1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 1981

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4861 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Medical Services Plan Act, 1981 (Bill 16). Hon. Mr. Nielsen.

Introduction and first reading –– 4861

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

On vote 156: minister's office –– 4861

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Barber

Mr. King

Tabling Documents

Auditor-general report for the year ended March 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4874

TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like those who

are here in the House at this moment to welcome to the gallery two

guests, the president of the British Columbia Medical Association, Dr.

Alex Mandeville, and the executive director of the BCMA, Dr. Norman

Rigby.

Introduction of Bills

MEDICAL SERVICE PLAN ACT, 1981

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

a bill intituled Medical Service Plan Act, 1981.

Bill

16 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.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 156: minister's office, $186,675.

MS. BROWN:

I wanted to raise the issue of the Urban Transit Authority this morning

and its really punitive approach to disabled and senior citizens in

terms of the bus passes — if the minister is listening.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Always.

MS. BROWN:

The situation with the bus passes and the Urban Transit Authority....

Maybe I should give a little bit of a background. The bus passes used

to be the responsibility of the Ministry of Human Resources, and Human

Resources used to allow people who were eligible for the bus passes,

whether they were disabled people or senior citizens, to have access to

these bus passes; what's more, they were transferable. In other words,

someone in the Vancouver area with a bus pass, who wanted to travel to

Victoria to visit relatives, or at least to spend a day visiting here,

could use their bus pass in Victoria as well. Someone living in

Victoria who had a bus pass could use their bus pass in Vancouver as

well.

In the interest of streamlining the system, the

Ministry of Human Resources was seduced into turning over

responsibility for the bus passes to the Urban Transit Authority. The

first thing that the Urban Transit Authority did was introduce a

punitive attitude towards the disabled and the seniors who used the bus

passes by saying that they were non-transferable. In other words, if

you have a Victoria bus pass, you have a Victoria bus pass. Senior

citizens or disabled persons who do not have access to a private

automobile and cannot use any other form of transit except public

transit find that they cannot use their Victoria bus passes in

Vancouver or vice versa.

This was brought to my attention

specifically by a group of people who are blind, and I don't know of

any other way that people who are blind can travel except on the public

transportation system. You can't say to them: "Well, if you don't want

to use the bus, you can use a bicycle or you can use some other form of

private transit." It just doesn't work that way. They are totally

dependent on the public transportation system. In addition, they are

dependent economically on the pension for the disabled, which they get

from the government, and which is totally inadequate, heaven knows. The

GAIN monthly income, which they get through the Ministry of Human

Resources, does not permit them to travel by taxicab wherever they want

to go. Unless they are within walking distance of their appointments —

with their dentist or doctor or shopping or church or whatever — they

have no option except to use the public transportation system. It

doesn't make any sense then for this government, which has millions of

dollars to pour into convention centres, glass slippers, Pier B-Cs and

all kinds of other monuments to themselves, to penalize the blind

people or the senior citizens in this province by saying: "You can use

your bus pass in your area, and you cannot use it anywhere else."

The

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has come out very

strongly in opposition to the decision of the Urban Transit Authority

on this particular issue. I think that she even went so far as to issue

a press release in which she said she was shocked and amazed that the

Urban Transit Authority had decided to penalize the disabled,

particularly the legally blind — because this person, Don Karaskewich,

who brought this to my attention in the first place, has a very minimal

amount of sight.

However, I'd like to just read a quote from

the ministry. "Grace McCarthy, Minister of Human Resources, today

issued an angry response to several news stories concerning the

potential loss of bus privileges for blind persons and war amputees."

She went on to say that recent stories raised several points, including

the possibility of the termination of the Victoria passes by the

Capital Regional District in June, and of the ending of the

transferability privilege which up to now has allowed passes from

Victoria and Vancouver to be honoured in each other's region. She said:

"I am appalled at the stand that they have taken on this issue. Their

proposed termination of bus-pass privileges for blind residents of

Victoria shows an uncaring attitude that is particularly offensive

during this International Year of the Disabled." And she goes on and

on. This was issued at the end of January 1981.

In February

of this year she also wrote a letter to this particular person who

brought this matter to our attention, in which she said: "I share with

you your concern regarding the restriction of the use of these passes

either to one area or the other. I too find it very upsetting that they

have taken this particular stand, especially during the International

Year of the Disabled."

In the throne speech the government

made all kinds of pious statements about their commitment to the

disabled during this particular year and about all the steps that were

going to be taken to enhance the quality of their lives. In the budget

speech, once again, the government made more pious statements about

their commitment to the disabled, and about all the steps that were

going to be taken to enhance the quality of their lives during this

particular year. This is one issue which is being brought specifically

to their attention: the transferability of the bus passes between

Vancouver and Victoria. Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to stress that

there is

[ Page 4862 ]

other form of transportation for blind people except public transit,

especially when they are totally dependent on the Ministry of Human

Resources income assistance program. If they are very wealthy blind —

if Bunker Hunt were blind, or if, Skalbania were blind or if the

Minister of Municipal Affairs were blind — it would be possible for

them to hire a cab to chauffeur them to wherever it is they chose to

go. But this option is not open to people who live on the disability

pension paid by this government through its Minister of Human

Resources, or even supplemented by the federal government as happened

in the case of the veterans. What explanation, therefore, can we

possibly have for a decision made by this government, specifically

during the International Year of Disabled Persons or at any time, to

deprive this very small group? It's not millions of people that we're

discussing. As a matter of fact, it's a very small number — something

in the vicinity of a couple of thousand people.

A recent

GVRD study showed that it would actually cost only $25,000 a year to

continue to permit this transferability of the bus-pass service. That

is all it would cost. In other words, it would be the equivalent of two

months of Ron Basford's salary — the person the government hired at

$600 a day to consult on northeast coal; $600 a day to one person. Two

months of his salary would ensure that the blind people and the war

amputees would be able to continue to enjoy the privilege. They accept

that it's a privilege. They've not demanded it as a right; they refer

to it continually as a privilege. They should be permitted to use these

bus passes anywhere in British Columbia where public transit exists.

Really, that's what the government should be extending to them — not

necessarily just this year but whenever and forever. Anywhere there is

a public transit system their bus pass should be honoured. They should

be able to use their bus pass.

Maybe first thing this

morning, while he's still fresh and alert, the minister will explain

that he has really reconsidered this; that he's thought about it very

seriously; that he's taken to heart the press release and

correspondence from the Ministry of Human Resources; that he's been in

consultation with the Capital Regional District, the GVRD and everybody

else who has any jurisdiction over this particular issue and that they

have decided that the transferability of the bus passes will continue —

that war amputees, the legally blind and people who in the past 30 to

40 years have enjoyed this privilege won't lose it because of the

decision of B.C. Hydro, the Urban Transit Authority or any of the

groups that have any input into this particular decision; that he with

his sweeping powers has been able to convince all of these groups that

they're making a wrong decision to be so punitive in their reaction or

in their treatment of people in our province who can't fight back,

quite frankly; and that the decision has now been made that the bus

passes are going to be transferable in greater Vancouver, greater

Victoria and throughout the entire province where there is a public

transportation system, so that anyone who has a bus pass will be able

to use it on any of these transportation systems.

Is the

minister prepared to make this commitment? Mr. Chairman, is the

minister prepared at least to say that he will do everything in his

power to ensure that this privilege is not taken away from this very

small group of people in our province? Mr. Minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: Just nod.

MS. BROWN: I want him to respond.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, we certainly heard a great deal yesterday about my

ministry apparently centralizing, and here we have some real evidence

of where we've done our very utmost to try to decentralize. In the area

of transit we've passed not only the responsibility but the authority

and the decision-making with respect to matters like this to the local

areas. The CRD and the GVRD are the responsible organizations to issue

the passes and to determine whether they ought to be transferable or

not.

As recently as about two weeks ago in Mrs. McCarthy's

office I had a meeting with CRD representatives about these matters,

and certainly the hon. Minister of Human Resources impressed upon them

again and again the need to provide transferability and to reconsider

their proposal that the passes for the blind end as of June. The

members there promised to take it back to their respective boards — in

this particular instance we were meeting with CRD, but we've passed the

same message on to GVRD. I also asked them if they had other

representation, and apparently they had not. So I would highly

recommend that you too, as a member of the Legislature, make

representation to the GVRD and CRD, because I think they would consider

not only the matter of transferability but also the matter of

continuing with the passes for the blind — especially during this Year

of the Disabled, as you mentioned.

We've done a number of

things with respect to the Year of the Disabled. Yesterday I received a

very handsome copy of the British Columbia Building Code,

part 10,

which was introduced by the ministry to address the matter of building

requirements for the physically disabled. Of course, you are aware that

my ministry also took the initiative to assure that the increased

homeowner grant would be available to the disabled, whether they be on

GAIN or not. Again, that was a very forward move. Furthermore, we have

a very ambitious program to provide various benefits and opportunities

throughout the year. That program is determined by the special

committee which was established for that purpose. My ministry has been

involved in various things to assure a successful Year of the Disabled

— to assure not only the recognition that it deserves, but also that

benefits flow from it to the handicapped persons who are looking to

this ministry and others for assistance.

In this particular

matter, it is a decision for the local regional districts — for the

GVRD and the CRD. They know of our concern. We've had discussions with

them. These are ongoing discussions. I'm hoping they will turn out as

we would all like to see it.

MRS. DAILLY: I want to

follow along with one specific area of questioning for the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, because I know that estimates is a period for basic

questions.

Before I pose my question to him, I would like to

say that along with my colleagues, particularly those who are MLAs from

the urban areas, I have to express to this minister our great distress

with your handling of your portfolio as it relates to the local

officials in my area and in the GVRD. As stated yesterday, our concern

is primarily with your centralization and your very heavy-handed

operation of your portfolio. I know the minister perhaps looks somewhat

bored at having to hear this over and over again, but in all our

discussions yesterday.... From what I heard yesterday and what we're

going to continue on today, and the way he answered my colleague for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), I think the minister displays a great deal

of lack of sensitivity about

[ Page

4863 ]

his role as Minister of Municipal Affairs. I think

his last answer to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, when he said to her,

"Well, really, the matter of the passes for the blind and the amount

they pay should go to the GVRD," is really a very callous reply, Mr.

Chairman, in view of the fact that this is the minister who takes onto

himself whatever he wishes to do with the GVRD when it suits his

purpose. But if it's something that is perhaps going to cause some

embarrassment to him — and perhaps cost money — then he suggests to the

member that she herself go to the GVRD.

I really am

concerned because there is a general lack of morale among the local

politicians of the GVRD with a minister who unilaterally descends upon

them and tells them what kind of a transit system they are to have

imposed upon their district. The GVRD had spent years working on a good

transit system for the lower mainland and they had actually spent — my

understanding is — $590,000 for a study, which the minister just

unilaterally swept away and said: "Forget about all that. I'm the

minister, and you're going to take the kind of transit system I want."

It would be bad enough if the minister had said that and said along

with it: "However, naturally if I'm imposing a system on you, I will

take the full responsibility for the payment." But no, this minister

has not only imposed the system he wants on the local politicians of

the GVRD, but he has also said to them that they or the taxpayers will

primarily bear the full cost.

I don't like to ramble on, and

I don't intend to, because there will be other specific things that

will come up later. I just have one specific question for the minister.

Would he explain to the House what possible rationale and what right he

had as a minister to impose his wishes on transit on the GVRD, which

had been working for years and were in the process of producing a

study, which I'm sure they were interested in showing to him? Can you

give us the rationale for what appears to us to be a very heavy-handed

move?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As everyone is aware,

this provincial government has the best funding or financing formula

for transit systems anywhere in Canada. Right now we're paying 75

percent of transit deficits; this includes the provision of capital

assets. I was a member of the GVRD board and the transit committee when

the initial studies took place with respect to transit. I can recall

these studies taking place over a large number of years, and I agree

that the costs were considerable. Probably most of those studies — and

I can recall the ones which were done and the one which was completed

in about 1973-74 when another government sat in this House — didn't

mean an awful lot, because we never had any thought that they would be

acted upon. But this government decided some time ago that we were

going to get on with light rapid transit for greater Vancouver — no

more studies, no more experts providing us with further volumes of

information, which all meant that in the end the final recommendation

was a further study. No, we were going to get on with light rapid

transit and take action on the various studies that had been done.

I reviewed those studies last year. The thing that immediately occurred to

me was that someone should be speaking out on behalf of Burnaby. I realized

that Burnaby had no direct representation on the government bench. However,

I was also aware that all this information was available to all MLAs, because

it certainly was available from the Greater Vancouver Regional District. My

immediate concern was for Burnaby, and the fact that the proposal by GVRD meant

18 level crossings — at Rumble, Stride, Patterson, Kingsway.... I'm familiar

with Burnaby. For years I have operated a business not only in south Burnaby,

but similarly in north Burnaby. I'm not only familiar with the lay of the

land and the people there, but I'm also familiar with the traffic on these

various streets. I was immediately aware that we would have a horrendous traffic

situation if we allowed the GVRD proposal to proceed in the form recommended

by them. Not only would it mean that the transit system couldn't move as

freely, frequently and quickly as if it were elevated or buried, but similarly

there would be lineups from Rumble clear back onto Kingsway and across; on Kingsway,

with trains proposed to cross every 90 seconds, the gates would be coming down

all the time. It would once again mean horrendous congestion and nothing but

chaos, For a time I awaited some response from the MLAs for the areas, to see

what their views might have been. But to this day I have not heard from those

MLAs about the consequences of that GVRD proposal.

then took it upon myself to investigate further, especially on behalf

of Burnaby, just what alternatives could be available. I realized as

well that if we were to proceed with a conventional LRT it would

probably also mean that once the system were installed.... Their

figures in the studies indicated that when the traffic reached a

certain point they would have to bury the line. But since the studies

had been done some time previous, what obviously hadn't been recognized

or picked up by the MLAs or others, in Burnaby especially, is that

those figures had already been reached and by the time the transit

system was installed they would be a whole lot higher. Having to be

responsible not only for the consequences to the municipality and their

contribution, but similarly for the 75 percent that we're now

contributing, I realized that if we were to proceed with a conventional

LRT we would, before its completion, be burying the line at a possible

cost of $50 million per mile — and creating a whole lot more disruption

still. On the strength of that, and with a great concern for the whole

of Burnaby, I took the initiative of seeking out alternatives. I was

most pleased, impressed and happy to find that not only was there an

alternative but there was an alternative which provided the solution

not only for Burnaby but the whole of the lower mainland, in that we

could develop a system with no level crossings.

Best of all,

Mr. Chairman, it was a Canadian system, which had been developed in

Canada and which not only offered that alternative but which gave us

the opportunity to manufacture in British Columbia for the whole of the

world and create a whole new industry. It was a system which could

provide not only all that was required by the GVRD in their initial

studies with respect to the numbers of people and the frequency of

movement on that line, but also a system which went beyond that and did

better, which had the capability of expansion into places like Surrey,

Delta, Coquitlam and Port Moody, all of those areas where tremendous

growth is taking place but where we don't now have existing rail

rights-of-way in the appropriate places to serve the greatest number of

people. So we have in this Ontario-developed system, this Canadian

system, not only the opportunity of fulfilling all of the needs of the

Greater Vancouver Regional District, but the opportunity of developing

a whole new industry which will benefit all British Columbians. That is

certainly an aim of this government as well, and every ministry must be

keenly aware of our responsibility to do whatever we can, in all

programs we might be involved with, to create job opportunities not

only for today but also for future generations, for the young people

coming out of school,

[ Page 4864 ]

think that one of the things that all these debates and discussions on

the budget bring forth time and time again is that this government is

not only aware of or concerned about today, but it is also concerned

about and aware of the needs of young people in the future — to assure

that there are jobs in the lower mainland, in the northeast sector, in

the southeast sector and in the northwest sector, that throughout

British Columbia there will be growth and opportunity for all young

people. I am very proud that this ministry was again able to contribute

to that and to proceed with a system, and not simply continue on

studying and calling for more studies as, apparently, some of the

opposition members would have us do.

I agree with what was

said yesterday by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), that

their spokesman in Vancouver, Mayor Harcourt — who he said, of course,

made no secret about his speaking out on behalf of the NDP — went on

and on at some length about this. And I can well understand that much

of the opposition, which was led by the mayor of Vancouver, who the

first member for Victoria says is the NDP spokesman, was political in

nature. I think we should all be big enough to look beyond politics and

be concerned about those people in Burnaby, and assure everyone that

the people of Burnaby have the best possible system for all time.

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Chairman, I really thank the minister for taking the time to lay

out for my colleagues from Burnaby — particularly myself — and the

public what his reasons were for finally involving himself in this

unilateral decision. You know, I find it — one of our members always

says "passing strange"; I forget which one it is — I do find it rather

passing strange that this minister feels that he and he alone knows

what is best for the people of Burnaby. In my opinion, he is clouding

and covering up his obsession with wanting to be completely in charge

and wanting one type of transit system. He is covering up that motive

by suggesting the chairman of the GVRD, who is a former mayor of

Burnaby and an alderman, and all the Burnaby aldermen who have been

involved in transit for years, know absolutely nothing about what is

best for Burnaby.

Mr. Chairman, if we follow through on that

thesis of the minister's, then I would suggest the next step will

probably be that that minister will abolish the GVRD, and perhaps in

time he may even want to eliminate local politicians. If we follow his

rationale for his move on his special transit system, it comes down to

the fact that he feels that he knows better than any local politician

when it comes to what is best for them. So as far as I can see, we've

had a very illuminating comment from that minister. I challenge him:

does he see any use for local government? Do you see any use for the

GVRD, when you can come along here in this House and tell us that you

know what is best, that you will superimpose your wishes on us? I'm not

satisfied with that answer.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: For

the information of the member for Burnaby North, please let me assure

the member that prior to the announcement with respect to our

proceeding on ALRT, both members for Burnaby especially were well aware

that the mayor, a good friend, is also a member of the UTA; Mr. Alan

Nemeth, a good friend, is also the chairman of the GVRD. Both had been

involved in obtaining from us all of the information on the system

which is now proposed for greater Vancouver, and both were extremely

supportive of it.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm glad to hear the

minister say that we've had enough studies and that we've got to get on

with the job. Up in the West Kootenay that's exactly the way we feel

about this ministry and its attitude toward public transit. To get away

from whether transit should be elevated or buried, automated or run by

human beings, back in 1975 — this is rather interesting — there was a

fire which totally destroyed the city of Nelson's buses. The member who

was then responsible for transit, my colleague from Burnaby-Willingdon

(Mr. Lorimer), had new buses on the way within days, and bus service

was restored in the city of Nelson within about a week of that tragic

fire.

HON. MR. FRASER: Where is that street-car you bought?

MR. NICOLSON: It's at the bottom of Nasookin Road, and it's a small private museum, Mr. Member.

Mr.

Chairman, in 1976 I phoned the ministry and asked them: "Well, when are

we going to get some buses to start expanding and trying some runs

along the north shore between Riondel and Creston and up the Slocan

Valley?" Incidentally, the service in the Slocan Valley, which has been

a very meagre service but a fairly important service not only for

passengers but for freight along that area, has been provided by a

private carrier. That service just shut down a couple of weeks ago.

Going back to 1976, the reply was: "Oh, yes, everything is going ahead.

But we've got to find the kind of bus that will be good for the hills

in the area, so that it can do city work. It's going to have to do work

in places like Trail, Rossland and Nelson, where it can climb the

hills, but also we want it to be able to travel inter-city or

inter-town distances like Nelson to Salmo, and up the Slocan Valley on

the highways. So we want something that can do highway speeds — we're

just looking for that kind of buses — and we think we've got something

lined up."

Next thing you know, it's a study — and now there

is a transit study being done with our regional district. So here the

minister says: "Enough studies, enough studies." We have been asking,

and our regional district has been asking, for some kind of movement

and, of course, we've seen some bus service introduced into Trail — I

don't think it took a study to figure out that it was needed there. Now

the top priority of the present study is to look at the situation for

Castlegar and then secondary routes, or some of the longer rural

routes. If the minister would like to stop the study and send the

buses, I'm sure that most of the people in the area would be quite

happy to see the minister use his sandbox technology and just say:

"Well, these are the routes." They're pretty obvious anyhow, and some

of them are historical routes. So let's get on with it!

I'd

like to talk a little bit about Pacific Coach Lines — the former

Vancouver Island Coach Lines, I guess, part of it, and part of the old

Pacific Stage Lines. After all of the economic profit-making routes had

been high-graded out, I see in the first annual report that there is an

operating loss before subsidy of $7,424,509.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON:

Yes, let's get rid of that loss, or let's try to do something about

part of that loss — that's what I'd like to talk about today. First

look at this book. Is this the annual report that should be put out by

a company that's just

[ Page 4865 ]

lost

$7 million? It has a lovely heavy white cover. I've seen annual reports

tabled in this House done on a mimeograph machine, and they carry as

much information. There are nice little maps and lots of

misinformation, which I'll talk about in passing. There's information

such as the industrial relations section:

"During

the year ended March 31, 1980, the company established an industrial

relations department, then progressively developed internal programs

relating to staff training and retraining, a monitoring system related

to the sick-leave program and the development and restructuring of

ongoing safety programs. During the year independent professional

consultants were retained to conduct a study of the organization,

staffing and compensation of the supervisors and management positions

within the company, "

This report highlighted that the first

year had been very well spent with the company in good health with a

loss of $7 million — only bringing in $12 million and spending almost

$20 million. Some help! The organization was identified as being "lean"

and "purposeful," with all managers having challenging tasks and rising

to them.

I find it passing strange that in this lean

company, after all the fat had been taken out of it — all the good

profit-making bus excursions and things had been stripped away — the

downtown Vancouver offices were about half empty. Go and look at them

today. They're overflowing with supervisory staff. It is that old

trend, where the supervisory staff tend to grow in a predictable sort

of fashion even when the function of the people who are doing the work

is actually reduced. Mr. Chairman, I'll tell you about this lean staff.

which is growing according to the Peter principle. I want the minister

to get up in this House and tell us how many managers were left when

Pacific Coach Lines stripped everything else out of the company and how

many people are in those supervisory positions. I want to know how many

drivers they have today. I want to know how much overtime was being

paid under PSL before and how much overtime is being paid today. Answer

this, if you can, Mr. Minister: on a day when some people work from 4

a.m. until 9 p.m. working overtime, how could it be that one driver was

laid off? It's well known that this company is being rather poorly

managed.

I would like the minister to answer this question

also. What is the function or connection of Mr. Gordon Levett with

Pacific Coach Lines? What is Mr. Levett's function? How is he

connected? Can the minister answer that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I'm very pleased that the member for Nelson-Creston raised the matter

of Pacific Coach Lines, because I too am concerned about our being

involved in a service which, agreed, loses a lot of taxpayers' dollars.

I am very pleased that the independent board of Pacific Coach Lines has

been gradually bringing their rates a little more into line, so that at

least the user will pay a more equitable share of the operating costs

of the system. Through Pacific Coach Lines we are providing a service

up the valley and throughout Vancouver Island. Frankly, if some private

entrepreneur wanted to take it over, he'd be welcome to it, because I

can guarantee you that he would do a better job than government. I can

assure the member that this minister has no belief whatsoever that

government can do better in any way than can private enterprise, I'm

very pleased that we were able to change the course which had been

established by the NDP in only three years, where they wanted to take

over everything that moved except bicycles. They took over the

Vancouver Island Coach Lines, the 401 taxi service, Southwest Coach

Lines, Gray Lines and B.C. Parlour Car Tours Ltd., ran tours to Reno,

and they lost bundles. We've changed that approach, and we're getting

out of it where possible. But at the same time we have an obligation to

some of the people up the valley and up the Island to continue a

service. I agree that the board should regularly and realistically

assess the fares charged to those people, and obviously we must up them.

I'm

getting a funny look from the member for Burnaby Edmonds (Ms. Brown),

because she doesn't think the rates ought to be increased at all. I

tell you, hon. member, that we do have to keep up with inflation a bit.

I agree we're losing bundles, and I concur that the user must pay at

least a fair share of that.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The

hon. member for Nelson-Creston says you can resolve the deficit with

respect to Pacific Coach Lines. He's a sudden expert on finances. He

says: "Instead of using glossy paper with orange and black print, why

not use plain paper; mimeograph; do away with the orange." I would like

to do away with orange, because it reminds me of something I would

sooner not have any reminiscence of.

I get a little upset

with the hon. member for Nelson-Creston. We are providing an excellent

service in his constituency. I meet regularly with his regional

district and have a great rapport with the Nelson council and other

councils in your area. hon. member, which is probably a better rapport

than you had when you were minister in this same area. I can assure the

member we're not going to buy up every broken-down bus line and taxi

service and follow the NDP example; not on your life.

MR. NICOLSON:

Yesterday the minister said he had brought his staff here and was

challenging us to ask questions. I've asked him a very simple question:

who is Mr. Gordon Levett? I understand him to be associated with

Pacific Coach Lines in some sort of capacity, and I would ask the

minister, in order that I can proceed responsibly in this House to ask

some further questions, what Mr. Gordon Levett's connection with PCL is.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Levett is a consultant who has certain expertise in the area of

transportation, and from time to time, as required, he provides

information to the board. While I certainly don't defend the use of

consultants any more than necessary, I still feel it's better to bring

in consultants for particular projects or to provide certain

information from time to time than to put people on staff permanently

and see the bureaucracy grow bigger still.

MR. NICOLSON:

I'd like to know how much Mr. Gordon Levett has received in the past

fiscal year — the period which the annual report covers. Could the

minister tell me that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The

information which Mr. Gordon Levett has provided for the most

part is

to do with the maintenance of the various operations within PCL. I

can't tell you exactly what he has been paid, or how often the

[ Page 4866 ]

board has decided to bring in and provide for the services required which Mr. Levett is able to give to PCL.

The

board certainly meets on a regular basis. I've met with them once or

twice, and I attempt to keep contact in order to get information from

them, but I do not attend their board meetings; they are an independent

group charged with providing a function. I don't know just exactly what

might have been paid a consultant, any more than I know what might have

been paid the janitor or anyone else in the system. You can't have all

this information, in that detail, available. I'm sure the board would

be pleased to provide the information.

MR. NICOLSON:

I'd like to know just exactly what Mr. Levett's qualifications are. Are

they academic or technical qualifications? Most consultants are

management consultants or engineering consultants. What is the nature

of this consultant expertise?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Well, Mr. Chairman, his expertise is mainly in the maintenance area,

and he has been brought back from time to time by the board members,

who are very responsible people that give a great deal of time to serve

on the board, and they have selected him again on a number of

occasions, so I am sure that they must be satisfied with the services

that he has provided in the past.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr.

Chairman, to refer to the new colour scheme of the Pacific Coach Lines,

I've noticed the new PCL buses running around with the new white,

orange and sort of an off-colour brownish-red. I would ask the minister

if there was a repainting program in order to bring the buses in with

the new logo with the seagull and all of that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I don't run back to the board every time they want to paint a bus. That

is a part of the maintenance program. It was their decision to paint

the bus. If it helps the member, let me assure you that I don't

interfere with the painting. If I had interfered with the painting, it

wouldn't be an orange bus; I would probably have preferred a beautiful

green. I'm partial to green.

MR. BARBER: A Social Credit green. Subtle propaganda there.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

A Social Credit green, yes, but green is a progressive colour. I've

been in the nursery business for years. I came to this country as a

little boy. We arrived on a Wednesday, and on Thursday morning I was

hoeing the daffodils, and they were green and yellow. I've been

associated with green ever since. I'm very grateful to British

Columbia, which is why perhaps I'm in the Legislature today, because it

gave me opportunities in the nursery industry like I might not have had

anywhere else in the world. Now I've got all my kids and my wife

involved in the nursery, so I'm partial to green.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm explaining the colours.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, could I have you associate your remarks with vote 156. The committee would appreciate that.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister then if Mr. Levett, being the

consultant in maintenance and such, was consulted in terms of the

painting program and how that should be best done.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I really can't answer that, but quite frankly, since PCL is a

quasi-government organization, I wouldn't be too surprised if in fact

they did ask a consultant about the colours. As a matter of fact, I

wouldn't be surprised if government called a study for everything.

Frankly, I'm trying to do whatever I can within my ministry and in my

role to minimize the number of studies, because I'm sick of studies. I

still remember, hon. member for Nelson-Creston, back in the days when

you were part of a government that wanted to buy everything that moved,

I think you needed a whole building to fill up with studies. No, I

wouldn't be surprised if they asked for a study, but I don't get the

point.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister

obviously knows who Mr. Levett is. He has very kindly informed me that

he is a consultant and that his expertise is in maintenance. He advises

on maintenance. I suppose when one of the major maintenance programs

was undertaken, I guess it would be logical that he was consulted. Fair

enough?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't know.

MR. NICOLSON:

You don't know? Well, Mr. Chairman, would the minister be able to tell

me how much it cost per bus to repaint the buses to change them from

PSL with Pegasus on them to PCL with a seagull on them? Just to repaint

a little stripe job, a little bit of cosmetic improvement.... How much

did it cost per bus to paint and repaint these buses? Does the minister

know that? Does the minister know where the buses were painted? It's a

pretty major undertaking.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr.

Chairman, I didn't know that we would have to get into all the details

about the colour of the paint on the stripe and whether they were

painted inside or outside, front or back, sideways or whatever. I

didn't know that we might get into all of this important discussion

this morning; otherwise I would have come prepared for the painting

discussion. As you are aware, hon. member, they have only painted or

repainted the buses as required, which is why you still see two or

three colours. You still see the green and the brown — or is it blue

and brown? They're not painting them all for the sake of painting them.

They did have to remove the flying horse insignia, because that was a

trademark of B.C. Hydro. They did have to remove that, and I understand

they quickly did so on all of the buses.

The repainting of

the stripe only takes place as required. I guess you're probably

looking at something like $1,500 per bus, when and as required. The

painting is being done in Vancouver if it's a Vancouver bus — they

don't run it to Victoria; and in Victoria if it's a Victoria bus — they

don't run it to Vancouver. That all makes sense, but I would agree that

they shouldn't suddenly rush out and paint them all. Some might say

that's how it ought to be. Possibly that's a matter of opinion.

Fortunately, in my opinion, they have taken the more sensible approach:

they're doing it as required.

[ Page 4867 ]

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Chairman, I'd rather hoped this morning that I could get more

information from the minister. I do want to get the information in this

House. Yesterday I was given information by Mr. Gordon Levett, former

owner of Levett and Co. — a body shop, now owned by Mrs. Levett — that

the paint jobs are costing from $7,200 to $7,500 each. Other comparable

stage lines are getting body work done in the neighbourhood of $2,000

to $3,000 for similar work — for instance, International Stage Lines.

I'm

coming back to what it says under industrial relations: a "lean"

company. This doesn't look lean to me. This looks fat. It doesn't look

nice. As a taxpayer and a legislator of this province, I don't like it.

I raise it in this House. But I don't like having to perhaps draw some

individual from outside this House into question because I cannot be

given answers. I'm not attacking Mr. Levett. I'm attacking a minister

and a system of command, information and direction between the minister

and this organization that cannot provide answers on what I see, on the

surface of things, as a severe conflict-of-interest situation. I ask

the minister if this is true. If Mr. Gordon Levett is providing

consulting services and if a body company in his wife's name is getting

the contracts to do repaint jobs, I would like the minister to bring us

information as to how many of the buses are being repainted and for

what cost by Levett's wife's company.

It makes me

particularly annoyed when I see that during the year independent

professional consultants were retained to conduct a study of the

organization — staffing, compensation for supervisors and management

positions in the company. But what have they done with their drivers?

These are the people who get you from downtown to downtown over the

ferry — first on, first off. They've been operating without a contract

since April 1979. I know there are problems with three or four

different unions being consolidated, but there's no honest report of

that.

We see this fancy, glossy document. I buy the numbers

in it, and that's all we need. We could have had them on a mimeographed

sheet duplicated right off one of our own Xerox machines in this

building. Lean? Look at this: full colour pictures of the parliament

buildings, the fort in Nanaimo and everything else. Good for how long?

From October to May. Who printed this? Is this some other consultant

who is farming things out to his wife's company? I think it is time we

had some straight answers about what is happening with PCL. The only

thing we know is that you've got a very low-morale labour situation

with the workers of that company. But you go first class when it comes

to putting out annual reports that only get read by a few MLAs and

maybe one or two people in the industry, and you go first class when it

comes to putting out schedules that are only valid for six months and

subject to change without notice. We put all of that into this and

these things just litter the streets.

I would like a

commitment from the minister that he will look into this situation. I

would like to know if the minister is willing to find out the exact

dollar figure per bus, and how many buses went to Levett and Co. and

how many went to other outside firms for painting or body work. I

understand that engines are transferred back and forth. Some are

repaired in a Victoria shop and some in a Vancouver shop, and so on for

other types of mechanical work. There is a standard of behaviour which

one can absolutely condone in terms of running a privately held

company, but when we're dealing with the money of the people of this

province not only must things be done in the most expedient way, but

things must always be seen to be done properly, and we must bend over

backwards to do so. On the face of things this is an example of an

abuse of public funds and public trust.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, I assure the member that I will follow up on all of the

things that he has suggested in the House. Naturally I am somewhat

disappointed because I must assume that the member would not have

raised it here today unless it came from a reasonably credible source,

yet he mentions as well that he is not in any way attempting to smear

Mr. Levett or anyone else and that he doesn't know whether it is all

exactly true. I can't say for certain either, but I do wish that if the

member knew about this yesterday he might have given me the information

yesterday so that I could have either provided the answers now or

prevented someone from being labelled or smeared when possibly, as the

member himself said, there may not be anything to it. I don't like to

drag people's names in here and make them appear to be rip-off artists

when possibly there is nothing to it at all. I do promise the member

that I will do the responsible thing. I think we might have dealt with

this more responsibly had I known about it yesterday when the member

knew, but I will do the responsible thing and I will certainly find out

about it.

MR. NICOLSON: Give me your home phone number; I'll phone you at 10 o'clock at night.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Any time. My home phone number is in the book. I answer my telephone,

and I'm available to the hon. member, as well as to my constituents,

any time.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I want to refer

to the reasons why our administration was involved in money-making

activities in the charter bus service. You see, the minister, who was

lucky enough to have a good partner in business, doesn't himself seem

to know much about business. If he knew much about business he'd know

about a principle within large corporations called cross-subsidy. He

would understand the following was one of the important reasons why our

administration was involved in providing charter bus service at a profit — in

order to subsidize those aspects of its other operations which worked

at a loss. That's the nature of a cross-subsidy. That was the idea

behind our arrangement, and it made good economic sense.

What

our government realized was that it's no longer justifiable to call

upon the taxpayer to subsidize every losing mass transit operation in

the province, but rather, within certain Crown corporations it is

appropriate to develop profit-making agencies so that through the

system of cross-subsidy the profits that would be obtained, in this

case within Pacific Stage Lines and Vancouver Island Coach Lines, would

be used to subsidize the losses of the other operations of the same

company — in that case, mass transit. That was the justification, the

reason and the good business sense behind it.

Now what did

this government do? Well, as usual, they played hypocrite and had the

Premier stand up and tell us that B.C. was not for sale, while at the

same time they turned around and sold off the profit-making arm of our

tour-bus operations to an American company. The American company is

Grayline of Seattle. Did the American company buy a loser when they

bought those aspects of our tour-bus system?

[ Page 4868 ]

Did

they buy a loser in order to lose more money themselves? Of course not.

They bought a winner which was making money and which continues to make

money. So when the government plays hypocrite and says B.C. is not for

sale and then in the same week turns around and sells profitable bus

operations to an American entrepreneur — over a proposal from Canadian entrepreneurs, by the way — you

have to ask what the real motive was. Well, apparently the motive was

to further discredit the valuable and necessary role of public

enterprise in the field of public transit.

Let me repeat:

the businesslike approach of the New Democrat administration was,

within a large public enterprise, to engage in cross-subsidy, wherein

the profit-making arm of one end of the corporation would subsidize the

losing arm of another called mass transit; thereby the company would be

in a better position generally to provide services. If this were not

the case, then we presume that the Grayline services would never have

been sold, because we can only presume that they were losers. We

presume as well that no American businessman would have picked up a

loser.

However, that is not the case. Once more the minister

tries desperately and wrongly to rewrite history. The minister has

completely misstated the philosophy and policy of the New Democrat

government. He has completely misrepresented the point of view held by

our government at the time. The point of view of our administration was

not to buy everything that moved, nor even to buy all the shrubbery and

flower companies in Surrey. We weren't interested then in that; we

aren't interested now. The minister, who is apparently not a very

practical businessman, does not understand how the profit-making tour

operations of one arm of the company, which were sold to Grayline to

continue to make a profit, could be used to subsidize the losses of the

other ends of the company, which provided, for, instance, public

transit on Vancouver Island, which has historically been a money loser.

The minister doesn't seem to understand that approach, and if he does

understand it to any extent, he appears to hold contempt for such a

sound, rational and businesslike approach to the public administration

of transit in this province.

Again I offer the question: if

Grayline of Seattle knew what they were doing, which we presume they

did, they knew it when they bought a money-making operation from the

government of British Columbia. The money-making operation that they

bought was used to hold down the losses of the money-losing side of the

public transportation systems developed and improved enormously by the

first New Democratic administration in this province. That's what it

was all about. Don't try to mislead the people by saying it was an

attempt to socialize everything that moved. You are wrong. You know you

are wrong, and you shouldn't misrepresent other people's arguments and

other people's records. You shouldn't do that. It's a false thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

First of all I would like to ask all hon. members to address the Chair

in Committee of Supply. Also, we cannot impute improper or false

motives to any other member. I am sure the member now on his feet is

aware of that.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, maybe I

should ask for a formal withdrawal from the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, who clearly imputed a false motive to our whole administration

when he said it was our policy to take over everything that moved, and

when he deliberately misstated the well-known record of New Democrat

argument and the good business reputation of those corporations.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Further, hon. member, you cannot accuse another hon. member of

deliberately misstating a fact. I am sure the hon. member is aware of

what parliamentary language is, and how all members are honourable in

this House. The accusation or imputation of deliberately misstating a

fact in this House cannot be accepted. The hon. member continues, I am

sure, in the tradition of good parliamentary language.

MR. BARBER:

As always, Mr. Chairman, and as articulately as I can, explaining to

the minister, who if he listens will not understand, or if he

understands will not correctly represent what he has heard.

was the policy of our administration, in a sound and businesslike way,

to subsidize the losses on public transit by the profits of tour

operations. That profitable side was sold off to American business.

That profitable side continues to make money for Grayline of Seattle.

Unfortunately we have now lost access to those profits; those profits

are no longer available to subsidize the massive and increasing losses

as the result of maladministration by Social Credit of Pacific Coach

Lines, formerly Pacific Stage Lines and Vancouver Island Coach Lines.

That was the reason for it, and I resent, reject and refuse the false

claims of those who would rewrite history and the well-known, publicly

stated and publicly provable reasons of the New Democrat administration

for engaging in those programs of public transit service. I don't know

how many more times we have to listen to this minister carelessly

misrepresent the record of the New Democrat administration.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You'll listen for a long time, man.

MR. BARBER:

I'm not going to listen to it from you any longer, because every time

you stand up and misrepresent the public record of the first New

Democrat government, we're going to stand up and correct you.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll let the world know that the socialists were the biggest disaster ever.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

At this point let me cite from Sir Erskine May, where he states that

"good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary

language." Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a

member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in

debate. I would also ask all members to address the Chair — which is

also contained in our standing orders — and remind all members that we

are in committee in the Legislative Assembly. If we could contain our

remarks to parliamentary language, the Chair would be most appreciative.

MR. BARBER:

As I was saying, the official opposition is sick and tired of the

misrepresentations of certain ministers of the Crown regarding our

policy when we were in government — not simply misrepresenting the true

case, authentic reasons and real purpose of the way we ran Vancouver

Coach Lines and Pacific Stage Lines.

[ Page

4869 ]

Let me refer to another misrepresentation made yesterday by a

certain unnamed Minister of Municipal Affairs who referred to an

electric train — I think that was the phrase he used about the trolley

that was purchased from Germany and brought over here. He said: "It

didn't fit on the tracks. You couldn't use it, and therefore you'd have

to sell it to a junk dealer." The lie was given to that by Robert

Bonner three years ago. Robert Bonner himself said that was a false

representation. We raised this matter — I'm a member of the public

accounts committee. Bonner said that the claims of those — at that time

the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, Hon. Mr. Curtis — who argued

that this particular vehicle would not fit on any tracks and was not

useful for any service were wrong. Robert Bonner himself said it was a

perfectly usable system, a perfectly usable vehicle. B.C. Hydro had no

problem at all with it. As a matter of fact it was then sitting on B.C.

Hydro railway tracks. I don't know why we have to continually be

subjected to the gross misrepresentations of certain ministers of the

Crown when we have people like Robert Bonner publicly — it was in the Province and the Sun — telling the truth. It

appears that that same truth, for political reasons, is not going to be

told by certain ministers of the Crown who continue year after year

deliberately — as Mr. Bonner pointed out — to misstate the technical

qualifications, criteria and specifications of that particular

purchase. I understand that the minister doesn't want to believe a New

Democrat, but he might at least believe Mr. Bonner, who said publicly

that Mr. Curtis was wrong.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please. If I can intervene

for just a moment, every member in this House and in committee stands

on his own statements. Sometimes the committee is asked to accept two

opposing statements, but the committee has to accept that. However, the

committee cannot allow terms such as "deliberately misrepresenting,"

because that is unparliamentary. I'm sure the member is aware that the

language offends the Chair. If the member can continue using

parliamentary language, the committee will be well served.

MR. BARBER:

I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that from time to time certain language

offends the Chair. I would hold that this minister offends the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I will have to ask you to withdraw that. You have imputed a false motive to another hon. member.

MR. BARBER: How can it be otherwise? I'm quoting from Mr. Bonner. I'll go get the press clippings.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the member withdraw the imputation of any false motive?

MR. BARBER: That the minister offends the truth? Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. BARBER: I'll simply point out that the minister avoids telling the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'll have to ask you to withdraw that one as well.

MR. BARBER: May I say that the minister has yet to tell the truth?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, imputations of false motive cannot be accepted by the

Chair. You are offending the rules of parliamentary debate. I'm sure

you're well aware of that and aware of all our standing orders.

Perhaps

I might point out another standing order: "Mr. Speaker or the Chairman

shall order members whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw

immediately from the House...." That is standing order 20, page 5. I'm

sure the hon. member is also aware of that statement. I ask the hon.

first member for Victoria to continue on vote 156, remembering, of

course, the standing orders I've just cited and the fact that one

cannot impute any false motive to another hon. member of this House.

MR. BARBER: Thank you for your helpful advice, Mr. Chairman.

I have said before, we are sick and tired of certain stories, which

happen to be completely wrong, insupportable, false, undocumented and

incorrect, about the strategies, policies and achievements of the New

Democratic government in the field of transit. It is a record which

was, until the time of its making and since the time of its conclusion,

unequalled for success, achievement and for positive, constructive

action in the field of transit. I'm sick and tired of hearing certain

people contradict Robert Bonner, who, I believe, told the truth when he

said publicly some three years ago that this particular railway

vehicle, this particular urban transit vehicle, was perfectly

serviceable and had no problem at all being used on their track and

could be made to work on any track in the province. Mr. Bonner himself

said publicly that those who were saying, otherwise were — let me be

charitable, Mr. Chairman — misinformed. I can only presume that certain

ministers of the Crown might, from time to time, listen to Robert

Bonner. Either they are accusing him of deliberately misinforming the

people, or they've not yet listened to that statement by Mr. Bonner. If

necessary, I will bring it into the House this afternoon. I well

remember it. Suddenly the minister is anxious to answer the question. I

have other questions for the minister.

What are Peter

Dueck's professional qualifications in the field of community planning?

What technical background does he have? What degrees does he hold? What

experience does he have academically or professionally in the field of

town planning, land use, urban geography or any of those related

disciplines? What professional or academic experience and

qualifications does Peter Dueck have to be responsible for the downtown

revitalization program of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs? Does he

have any business experience in it? Is he an architect? Is he a

developer? Has he done something or other that won a few awards along

the way? Does he have any reputation at all in the field of land use

and urban development? Did he win a prize from the Architectural

Institute of B.C. or from Heritage Canada? What is his record of

success in the field of downtown revitalization? How many marketplaces

has he built? How many Bastion Squares has he rebuilt? How many

Gastowns has he created? What kind of practical experience and

qualifications does Mr. Peter Dueck have in the field of urban

revitalization? What investments of his own money — not public money —

has he ever made in downtown revitalization? What track record does he

have as an academic or professional or businessman in this field? If he

has no track record of any of those three things, we presume the

minister will only repeat the rather vague and useless reply he made

yesterday, when he said that

[ Page 4870 ]

Mr.

Dueck is "smart." Well, I don't know how smart you have to be to be a

Socred these days, Mr. Chairman. You certainly have to have a lot of

gall to be a Socred these days. But "smart," I don't know. I'm not sure

I believe that one.

As well, I wonder if this same Peter

Dueck has been a fiscal agent for Social Credit in provincial

elections. I wonder if he has been a delegate to Social Credit

conventions from the Fraser Valley, where he currently lives.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Probably; I should hope so.

MR. BARBER: The minister is boasting about the patronage in his own ministry.

wonder if the minister could tell us what Mr. Peter Dueck is paid for

his services, what he's paid per day or per month or per year, or

whatever basis he's paid on. I'd like to know if it's the same Peter

Dueck who was recently a delegate to the greater Vancouver regional

conference of the Social Credit Party. I wonder if he's the same Peter

Dueck who has contributed to the Social Credit Party in the last four

provincial elections. I wonder if this Peter Dueck has any

qualifications at all for doing his job, other than being a good Socred

hack.

I've met Mr. Dueck, and I have no doubt that he's a

perfectly charming gentleman. He was certainly very polite to me. As a

human being, I'm sure he's a nice guy. He's probably a great husband

and father and plays soccer — I don't know. That's just fine, but it's

totally irrelevant to his qualifications for the job, which as far as

we can tell are zero.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think that's important too.

MR. BARBER: What — that his qualifications are zero? You think that's important?

can't find any record, but I'm happy to sit corrected that this man has

a degree in urban geography or land use, that this man has any academic

training at all for the field of urban and downtown revitalization. I

just can't find it. Maybe it's there. But, you know, we've asked around

before. We didn't hear any kind of answer yesterday. We don't expect to

hear one today, although I've put the questions again today in the hope

that the minister has done a bit more homework than we were able to do.

We can't find that he has these qualifications, but if he does, it

would nice to know. I'd ask for some proof, though. I'm not prepared to

take the minister's word for it. I'd like some proof in writing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the statement of all hon. members is accepted in this House, I'm sure...

MR. BARBER: It is accepted for what it's worth, Mr. Chairman. That's true.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...and all members' statements are honourable.

MR. BARBER: Until recently, this minister had a reputation for being

hard-working and for running an honest ministry that did not give out favours

to the boys. However, recently that reputation has begun to change. The minister

has now — it's getting around — become a bit lazy. He's just not putting

in the hours that he used to put in. He's getting a bit flabby and soft

as the bald spot grows at the top of his head. He's slowing down a bit,

you know.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. We seem to be having some problems here. We are on vote

156: the vote of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. We all know we can

discuss the administrative actions of the minister whose vote is before

us. We cannot make personal allusions against another hon. member, and

I'm sure the hon. first member for Victoria is aware of that, having

been warned so far by the Chair that we cannot impute false motives,

and he is aware of the citation about allusions...

MR. BARBER: False motives about a bald spot?

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...to an hon. member, and the member is also aware of standing order 20. The hon. member continues.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's amazing how easily provoked some of the folks opposite are. It's just amazing.

Anyway, the minister has had a reputation until recently for being really hard-working. The stories of laziness....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I....

MR. BARBER: Oh, come on, Mr. Chairman. Really!

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, I have cited the fact that we cannot make personal

allusions to another member in this House, and I'm sure the member is

aware of that standing order. Within the confines of debating the

administrative actions of the department, I will ask the member to

continue.

MR. BARBER: I am referring to his ability

to work energetically, with discipline, vigour and conviction on his

duties. If the official opposition has some evidence that the minister

is no longer working as hard as the people expect him to do, it's our

duty to tell that here in the Legislature and there to the people. It's

got nothing to do with whether he's a nice guy and raises good

daffodils. I'm talking about his ability, energy and vigour.

MR. CHAIRMAN: "The administrative actions of the department" is the key phrase.

MR. BARBER:

And "of the minister" is also part of the phrase, Mr. Chairman, as you

know because you've read it to me many times in the last day. May I

restate the questions? Then I have a few others on a couple of other

topics.

What are Mr. Dueck's academic qualifications? What

degrees does he hold? What training has he had in the field of urban

geography, land use, community planning and town planning? What

academic qualifications does he have to hold this job? If he doesn't

have those, what business or professional or technical qualifications

does he have to hold this job? It's an important job. Downtown

revitalization is a necessary and good thing. Hopefully the program

will be a thing that achieves some success. People in Victoria,

Vancouver and in other communities of this province are interested to

see whether or not the people in charge of that program know what

they're doing and are capable of doing it. So we're asking about Mr.

Dueck's qualifications for the job. There's no dispute as to whether or

not he's a nice guy who has a nice smile. That's not the issue. His

qualifications, if any, are the issue. I ask you again if it's the same

Peter

[ Page

4871 ]

Dueck who has been so heavily involved in Social

Credit politics for the last decade or two. Is it the same Peter Dueck?

Apparently it is, but I'd like confirmation of that. I'd also like to

know what he is paid. How much do the taxpayers pay for the services of

Mr. Dueck — how much per day, per month or per year? I'd like to know

what his expense account is too. How much is he entitled to claim for?

How much is he going to be paid that way as well as directly through

salary?

But I have a few other questions, a few other

topics. I'd like to join with my colleague for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms.

Brown), who raised the issue of blind persons being, for all practical

purposes, disfranchised from the public transit system in greater

Victoria — at least the system that they've known and come to enjoy and

appreciate and need in a unique, personal and definitive way. I've had

an opportunity to speak with people in Victoria who are associated with

the blind persons association, with the CNIB and with the Handicapped

Action Committee. They've made it very clear that they're extremely

disappointed with the decisions taken regionally and provincially to

disallow them and disentitle them, the way that they've been disallowed

and disentitled, concerning the availability of bus passes as they

previously enjoyed them.

Now the minister may stand up and

tell us, "Well, it's not my responsibility; it's Human Resources'

responsibility and the CRD or the GVRD," but the point is, once more,

that the minister can't have it both ways. He can't be responsible for

an Urban Transit Authority Act which provides for custom transit among

other things, which sets guidelines and establishes criteria — among

them financial criteria — and then turn around and tell us that he has,

however, no responsibility for ensuring legitimate access to all of

those services by handicapped persons — in this case visually

handicapped persons — in British Columbia.

Blind people in

Victoria, greater Vancouver and elsewhere, but certainly in the two

largest communities of the province, are, to say the least,

disappointed, frustrated and angry at the lack of leadership on the

part of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. They wonder why they've been

cut off. What have they done wrong? What was their offence? What crime,

socially, did they commit? Is it the crime of being blind in a Social

Credit province that means they get cut off? Is it the crime of being

handicapped in a Social Credit province that means they're disentitled?

Is it the crime of being unable to participate in the traditional ways

that sighted citizens can participate that suddenly means they are to

lose the benefits that they have traditionally enjoyed?

The

minister has an ability within the law to provide custom transit.

That's a good part of the act; it's a

part in that act which we

specifically supported, which we commend, which we're happy to see

money appropriated for, which we're happy to vote for every year. The

section of the Urban Transit Authority Act which provides for custom

transit for handicapped persons is a worthwhile and useful thing and it

has our complete support. The minister would have our support if he

brought into this House a budget estimate which allowed that

section of

the act to include providing custom transit services for persons who

are handicapped visually. He would have our complete support for that,

and he already has the lawful authority — we gave it to him when we

voted for that act some time ago. We're prepared to give it again if we

were granted an estimate that we might vote for, that we might amend in

a favourable way. As the Chairman knows, we've made a number of

amendments to estimates in the last few days to reduce waste and cut

fat from government expenditures. If we had an opportunity to do so, we

would vote for and amend an estimate which allowed us to improve the

financial capacity of the UTA and of this ministry to provide custom

transit services for the visually handicapped.

But once

more, in fact, we see that this government has a very different

priority. We see that this government is perfectly willing, as my

colleague from Burnaby indicated, to go from $25 million to $90 million

for Gracie's Slipper at Pier B-C — and not an ounce of cement has been

poured; not a brick has appeared. Nothing has been built, and the

estimates have gone from S25 million to $90 million. But, Mr. Chairman,

what have the estimates gone to for transit for the handicapped in this

province? Have they gone from $25 million to $90 million? Of course

not. Have they gone from $2,500 to $9,000? Well, not for the blind

people in Victoria they haven't.

The minister may once again

try to lay the blame on the CRD, and sure enough the CRD has some

responsibility here, and there are those who criticized it for the

policy that it has set. Fair enough, that may be a reasonable

criticism, and I don't dispute it. But we're not debating the CRD's

estimates here, Mr. Chairman. We are debating — in order, as always —

the estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is also

co-responsible for the provision of transit service.

May I

once again ask the minister another question, and it is this: is he

prepared to use his authority under the Urban Transit Authority Act, in

that

section describing custom transit services, to make available

funds to the UTA to provide either the bus pass, as it's traditionally

been provided blind persons in greater Victoria and greater Vancouver —

because they want to use public transit and, except for the fact that

their vision is impaired, ordinarily they have no other inability to

use public transit; ordinarily they don't require the use of the

kneel-lift or have to be escorted on board by the driver — is the

minister prepared to use his authority as it now exists to make

available from within his own estimates, as they're now before us,

sufficient funds to re-entitle blind persons in greater Victoria and

greater Vancouver?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

ask the minister this morning whether or not he's prepared to make that

commitment. I ask him as well again — together with my colleague from

Burnaby, our critic for Human Resources who has raised this matter on

many occasions and many other places as well — whether or not he's

prepared to reopen negotiations jointly with the Ministry of Human

Resources and with the Capital Regional District and Greater Vancouver

Regional District through the aegis of the UTA to make sure that the

entitlement provisions for custom transit services for the handicapped,

who must include the visually handicapped, shall be applied this year.

Blind persons in my riding are sick and tired of seeing disputes and

quarrels between regional government and the provincial government over

who shall provide. They don't much care, I guess, who does the

providing, as long as it's well and safely provided. They're not in the

least interested in the political disputes between the Ministers of

Human Resources and Municipal Affairs and the chairman of the Capital

Regional District, for instance. They don't care much about that, but

they do care a lot about the fact that they've been cut off as

citizens; they've been disentitled as citizens; they've been

disfranchised as citizens from the traditional access they've

[ Page 4872 ]

always had to public transit in greater Victoria and greater Vancouver.

I ask the minister again whether or not he is prepared to reopen

negotiations and to use his authority to provide custom transit under

the act he now administers in order that blind persons in the capital

city and in the largest city of this province shall continue to have

the access they are entitled to by right of citizenship. It's not just

a privilege; it's not just a handout; it's not just charity for those

poor blind folks. As far as we are concerned, it is a right of

citizenship, because they are here among us as citizens and are

entitled to free and personal access to every public service, which

includes transit — or at least has included transit until the recent

disputes began to occur. It is a right of their citizenship as

Canadians to enjoy the best possible access to public transit. That may

include custom transit or passes to conventional transit or both. It

must include leadership from the minister to make sure it happens and

these ridiculous and hurtful disputes end, and to ensure that blind

persons are re-entitled to access to public transit. They've earned it.

They deserve it. It's theirs by right of citizenship. We call on the

minister to grant it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr.

Chairman, I indicated to the hon. member earlier that I wanted to

respond to the question. I might have saved him a lot of time, which he

could have spent on something else, but I realize the importance of it,

and it gives me an opportunity to respond to the whole of the House.

Perhaps the information will be recorded and the hon. member might

refer back to it in future and save discussing it all over again.

British

Columbia regulation 51-80.... I'm very proud that the government has

taken such leadership in a variety of areas and especially in providing

transit for the handicapped. We have taken that leadership. The blind

person is specifically included in the custom transit services

agreement. It reads in part:

"The following

groups are designated as eligible for custom transit services: (

a) handicapped persons as defined under the guaranteed available income

for need regulations; (

b) a recipient under the Blind Persons'

Allowances Act; or (

c) persons who: (

i) have a disability, either

permanent or temporary, confirmed by a medical practitioner that is

sufficiently severe that the person is physically unable without

assistance to use a public passenger transportation service; and (ii)

have been issued an identification certificate by the authority. The

authority shall issue an identification certificate to persons who are

confirmed under subsections (1) and (2)."

So all of this is covered. The custom transit services are available to them.

I mentioned to the member, we are also discussing with the regional

districts the matter of the regular transit passes to all people. It is

a concern to me, and it's a concern to the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). That's why we have specifically met and lobbied

both regional districts. I would encourage the hon. members on the

opposite side to do similarly. It would do no harm for the hon. first

member (Mr. Barber) and second member (Mr. Hanson) for Victoria to make

representation to their regional district — as they have not done.

MR. BARBER: You're wrong.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I checked this very recently,

Mr.

Chairman, I also think that it's convenient to say on the one day that

the Minister of Municipal Affairs is centralizing everything, and on

the next day, when it's not convenient for them to talk centralization,

they say that though the regional districts are in control of bus

passes, fares, routes, regular stops and the like, all those sorts of

things ought to be decided upon — now it doesn't suit us; you'd better

change it. We've specifically assigned those responsibilities to the

regional districts. I would hope that the regional districts would

address the question of bus passes, as we've asked them to do.

The

hon. member mentioned B.C. Hydro and some statements made by Mr. Robert

Bonner. He was very kind to Mr. Robert Bonner, and that's very good. At

other times he's not been so kind to Mr. Robert Bonner.

Let

me say exactly what the difficulty was with the acquisitions in the

area of transit by the former NDP government. I mentioned yesterday all

of those derelict buses they bought from Saskatoon that could only be

used for parts and that had to be parked. That's a matter of record.

They similarly bought a train. The B.C. Hydro railway tracks are not

constructed or maintained to the tolerances required for passenger

service in these light rail vehicles that they purchased. So we had a

vehicle — a train purchased by the NDP — which was parked in a shed

from day one, because we would have had to construct a new set of

tracks. The existing tracks did not have the required tolerances. I

said simply: "It doesn't fit the track." I stand by that, Mr. Chairman.

But

I certainly think that ought to be told to the House, not only because

it's something that the socialists or the NDP did back in the early

1970s — they did many such foolish things — but also perhaps because

it's something all people might learn from. Sometimes we learn from the

mistakes we make. More often, I guess, we learn from the mistakes of

others. Fortunately, I have been able to observe a number of things

which were done during those years of the early 1970s. As I mentioned,

I will not go out and encourage government to buy a bunch of bus lines,

taxi services or all of these sorts of things. As I mentioned, anything

that rolled was a target for the NDP. I don't buy that. I still

maintain that private enterprise is far better able to provide a

service than a government — I don't care what government or its stripe.

The hon. member said: "We didn't only buy losers. We bought some that

made money, and they made up for the losers."

One of the

difficulties when you're dealing with government enterprise, as the NDP

proved so effectively, is that you can hide the costs and pass things

about. The hon. member, when he was discussing those so-called

profit-makers, didn't say that we had done an independent survey. We

had independent, reputable, well-recognized firms that have been

established here for 100 years look at all those operations. They

didn't have a winner in the lot. As a matter of fact, the buses running

to take British Columbians to Reno so they could gamble a while were

losing money on every passenger, and the taxpayers were picking this

up. You can't blame this government and this ministry for unloading and

dumping all those things the NDP bought that the government should

never have been involved with in the first place. Why should government

get involved, pick up everybody's losses and buy everything that rolls?

I say it should not. I'm against that sort of thing, and I'll repeat it

again to the hon. member if he wishes.

[ Page 4873 ]

I'm

sorry that the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) left the

House, because just a little while ago he made a former Victoria

resident appear to be a rip-off artist. Anyone left in the gallery —

they're my witnesses — certainly must have heard some of the things the

hon. member said. Obviously when they're said here, like anywhere else,

they're for publication. There are always those who, for philosophical

reasons or because they blindly follow a political party, will believe

regardless of what is said. The hon. member stood in the House, quoted

figures and made Mr. Gordon Levett appear to be some sort of a rip-off

artist. The hon. member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), who is

certainly a man of integrity, was jumping to get up in his seat, and he

said to me: "There's nothing disturbs me more than someone standing up

in the House and smearing a person in a way that they would not do

outside, or going somewhat on second-hand information." He said, "I

received this yesterday, and I believe it's true," and then he went on

to tell it.

I've just had my people check with the

principals of Pacific Coach Lines as to what Mr. Gordon Levett does or

how he's involved. Mr. Gordon Levett used to have a body works concern

right here in Victoria. He sold it some time ago, but it still bears

his name. His wife is not involved. After he sold it he went into the

consulting field and provided advice — because of his expertise and

experience — to various people. Pacific Coach Lines decided that they

wanted certain buses painted because they were due for this, in their

opinion. They called for tenders and the firm that bears Mr. Levett's

name, but with which he has no connection and hasn't had for some

considerable time, happened to be the low bidders and were granted the

works. That's no reason to make Mr. Levett appear to be a ripoff

artist. I'm sorry, and I'm pleased that I'm able to get this

information into the record.

Similarly, of course, Mr. Peter Dueck has been a little bit under attack.

MR. BARBER: What are his qualifications?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

The hon. first member for Victoria says: "He's a Social Crediter. He's

obviously been to Social Credit conventions." That's the sort of

starting point. Unless they're NDP they're somehow second-class

citizens. Unless they're NDP they should not be qualified or entitled

to become involved in providing a service to the community in whatever

capacity.

MR. BARBER: What are his qualifications?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Their politics do not make them second-class citizens. Could I or

should I go on? Should I stand here and harass the opposition members

about Jim Kinnaird having been made a Deputy Minister of Labour when

Mr. Jim Kinnaird was known to be a socialist through and through,

probably of the most leftist arrangement in Scotland — and here — and

very supportive of the NDP. They decided to appoint him Deputy Minister

of Labour. I must assume that they picked the man because they thought

he had a certain expertise. I don't fault them for that. I've never

faulted the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), whom I like

and think to be a very nice fellow, for having selected Jim Kinnaird, a

through-and-through socialist, to be the deputy minister.

I've

never faulted them for having picked a good friend of mine — a guy whom

I got along with for years in my own community, Jimmy Rhodes — for the

highest position in B.C. Hydro. Jimmy Rhodes had Fraser Printers. Jimmy

Rhodes admitted openly that what he knew best was running a little

print shop.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dave Barrett's roommate.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I agree, hon. member, he was also Dave Barrett's roommate at school for some time. But that didn't enter into it.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. members, to refer to members in the chamber by name

is not appropriate. Secondly, hon. member, I must advise that we are

debating the estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. While the

discourse is interesting, it certainly is not terribly relevant to the

minister's responsibilities.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, I'm really responding to the matter raised by the hon.

first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), when he questioned the

qualifications of Peter Dueck. He came out on the attack over the fact

that Mr. Peter Dueck was obviously a member of Social Credit and had

been to conventions. I think he even said that at one time he might

have actively worked collecting moneys for a party or campaign. I can’t

say this. but certainly I'm attempting to explain that in the selection

of Mr. Peter Dueck that was not the consideration — no more than I'm

accusing them of having selected Mr. Jimmy Rhodes, a friend of mine in

Surrey, on the basis of that consideration. He was a former MLA for the

NDP — it was then the CCF. Perhaps some CCFers would fault me for

comparing the two.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member stressed the importance of the academic qualifications.

I heard that word a half dozen times from the hon. member for Victoria. "What

are his academic qualifications? Is he an academic?" Again, a few sentences

after: "Is he an academic?" Well, frankly, if he were simply an academic.

I wouldn't have him, because I'm looking for someone who has some practical

experiences. Before I go into the qualifications of Peter Dueck — and I wish

to — I just want to stress that a little bit again. In my ministry I want people

who have some practical application as well, not simply people who carry a certificate

which says that they're some sort of an academic. I want with that some

experience, some knowledge.

The

hon. first member for Victoria said: "Oh, you're a hypocrite." I take

exception to that. He said: "You're lazy." I'm here much before that

hon. member is. I'm here long after he's gone home to play his piano or

gone to whatever club he attends. I'm here much more often than he is,

even though this is his constituency. Frankly, my experience came from

hard work and long hours seven days a week, and my business experience

came from hard work and long hours seven days a week. For that hon.

member, who has never worked a day in his life and has always lived off

government grants, to question that or compare it bothers me.

to the next thing, which is the qualifications of Mr. Peter Dueck. Mr.

Peter Dueck is 57 years of age. He's the retired owner of MSA Motors.

He took a course on urban land development. He has a degree at UBC. Mr.

Dueck went into the real estate business, where he had a staff of 10 to

20, and he was also in the residential land development business

[ Page 4874 ]

prior

to his retirement. Mr. Dueck is a man who has been extremely successful

in his life. He is a man who has worked long hours all days and has

been available whatever the call, whenever the call. The terms of

reference which Mr. Peter Dueck was given were: (1) the promotion of

the downtown revitalization program through personal presentations,

correspondence and the distribution of brochures and other materials;

(2) the explanation of the program, grant formulas and eligibility

requirements to prospective applicants or other interested parties in

person, by telephone or by correspondence; (3) the maintenance of a

continuous liaison with ministry officials responsible for the

financial and administrative operation of the program concerning the

extent of potential commitments, approvals or other matters of program

delivery; (4) the examination of applications and submission to the

ministry of recommendations thereon; (5) the submission of evaluations

on particular applications as received or signed; (6) the submission of

periodic reports on activities under the program.

Mr. Peter

Dueck has been with us something like seven or eight months. He has

travelled the province extensively and made all the details with

respect to the program available to 60 communities, their councils,

chambers of commerce, boards of trade or other community groups. He has

been extremely well received, and is well recognized, appreciated and

very much admired for his knowledge of the program by each and every

mayor I've ever encountered from anywhere who's had anything to do with

him during these last eight months. Peter Dueck has been working all

day, travelling late at night and in the early morning, and catching up

in his office in Abbotsford on Saturdays and Sundays. Would you believe

it, he's been doing that for $20,000 for six months. His indemnity was

$20,000 plus $18,000 for expenses, including secretary, travel and all

else — yes, the office as well. He's been providing a real service. He

has not looked to any continuing job in the program. We purposely did

not want to hire someone in the ministry. We felt we could instead take

a person who would serve on a month-to-month basis or for a six-month

period until the program ends.

I've covered all the topics, Mr. Chairman. If there are further questions I'd be pleased to try to answer them.

MR. KING: I'm going to be brief. I am certainly going to do my best

to watch the standing orders of the House to make sure that I do not indulge

in any unparliamentary language. It is difficult, though, to find the proper

adjectives to describe a minister of the Crown who consistently, in a very repetitive

fashion, stands up and gives information to the House which is totally inaccurate.

The

minister just stood up and said that Jim Kinnaird was the Deputy

Minister of Labour and that he was a well-known party member and

perhaps of the left-wing variety. The fact of the matter is, Mr.

Chairman, that Jim Kinnaird was never Deputy Minister of Labour in the

province of British Columbia. The minister is totally inaccurate.

With

respect to his concern about comparing the CCF with the NDP, he said

some people may resent that. Well, I want to tell the minister not to

worry a bit. If he can reconcile the transition he made from the

Liberal Party to that motley coalition, he doesn't have to worry about

any slight to the New Democratic Party about our past affiliation with

the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. That's a proud history and a

proud tradition. Many of us came from that party. We didn't jump as a

matter of convenience, burying our morality and our principles in some

other party, to a coalition that has no philosophy whatsoever, except

perhaps to stand up here and continue, despite all evidence, to put

improper information before this Legislature.

I repeat, Jim

Kinnaird was not Deputy Minister of Labour. For the minister's

information, James Kinnaird was the Deputy Minister of Labour under the

NDP and remained the Deputy Minister of Labour under Social Credit. I

understand he has just left in recent months to occupy a new position

with the Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations. He was the deputy

minister for the total NDP term in government, so the minister is quite

wrong.

These are just points I wanted to make in passing.

There are a couple of other matters that I wanted to direct to the

minister's attention. This poor Peter Dueck — I don't know the

gentleman. It's important for the minister to understand that the

opposition has a responsibility and a legitimate role to query the

government about the expenditure of public funds, whether it be to

retain an individual for consultation, and whether it be hiring policy.

There's absolutely nothing slanderous about asking for the person's

qualifications to ascertain that the taxpayers of the province are

receiving fair value for the output of public funds for salaries.

That's normal business. There's nothing implied in a slanderous way to

question whether or not an individual who happens to be a political

friend of the government is indeed qualified in some business,

professional or academic way. My colleague's questions were threefold:

whether he had business experience, professional credentials or some

practical background.

The minister is so defensive about

that that he stands up and makes a scattergun attack, saying: "Yes, the

man was a Social Crediter, so what?" Well, many Socreds are hired in

the public service — Bob Bonner, Ray Williston, a whole variety of

them. We're used to that. If they're intelligent people and have some

qualifications, we can live with that. We simply sought to find out

whether the individual actually has some qualifications that will be of

benefit to the public. The minister says he only makes $20,000 for six

months. Poor chap. Isn't that a shame. That $20,000 for six months is

$40,000 per year, if my arithmetic is correct. I'm not going to cry too

many crocodile tears for this friend of Social Credit, who the minister

says has a university degree. He didn't say in what. He might be a

veterinarian, for all we know. I don't know what he has a degree in.

I'm

not going to cry too many crocodile tears for this person who only

makes $40,000 a year, because there are certainly many British

Columbians out there in the community who wish they were anywhere near

that salary level. They are the ones being hammered and injured by the

onerous taxation policies of this government. We want to make certain

that, in the growth of bureaucracy under the Social Credit government,

all funds expended both for salaries and for programs are valid and

beneficial to the heavily burdened taxpayers in the community.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Curtis filed the report of the auditor-general for the year ended March 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

House adjourned at 12:13 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1981, 2001, 2011: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada