann) on his remarks with regard to what might be

considered, obviously not for next year, but at some time in the

future. We'll disagree on other issues, Mr. Member — through you, Mr.

Speaker — we'll disagree violently, but there is no procedure in human

activity which cannot be improved, and I will very carefully review

your remarks in Hansard . I made notes as you spoke, but I think I will rely to a greater extent....

You

spoke about estimates being introduced earlier, and obviously that

decision is not up to the Minister of Finance in any government, but at

least the idea can be considered and advanced from that particular

portfolio. Those estimates might well have to be provisional — that's a

first reaction. There might have to be provisional spending outlined;

although, in defence of what has been introduced this year — without

reflecting on the budget debate, now concluded — I think I would

perhaps sell the ministry short if I did not indicate that we've

introduced, for the first time in a province in Canada, a medium-term

economic outlook, which is the start of the kind of thing that you've

spoken of, and which I've spoken about as well.

The three

members opposite, I believe, Mr. Speaker, mentioned grants to

libraries, community services and a variety of community organizations.

With the passage and royal assent of this Supply Act, I would see no

reason why each ministry with responsibility for grants of one kind or

another would not proceed to distribute the appropriate portion of the

total annual grant. To the very best of each minister's ability that

money is made available just as quickly as possible.

The

member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), I believe, asked about the

computers. It is my information, Mr. Speaker, that in fact cheques are

not being printed and stored. The process is, I think, a very dramatic

one and reminds us of the importance of this place. We are obviously

paying on 1979-80 accounts. I think those cheques are still proceeding

through the system, but clearly under our system — and I hope the

system doesn't change — no one has the authority to produce or

distribute a cheque until we vote that money. Therefore I have the

assurance that in fact cheques are not being produced. I'm sure that

some set-ups have obviously been put in place for computer runs a

little later on.

Mr. Speaker, in determining an appropriate

percentage of the annual estimates, I perhaps erred on the side of

caution. I thought that one-quarter was an appropriate figure. If it is

necessary, I hope no one among the invisible press assumes that this

means that I or the government has the feeling that the legislative

session will terminate prior to June 30. It would not be unprecedented

in this House, sir, to have a Supply Act, No. 2.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Or No. 3.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Or No. 3 if necessary, as my colleague has indicated.

Mr.

Speaker, the auditor-general's report. I again think it is important to

state and to restate as often as is necessary that it is this

government which introduced the process of auditor-general to British

Columbia. We did so knowing that there would from time to time be

critical comments with respect to the way in which government handles

the public's money. I have already assured this House — I do so again

today — and I assure the people of British Columbia that we are

reviewing those comments point by point and acting on them. Members of

this House will see the results of that in due course.

indicated, sir, that frankly I don't believe that in interim supply it

is appropriate for the Minister of Finance to answer those matters

quite clearly within the responsibility and the portfolio of individual

ministers. Now the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), who is not

in his place at the present time, indicated that this activity today

represents low regard for the democratic process, a sloppy approach to

government. He used the word "perverted" in financial management terms,

I believe. He was very critical.

Mr. Speaker, I like that

member on occasion; I find him a reasonably decent honourable member,

and we have good conversations. But he was playing to the gallery

today. Because, as one example, we had interim supply in 1975 under

that party opposite. When was it introduced? It was introduced on March

26, 1975. Interestingly enough, with the exception of one question,

which was really a point of order by the member who is now in this

government, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot),

it passed very, very quickly, presumably because the House was in

Committee of Supply dealing with estimates. It passed quickly, His

Honour appeared shortly thereafter, and interim supply in the amount of

one-sixth of the total annual expenditure for that year was granted.

Now,

Mr. Speaker, I'm disappointed in that member again this session,

because I can't really feel that he wants to indicate or leave the

impression that this is something this government initiated or that

this government introduces simply as a means of getting around a more

detailed debate on estimates. Surely the member, who is still absent,

recalls interim supply when that party opposite formed the government

of the province of British Columbia. The Minister of Finance of the

day, now the Leader of the Opposition, at some time just around 3

o'clock or 3:30 in the afternoon of March 26, 1975, introduced a Supply

Act precisely as we have done today.

It's been suggested

that we are here because the session started very late. Well, Mr.

Speaker, March 26 to April 2 is not a very significant span of days —

the Hansard reference is pages 1050 and 1051.

Mr.

Speaker, there may be questions in committee consideration;

nonetheless, I thank those members who attempted to be constructive in

their comments with respect to this interesting procedure of interim

supply. I know that, in the course of estimate consideration in

committee, they will have many questions for all of us who hold

portfolios.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 11.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

[ Page 1823 ]

Motion approved.

Bill 11, Supply Act, No. 1, 1980, read a second time and referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT, NO. 1, 1980

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

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, when I was speaking in second reading I asked the

Minister of Finance whether he could, within the terms of this

legislation, actually pay out the full amount within any one vote.

That's certainly the way I read the bill, that as long as you stay

within the total limit of the budget, and stay within the votes, you're

not constrained to spend only one-quarter of any particular vote. I'm

thinking that in some cases there may be an annual grant paid out to

some organization.... That's the way I read

section 2. Yet when the

Minister of Finance responded in closing second reading, he said that

in paying out grants the ministers would spend only that portion of the

grant. My suggestion is that you are not limited to spend any portion.

You could spend any amount up to the total amount of that vote.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry that I did not respond to that specific point

at the conclusion of second reading debate. The member for Nanaimo has

made a correct assumption. It is a pattern which, I believe, has been

in practice in the preparation of a supply bill — interim supply, if

you will — for a good number of years.

However, in closing

debate I indicated that I thought ministries would follow the intent of

what, after all, interim supply is all about, knowing that the full

amount of money for the year must be voted upon by this House in due

course.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I recall, for

example, that during the last election campaign the then Provincial

Secretary released the total grants, in many instances, and said these

grants were now available, and went around the province handing them

out. There was absolutely nothing wrong with that because the

Legislature had, indeed, voted interim supply for four months, I think,

and in so doing gave the Minister of Finance the authority to pay out

the total amount within certain areas, as long as the overall total

wasn't exceeded.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, as

the member may recall, I was the then Provincial Secretary — if you are

referring to the 1979 period. I think in a number of instances that was

not the case. The point which the hon. member has advanced was not the

case.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 11, Supply Act, No. 1, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

MR. NICOLSON:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it's Wednesday, and the orders of the

day are private bills, then public bills and orders, and then public

bills in the hands of private members.

Mr. Speaker, we have

moved into Committee of Supply and moved out of Committee of Supply. We

have fulfilled the priority, and at no time earlier in the day has the

House Leader called for public bills without objection, so it would

require leave to proceed to public bills and orders at this time.

HON. MR. GARDOM: There are no private bills on the order paper, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON: With respect, Mr. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The House Leader has the floor.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, leave is not required because the House has already been in the Committee of Supply. It's a routine proceeding.

MR. NICOLSON: A point of order. There are private bills — that is the type of bill described in Standing Orders

— which must be submitted to this House within so many days and which

have been introduced, I believe, and are in our order book.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. There are no private bills on the order

paper. While they may have been submitted to the committee, they are

not yet on the order paper. But I thank the hon. member for his

observations.

HON. MR. GARDOM: As I said, I move we

proceed to public bills and orders, and I call adjourned debate on

second reading of Bill 7, Special Funds Act, 1980, The hon. member for

New Westminster adjourned the debate.

SPECIAL FUNDS ACT, 1980

(continued)

MR. COCKE:

It's the first time I've seen that in the House, where the House Leader

tells us who adjourned debate. Mr. Speaker, they're taking away your

job.

Mr. Speaker, on adjourning debate on this bill last

Friday, I was discussing one or two questions with respect to this

particular kind of bill. What we are doing here is allotting large sums

Of money, some $188 million, and we propose that the $188 million will

not be spent — a great portion of it

[ Page 1824 ]

will

just be sitting there in the trophy chest, probably to the tune of $170

million, and it's being given over to ministers who then receive the

funds voted by this one piece of legislation and have no further

accountability. That is a very dangerous situation, even if you trust

the ministers' discretion, administrative ability, and many other

attributes that one would hope ministers of the Crown might have.

talked about the Annacis crossing — I know that the Deputy Speaker (Mr.

Davidson) has absolutely no interest in it. I have many concerns about

the Annacis crossing, but I notice there are some sums of money here

voted toward that likely piece of chaos.

The one that I

would just like to dwell on for the moment is the part of this bill

that addresses itself to downtown redevelopment — to create and

recreate city centres, etc. If, Mr. Speaker, we have as much success in

the future with that downtown redevelopment as we have had in the past,

let me tell you and let me warn the other districts that are going to

submit themselves to this minister of small development, and his B.C.

Development Corporation....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

The minister asks whether or not I'm against what's happening. I will

now say absolutely, without any fear of challenge, I am against what's

happening because nothing is. All that's happening is a big PR job. All

that is happening in New Westminster is a big PR job for that minister

and his minions. When it comes along, heaven only knows. Let me tell

you first what they cancelled. First they cancelled the ICBC

headquarters down there, and they had to decide what to do with the

property, and so they are moving Douglas College down there....

HON. MR. FRASER: We cancelled nothing.

MR. COCKE: That minister should go back to grammar school. How can you cancel nothing?

Mr.

Speaker, we had a functional program. It was ready to go. The property

was acquired. Don't you tell me, "How can you cancel nothing?" in your

words.

HON. MR. MAIR: We were going to.

MR. COCKE:

Don't give me the "we were going to." You people spent so much time

destroying what we built in the three years and four months that we

were government that you cost the taxpayers of this province millions

upon millions upon millions of dollars — the most irresponsible

government that this province has ever seen. And I go back to Duff

Pattullo and a few of those guys.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: They have nothing more to say than all these silly little foolish charges.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the member for New Westminster has the floor.

MR. COCKE:

I have in my hand a document: First Capital City Development Co. Ltd.

It does a PR trip, as we have had done a number of times in New

Westminster around this particular development, around this document

and around a number of other programs that have been suggested for the

downtown area. Let me tell you what they're doing now besides trying to

choke up our city with this Annacis crossing. You go through this

report line by line and you find out where the development is to take

place: downtown. Guess where they've been doing their first development

of housing?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Where?

MR. COCKE: Uptown.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No.

MR. COCKE:

Yes. This group did some property trading. They have a piece of the old

pen. property and now they're doing a 16 1/2 acre development — which

is, incidentally, creating some animosity within our city, but that

happens with any kind of development. But the development is uptown.

That's the kind of great program that we have for downtown development,

and we're setting aside millions of dollars for this minister, whose

competency probably ends....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

That's right; I'm going to get to that later. You have spent a large

amount of money. BCDC? Well, no, not from funds that are voted by this

Legislature, because what we do is hand the minister with one piece of

legislation — and he just proved my previous point — millions of

dollars to set aside into his B.C. Development Corporation to do the

kinds of things they're doing to New Westminster now.

A very good

article in the Columbian

the other day said this downtown thing might work providing private

enterprise — glorious private enterprise — is going to come in and do

something about it. From what I understand, to date the bites have been

few, even the nibbles few. There has to be a great deal more thought

given, and I'm sure that the minister, if he'd put his mind to it,

could stay away from some of his travel and do some work within our

province.... If this kind of thing is going to be his responsibility,

he may become attuned to the fact that development takes place when

there is real cooperation going on. It doesn't take place when you rip

out a project like the ICBC headquarters, which would have been the

real development of that downtown area. It would have provided a

catalyst for the proper kind of development, and that proper kind of

development is non-polluting, good solid light industry, the

development of small enterprise in the downtown area but not

particularly devoting itself to stores and other things that a very

hilly area does not lend itself to.

Mr. Speaker, I'm worried

about Nanaimo and about the other areas that are going to submit to

this kind of drill, unless there can be a lot more promise in it for

the downtown areas. Don't forget that when a downtown area or a city

submits to B.C. Development Corporation and says, "Okay, go ahead,

bring in

an act and we'll go along with it," they are giving away a lot

of their own initiative. In order to give that initiative away

something had better be happening. It sure isn't happening in New

Westminster; I can tell you that right now.

[ Page 1825 ]

AN. HON. MEMBER: What happened to that courthouse? You supported that.

MR. COCKE:

The courthouse has nothing to do with it. The former Attorney-General

knows that I supported the smaller courthouse that they brought in

rather than the one that was on the drawing-boards. And with that

courthouse, incidentally, they don't get the B.C. building which they

were going to get. So you cheapen it up.

Mr. Speaker, the

kind of development that is required takes a lot of concentration and a

lot of cooperation from this government, and it's not occurring, or

certainly not occurring in our area. Couple that with some of the other

areas that I'm really concerned about: the accountability question and

the question of allocating funds forever and a day to a minister, which

may or may not be spent, funds he doesn't have to come back and report

on. Once he's got it in his hot little hands it's there until a period

ends, and then it may go back into general revenue but will never come

back here.

I am quite concerned about this whole bill, and I

would sure like to hear some of the ministers tell us what they're

going to spend this money on, how they're going to spend it, and what

the time-frame may be.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, it

is very difficult for the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to

have to debate a bill that shows by its structure that it's strictly an

exercise in Social Credit propaganda and public relations.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY:

I refer to the structure of the bill. Unfortunately, I don't think the

members are listening with great care, Mr. Speaker. We know that the

projects specifically mentioned in the bill are worthwhile projects,

and we'll be debating those. But the point is that the structure of

this bill is still basically a propaganda structure, so the Social

Credit members of this House can leave this floor and say to the public

of B.C.: "Look, we have just put a bill through the Legislature of B.C.

that is in the amount of $188 million. Aren't we great?" Yet we all

know that this is really a phony bill.

The majority of the

funds in that $188 million are not even going to be spent. As a member

who comes from the urban riding of North Burnaby, where one of our most

urgent needs is assistance in urban transit.... We look at this phony

bill that allows $55 million for urban transit; but in looking through

the back pages of the budget we find out that nothing is going to

actually be spent for urban transit. That's why it's a phony bill, and

the members on this side intend to let the public know that this bill

may have worthwhile projects, but we completely reject the whole

structure of the bill, which is, I repeat, simply another public

relations job of the kind that this government has been involved in in

almost every piece of legislation they've presented to the House. I

consider it an attempt to fool the public. We intend to make sure that

the public will not be fooled by this bill.

I'd like to get

down to some very specific areas in this bill which do cause me

concern. I've mentioned urban transit. Here again we have the local

taxpayers of British Columbia, who have been told they're going to have

an easement of their school taxes.... We'll discuss this in a later

debate, because it basically isn't an easement. We know that that

school tax burden is there in dimensions in which it should never have

been placed by that government. At the same time, the people of the

lower mainland are having to pay through other means to support an

urban transit system. This government is doing nothing to assist them,

yet they're trying to suggest in this bill that they are. Mr. Speaker,

how can anyone trust a government that would present such a bill to

this House? I know some of those members will actually go out and try

to suggest that that money is being spent on urban transit. As I said

in the beginning, it makes it most difficult to have to stand here and

take

part in this PR exercise today.

The other area in this

bill that really concerns me is the Premier's monument, B.C. Place. The

Premier, once again, was finding himself in great political difficulty

and so decided it was time to make another announcement. So he had a

huge press conference and announced the government support of B.C.

Place.

I'm sure that all the members in the House have today

received, as I have, a brochure put out by a group called HALT — Human

Action to Limit Taxes. It's quite obvious in reading this report that

this group, whoever they are, certainly are not socialists. If

anything, I would say their sympathies would be with that so-called

free enterprise party sitting across from us at this time. That's why I

am going to quote some things from it today; I want to get it in Hansard .

In prefacing those quotes, I want to reiterate that this is obviously

not a Social Credit propaganda sheet. Apparently these are people who

are very, very concerned with the building of B.C. Place. They make

some very valid criticisms. I'm sure the members on the opposite side,

whom I think would be more closely allied to them politically, would

certainly want to pay attention to some of the points made by this

group.

They refer, first, to the fact that in the conclusion

of the Manning-Bell report it was stated: ''Projects of this nature are

expensive and risky undertakings on the part of a government. The more

open the process the better." What kind of an open process did we see

before the announcement was made by the Premier? We saw a lot of PR; we

saw these famous Socred breakfasts; we saw a lot of words coming forth

from the Premier. But how many people in the province of British really

had an opportunity to take

part in this process? To date most of it has

been done behind closed doors. I understand there has been a committee

set up to work on B.C. Place; I don't recall any member of the

opposition being part of that committee.

Mr. Speaker, as this report says: "After a review of the Manning-Bell

report and such information as is available, this particular group — HALT —

"conclude that the B.C. government's decision to 'take the lead

in this project' can only be one of political pragmatism." This is

from a group which, I would say, should basically be — by ideology — supporters

of the Social Credit Party. And here they are saying, quite bluntly, that this

whole project can only be one of political pragmatism. You know, when your own

supporters — and perhaps this is unfair to this group, because I don't know

whether they're all supporters.... But when people who are perhaps more

ideologically allied with the government than we are make statements accusing

the Social Credit government today of political pragmatism, I would say that

that government is getting into serious trouble.

"The

contradiction has led them to propose a monument like B.C. Place, a

monument which will saddle taxpayers with an unacceptable financial

burden." And they go on to say that "our greatest fear is that an

irreversible process is being set into motion which could have severe

effects on the

[ Page 1826 ]

future

of British Columbia." So here again we have a Premier and a government

who are in serious trouble with the public, who try to defuse that

trouble by making a grand announcement about B.C. Place, with no

accountability to the rest of the citizens of this province, with no

real rationale for such a project. Here we have them going along

merrily on their own, and the rest of us are all going to have to

suffer financially in order to help the Premier sustain a better public

image.

Mr. Speaker, they have posed some very good questions. They say: "What

is an amphitheatre anyway, and how does it really differ in structure, function

or purpose from a so-called sports-only stadium?" Now I'm posing this

question.

have to pose it to the Minister of Finance, and the very fact that I

have to do it to the Minister of Finance instead of the Premier just

points out how ridiculous this bill is. The Minister of Finance has to

feel through the House this mixed bag of different projects which

should really be under the individual minister's estimates. The Premier

is not here to discuss B.C. Place with us, and I suppose if he were, he

would not answer; he would simply say: "It does not come under me; it

comes under the Minister of Finance." Well, we have no choice but to

pose these questions to that poor Minister of Finance, who is already

overburdened. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there should be some

opportunity for this Legislature to get to the person who has really

pushed for this, and that's certainly, from what I can see, not the

Minister of Finance, whose interest, I'm sure, would be more parochial

with reference to the Island.

Perhaps the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) could give us a little background on

this particular B.C. Place, as that minister seems to be involved in

almost every project that the Social Credit government has proposed or

wishes to propose or will propose for the lower mainland. We're never

quite sure who is really calling all the shots in the cabinet today,

Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. MAIR: I am.

MRS. DAILLY:

The Minister of Health just said he was, Mr. Speaker, and I'm glad we

know. We know where the power is. We've been waiting to hear. It is the

Minister of Health who admits right here, with his due modesty, that he

is the real power in this government. So perhaps he will take it upon

himself to answer some of the questions that have been posed to the

Premier of the province, who has not been able to answer them. If he is

now the real power, we will let him take over and answer the questions

that the Premier of this province has left unanswered.

Mr.

Speaker, I have a couple more points on the matter of B.C. Place. This

group also makes the point that the government has stated that this

project will attract tourist dollars; and they make the point the

government has actually failed to substantiate that statement; and that

regardless of that, it is the role of the tourist industry to attract

business for itself; and that, even if the claim is true, it simply

means that the taxpayers are again being forced to subsidize the

tourist industry.

They make one more point which I'd like to

make here. They say: "We have noted that many of those interests that

have been most vocal in complaints of government regulation, excessive

taxation, bureaucracy and its stifling effect on business are the very

groups, when it comes to B.C. Place, which are very happy to accept

government intervention."

It's always interesting, Mr.

Speaker, that the people who talk about the heavy hand of state

socialism and government intervention are the ones who often have their

hands out first to get assistance from the government. But they never

would admit that that was accepting government assistance — they seem

to accept the fact that it is their right to have this money.

think that the complaints of this group are expressions of great

concern among the taxpayers of B.C. At a time when that Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), who claims to be the real power behind the

whole government in British Columbia....

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY:

He is the power. At a time when that minister has already suggested to

the public of B.C. he's considering raising hospital premiums, we have

this kind of money proposed to be spent on a B.C. Place which nobody

quite understands. We've had no accountability from the Premier. Today

there are so many problems in this province that require immediate

financial attention. Not only does this government sock its money away

in so-called surpluses; they also present phony bills to us. They

present some projects which I consider to be very questionable.

I'm

concerned about many other areas in this bill. Before I close, one more

area I'm concerned about is the money for libraries' computerized

services. I also want to reiterate, as fellow members have, that that

$3 million is not in any way going to assist some of the smaller

libraries throughout British Columbia. I hope you can tell us that.

The

Minister of Finance has said to me that it is a start. The problem is

through that when we talked this matter over with a library group they

were somewhat disenchanted. I'm sure that they expressed that

disenchantment to the present minister in charge of libraries, the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). When his estimates come up we'll

be discussing it in detail. I will conclude my remarks by saying that

as a member of the opposition I find it most unsettling to debate a

bill which I consider to be hypocritical and deceptive.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Prior to recognizing the Minister of Human Resources, I would remind

all members that the word "phony" is on our list. It was on our list in

1973, 1974 and again in 1975.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I

can't tell you how disappointed I am to hear the remarks of the past

two speakers from the socialist opposition regarding the act which is

before the House for debate today. Having heard those remarks from the

hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the remarks from the

hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), who has just taken her

place, I would imagine, then, that the opposition will vote against

this bill. I think it's unfortunate not only for the people of British

Columbia but for the reputation of the once-proud party these people

claim to represent — the old CCF. There's no question in my mind that

those people who built the CCF — which has now become a far more

radical and socialist political party represented by the NDP today —

and who contributed to building this province would look on this act

and that which it would build for the city of Vancouver and for the

province of British Columbia as one of the most exciting developments

presented to this House. Because of their expressions, I take it that

they will vote against this act.

[ Page 1827 ]

I'm

disappointed to see that, because as a Vancouver member I think that

this B.C. Place, which is mentioned in the act, will give to Vancouver

— the third-largest city in Canada and the greatest city on the west

coast of this continent — a brand-new look and an exciting future.

a matter of fact, I can't think of any decade other than this decade of

the eighties which will show the leadership and the great, exciting

concept of growth and opportunity that will be enveloped and

encompassed in just two projects in the city of Vancouver. Downtown

Vancouver will be completely revitalized because of this government's

initiative in building British Columbia Place and the trade and

convention centre in the city of Vancouver.

As a matter of

fact, I was recently reading some comments by a downtown business

organization. They made the point that because of those two initiatives

Vancouver, British Columbia, was the place to be in the decade of the

eighties for business and for social opportunities for the people of

our province. It is really British Columbia Place, downtown British

Columbia — it is not just for Vancouver city. But as a member from the

city of Vancouver, I'm very pleased to see it.

You see, Mr.

Speaker, British Columbia Place is going to be one of the two areas in

British Columbia where we can host international shows, international

conferences and international visitors. It will be the place which will

give, at long last, a home to professional sports, a home where we can

be proud to compete on the North American continent — as the city of

Vancouver surely is worthy of doing and as the province of British

Columbia surely is worthy of doing.

It seems to me that it's

a bit petty to look at British Columbia Place as a public relations

concept for the Social Credit government. Let me just say this: if it's

good public relations to serve the people of British Columbia with

imaginative programs and ideas, we will continue to have the best

public relations on this side of the House. I am surprised, too, that

the members can look at this exciting Special Funds Act.... Isn't it

interesting that they should be a little picayune about British

Columbia Place, just give passing mention to the lower mainland stadium

fund and completely ignore the other exciting things which are in the

Special Funds Act? In fact, I would say the Special Funds Act provides

opportunities for the 1980s which I just can't imagine them not

standing on their feet and being very excited about.

I would

question the member who has just taken her place, who was at one time

the Minister of Education in this province, who tells us that someone

in the libraries network does not feel the computerization that has

been undertaken for the libraries is a very forward step, nor has it

been heralded by the federation of libraries, because it has. I have

documentation i