1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MAY 16, 1980

Morning Sitting

[ Page

2481 ]

CONTENTS

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Maplewood Poultry Processors Ltd.

Mrs. Wallace –– 2481

Routine Proceedings

Introduction of Bills.

Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 21). Hon. Mr. Nielsen.

Introduction and first reading –– 2481

Livestock Brand Act (Bill 32). Hon. Mr. Hewitt.

Introduction and first reading –– 2481

Special Purpose Appropriation Act, 1980 (Bill 5). Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Stupich –– 2481

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2481

Mr. Skelly –– 2482

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2482

Mr. Stupich –– 2482

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2482

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2482

Mr. Howard –– 2482

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2482

Mrs. Wallace –– 2483

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 2483

Mr. Hall –– 2484

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2484

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 2485

Mr. Skelly –– 2485

Mr. Brummet –– 2486

Mr. Hanson –– 2487

Mr. Brummet 2487

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2487

Mr. Skelly –– 2487

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 2488

Ms. Sanford –– 2489

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 2490

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 2491

Ms. Sanford –– 2491

Mr. Lorimer –– 2492

Mrs. Wallace –– 2492

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2492

Mr. Hanson –– 2493

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 2493

Mrs. Wallace –– 2493

Mr. Hyndman –– 2494

Report and third reading –– 2494

Forest and Range Resource Fund Act (Bill 6). Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Stupich –– 2494

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2494

Mr. Howard –– 2494

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2494

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2494

Mr. Stupich –– 2494

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2494

section 4.

Mrs. Wallace –– 2495

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2495

section 9.

Mr. Hall –– 2495

Report and third reading

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 2). Committee stage.

section 15.

Mrs. Wallace –– 2495

On the amendment to

section 15.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2496

Mrs. Wallace –– 2496

Mr. Howard –– 2496

Mr. Skelly –– 2497

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2497

Division on the amendment –– 2498

section 19.

Mr. Skelly –– 2498

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2498

Report and third reading –– 2498

Ministerial Statement

Complaint against RCMP.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 2498

FRIDAY, MAY 16, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

MRS. WALLACE:

In the precincts today is a grade 3 class from Discovery Elementary

School, in my constituency, together with their teacher, Lois Thompson.

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

MR. STRACHAN:

I would ask this House to welcome a former member of the Prince George

School Board, and a very dynamic contributor to the British Columbia

School Trustees Association, Mr. Chuck Truscott.

MAPLEWOOD POULTRY PROCESSORS

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 35 to ask leave to make a

motion for the adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of

urgent public importance.

The Maplewood Poultry Processors

have gone into receivership. One plant is inactive and the producers'

cheques are bouncing. The bank is not honouring them. Some Maplewood

producers have been told by Cargill that they will not take their

products. The reason, apparently, is that those producers spoke out in

opposition to the takeover.

It is estimated by FIRA that it

will take a minimum of 30 days before they can reach a decision on any

second application relative to the Cargill takeover of Maplewood.

therefore ask leave to move, seconded by the member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich), that this House do now adjourn to discuss a matter of urgent

public importance, namely the emergency facing the poultry industry in

British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members,

without prejudicing the member's case, I will take the matter under

review and get back to the House at the earliest opportunity.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Speaker, speaking to your ruling, I have just sent you a list of my

reasons for introducing this motion. I would urge upon you the urgency

of the matter. I would remind you that when I raised a similar matter

earlier, your ruling was that it was urgent, it was emergent, but that

my motion was argumentative. I have tried very hard to make this not

argumentative.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair will endeavour to get back to the House on the matter at the earliest opportunity.

Introduction of Bills

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Nielsen presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill 21 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.

LIVESTOCK BRAND ACT

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Livestock Brand Act.

Bill

32 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.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I file answers to questions standing in my name on the order paper.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I request leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 5, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL PURPOSE

APPROPRIATION ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 5; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

section 1.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, there are 17 subsections in

section 1. I don't suppose we

can direct anybody, but I think it might have some semblance of order,

if we're going ask questions on any of these, to start at the top and

work our way down. I'd like to start with subsection (

a) and ask the

minister what the average rate of interest is that's being paid on this

debt of $235,347,790.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman,

while I am prepared to answer a number of questions and have been well

briefed, I do not have that information immediately available. With

respect to the general comments that the member for Nanaimo made, he

will note that my colleagues are here to answer questions — as I

indicated yesterday — with respect to those matters that are within the

jurisdiction of a particular ministry.

MR. STUPICH: I

can appreciate that the minister is not able to answer all of the

detailed questions that might be asked, and I don't mean anything

critical in that at all. I want to confirm or deny these debts are all

owing to government controlled and administered superannuation funds?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would believe that to be the case.

MR. STUPICH:

Could I just follow through on this a little more, Mr. Chairman? Maybe

this would be more appropriate under the minister's estimates, but

there was some discussion as to exactly when this debt arose. I wonder

whether the Minister of Finance can tell us when the government first

borrowed money that is included in this sum of $235-odd million.

[ Page 2482 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the debt, the provision in this bill is

the second annual instalment. While I was not the minister one year

ago, I recall that the first instalment was paid, I think, on May 1,

1979. The proposal here was that this instalment would be paid

effective May 1, 1980. Clearly, we do not have legislative authority

for that precise date, but this is instalment number two of a projected

ten to retire the debt.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman,

this point is not a question. If we get to discuss the estimates of the

Ministry of Finance, can I just say that some of the questions that

have already been asked and others along the same line will be asked at

that time. Now the minister has some warning so that he may be prepared.

MR. SKELLY:

I'd just like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. The bill

says the money within this bill is being appropriated for special

purposes. Obviously the government will have something specific in mind

in appropriating these funds. I am wondering what the specific purposes

are that the $100 million is being devoted to that will be given to the

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. McClelland). What are

the specific projects?

HON. MR. CURTIS: This relates

to a comment which I made yesterday just before the vote on second

reading of Bill 5 was taken. I would think that the Minister of

Highways would be able to assist to the extent that he is able in terms

of any part of his total allocation this year. Mr. Chairman, I look to

you for direction, but it would seem to me that in committee stage any

member of the House is permitted to take part and, therefore, any

member of the treasury benches.

MR. SKELLY: Mr.

Chairman, may I direct my question to the Minister of Transportation

and Highways, as we will not have an opportunity to do this under the

minister's votes since I understand he's only allocating $209 million

at that time for capital, and this is totally separate from the

projects that would be included under the minister's capital budget for

highways that we'll be discussing in estimates. I wonder if the

minister, at this time, will give us a specific breakdown of how these

$100 million are going to be spent for capital projects under the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways in this year.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, before the minister answers that question I might add

that some of the ministers responsible for spending moneys under some

of these sections are not here at the present time, and I would hope

that when we discuss their ministerial estimates there will be an

opportunity to ask and to have answered questions about their total

expenditures, even though the House has already dealt with it in

principle and in detail in this bill.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

The hon. member has raised a very valid point. One person, the Minister

of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), is not

here today. I agree with your suggestion; that can be discussed in his

estimates.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, to further

assist members opposite who have questions, my limited experience in

this House suggests that debate in estimates is very far-reaching and

covers a great deal of territory within a minister's responsibility.

Whether $100 million is allocated in this bill — and I realize that my

colleague may indeed wish to rise in a moment or two — and a

significant sum in main estimates, there has never been.... When I

referred yesterday to the Special Funds Appropriation Act brought in

during the years 1973-74 by members opposite, most of whom were members

of that government, there was certainly no limitation at that time in

estimates to restrict discussion of areas of activity or responsibility

already dealt with in a bill. I think the Journals of the House would show that very clearly.

We have a friendly atmosphere this morning. We are attempting to assist and I think that we can.

MR. HOWARD:

There is a generally friendly atmosphere which prevails, subject to

sometimes when it doesn't. Generally speaking a friendly atmosphere

prevails. I'm speaking in broad, general terms. We do face a certain

difficulty, Mr. Chairman. I realize that what the Minister of Finance

says is a very generous statement and so on, but if we get to the point

— and who knows this? — in dealing with estimates later on where

someone, anyone, wants to persist, and the Chair keeps the debate on

transportation and highways estimates rigidly and precisely to the

amounts that are in there, we very easily could find ourselves — even

though our generosity now may be to include everything — not able to

come back and discuss this because somebody in the committee at that

point in time says, "we've dealt with that," and so on.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Why don't we just get through it today and put the whole thing in estimates?

MR. HOWARD: That's the way it goes.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. members. This is not the forum to debate

arrangements that should be made outside the House. The member for

Skeena has the floor.

MR. HOWARD: That was the point

that was made during second reading — that it seemed inappropriate to

lump matters in a bill of this nature which should properly be in the

estimates. If we find ourselves making a decision now that denies us

the opportunity later on to examine those specific items, that won't be

very fair to anybody.

I submit the thing to do might well

be.... I'm sure we're not going to range over every constituency and

every backroad and every pothole that exists on this up to $100

million, but we could have some kind of enlightenment as to what that

$100 million is for.

HON. MR. CURTIS: To restate the view of the government in this regard — and it has been very clearly stated by the House Leader — may

I, for example only, refer to the fact that in the Special Funds

Appropriation Act, 1974, totalling some $140 million, which was

assented to on May 3, 1974, among the items presented at that time was

$35 million under

section 1(

h) to establish a fund in the provincial

treasury to be called the Ferry Capital Expenditures Fund. I clearly

recall that there was broad discussion at the time of the then Minister

of Transportation, Communication and Highways' estimates, quite apart

from the fact that there was a specific

[ Page 2483 ]

allocation

in a bill. So I think there's ample precedent in our House to permit

that to carry on, and again I would refer to the fact that the House

Leader has given the government's commitment.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, if I could just for one moment.... As all hon. members

are aware, on the first vote of the minister's estimates there is

wide-ranging scope of debate covering the entire administrative

responsibility of that minister. Certainly any debate that covers the

specific minister would be in order at that time. If that is any

assistance at all to the members, fine.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, this may all be very fine, but here we are with $100

million for highways. The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon.

Mr. Fraser) is sitting across the floor. The Minister of Finance told

us during second reading that we would have an opportunity to question

the various ministers. This could all be resolved very easily if the

Minister of Transportation and Highways would simply stand up and tell

us what he is going to use this $100 million for.

HON. MR. CURTIS: He's waiting for his turn.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, that's fine. If he's prepared to get up and tell us, that will resolve the problem.

HON. MR. FRASER: I appreciate the member for Cowichan-Malahat sitting down so I can stand up.

Dealing

with Bill 5 regarding transportation and highways, there are two items

in this bill. One is $100 million for highways and the other is $3.4

million for a local airport assistance program.

Dealing on

the broad scale, I think I'd like to tell the committee that an amount

is in the estimate books for the highways

section of my

responsibilities. There's about $207 million under the item capital.

But I don't think I should explain how the ministry operates. It always

has for years; there's nothing new. Basically the highways

section

breaks down into two sections of votes — capital and maintenance. There

is around $160-odd million for maintenance. We have the capital side

this year at some $206 million or $207 million. I haven't got my

estimate book here. As well the $100 million that is in Bill 5 augments

only the capital side of the highways budget. So we wind up with a

total capital budget for '80-81 on approval by the Legislature of some

$308 million.

You say: "Well, what's the capital budget?"

The capital budget is for major construction. The engineer is calling

it grading contracts, which are rebuilding existing roads or building

new ones. All this work is done by contractors. It further breaks down

into paving projects, which is a separate division in the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways, and all the money for paving comes out of

capital.

The last two items and the biggest problems we have

are acquisition of rights-of-way and bridges. We could spend $1 billion

this year alone on bridges. That is what makes up the capital side of

the highway budget. I guess what I should tell the committee is that in

my eyes we're dealing with one-third of the capital budget of the

highways

section of my ministry in Bill 5, specifically $100 million.

It's spread over bridges, paving, construction and reconstruction.

MRS. WALLACE:

The minister has indicated that he has $207 million in his estimates

for capital expenditures. I've had some experience with budgeting and

when you prepare a budget for $207 million, that's the total of various

items that you have included in that budget to come up with the $207

million. We're putting $100 million on top of that. Surely the minister

must have had some idea or some notion of what he was going to spend

that $100 million on. That's what we're asking today. We don't want

every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed, but we want to know if this is

going to mean that we're going to get an extra overpass for school

children somewhere. Is it going to mean that there's a certain road

somewhere that's going to be repaved? There must have been some kinds

of studies or work done to come up with this figure of $100 million for

highways. Surely if this government has any responsibility in its

budgeting procedures, that would have happened. This is what we would

like the minister to tell us, and that is what he hasn't told us.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I shouldn't be the minister that is doing this, but the MLAs,

particularly on that side, need a little education in budgeting and

government policy. Last fall, I think, the Highways ministry originally

asked for $1 billion for 1980-81. Then we appeared before the very

efficient budget process this government has. It decides what is going

to be awarded to every ministry, including this one. It further

decides, I might say, how those funds are going to be allocated. I

appreciate all the cooperation we've had from Finance and Treasury

Board, but they have decided this year that the capital budget of

Highways will be approximately $308 million — $208 million in the

estimates of the ministry and $100 million provided out of Bill 5.

Certainly I don't want the member going away saying that we don't know

what we're doing. We certainly do, and we worked nine months on it

prior to it ever being resolved. That is the system that is followed.

MRS. WALLACE:

If that is the system that is being followed, then what are the extra

things you're going to do? You have an extra $100 million.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Chairman, if you want me to be specific, I should maybe tell the

lady.... To get into specifics in her riding, I wonder who paid for the

two bridges we put in your riding. They still have to be paid for. They

are built and the cars are using them — right in Duncan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: The taxpayers.

HON. MR. FRASER:

That is correct, but we have those contracts on a continuing basis.

They roll over from one year to the next, and we must, when the work is

completed, pay for them. I might say that, much to my dissatisfaction,

those two bridges were just recently completed. I can assure you that

some of the funds here are probably to pay for them. Once the work is

completed, that doesn't mean to say they are paid for, but we have a

legal commitment with a contractor to pay him when he's completed.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the two new bridges. It took a long time to build them. I know they cost a lot of taxpayers' money.

Is this what the minister is telling us: that if he doesn't get this extra $100 million, he doesn't have enough money to pay

[ Page 2484 ]

contracts

that were let some two or three years ago in his capital estimates?

What kind of budgeting is that, that in his regular capital estimates

he doesn't include enough money to cover two bridges for which the

contracts were let some two or three years ago? Really, I just can't

buy that.

HON. MR. FRASER: Of all things, we don't

need any lecturing about budgeting from that side. When we let

contracts in this ministry, some of them spread over three years, we

have to protect, through the budget process, what we call the progress

payments. That is what it is all about. Our contracts don't start in

the spring and end in the fall. A good example is the two bridges in

your riding. We had no end of trouble. The contractors had trouble.

There are lots of new things, and the work is on a continuing basis.

want to emphasize that we have a legal contract with the contractor, a

commitment from the government of British Columbia. We entered into

that in the original instance. I'd like to tell you that if we don't

pass our estimates and get on with it, it could well be — if that's the

wish of this House that we'll shut the work down. It is as simple as

that.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

members, order, please. If more than one member is speaking there is no

way we can have orderly debate in the House. The debate at the present

time is between the Minister of Highways and the member for

Cowichan-Malahat. I would ask all other members to respect that debate.

MRS. WALLACE:

As I understand the minister, he has said that he has these ongoing

contracts that he has to honour. I understand that he didn't include

them in the $207 million, and he's going to pay them out of this $100

million that we are debating today. This particular clause that we're

talking about talks about an amount not exceeding $100 million for

accelerated highway construction. Paying back-debts for which there is

no money provided doesn't seem to me to be an accelerated highway

program.

I am just completely at a loss as to what this

minister is going to do with that $100 million. I don't think he knows.

I think he is going to use it wherever the spirit moves, where he

thinks it is perhaps a good political place to build a road, or where,

for some reason.... He has this extra $100 million and he's going to

dump a little bit here and a little bit there with no plan, no

foreknowledge of what he is proposing to do here. I just don't

understand how this government is operating.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Chairman, I rise in my place to take issue with an answer that was

just given on this bill: that if we don't pass this bill, work won't be

done; and, further, that if we don't pass the estimates, work won't be

done.

I want to ask a question of the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis). ls it not a fact that we have passed interim supply

in this House? Is there any reason at all why work isn't progressing

already in this province — in all departments of the government? Is it

a fact, as I understand, that some departments are saying interim

supply has not been passed? Is this the kind of thing the government is

encouraging the public to imagine and to think — that, because there is

discussion of bills like this in estimates, there is some holdup in the

money supply?

I consider that reply by the Minister of

Transportation and Highways to be incredibly bad and, in fact, a threat

to this Legislature. We passed interim supply. We passed it in one day.

For you to stand in your place and say things like that is really a

very, very poor response by a member of this House — and one who has

been here as long as you have.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr.

Chairman, the hon. second member for Surrey has directed a question to

me. To the best of my ability I will attempt to answer and to summarize

precisely where we are. Yes, it is correct and it is a matter of record

in this House that interim supply has been passed for some three months

of the fiscal year commencing April 1, 1980.

It is not up to

me to attempt to interpret the remarks of a colleague; but it is the

kind of observation that is made frequently and is made, I believe,

with the best of intentions. Indeed, the Minister of Transportation and

Highways referred to the Treasury Board process of late last year, and

the shopping list, if you will, from that ministry for work which was

considerably in excess of that which has finally been authorized by the

government side and eventually will be authorized by the House in those

estimates.

I think it is a matter of historical fact in

British Columbia that more money can always be spent in the highway

system — on bridges and all the infrastructure associated with our

highway system — than is made available by any government, regardless

of its particular stripe. Therefore, when it was determined that

additional money could be allocated through this bill, clearly the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways was then able to return to its

earlier list and add that portion of its projects.

interpretation of the remark by my colleague the minister just a few

moments ago is that it is indeed the kind of remark that would be made

by any minister under any circumstance. If, ultimately, the Legislature

in its wisdom decides to reduce the total amount of money available,

through main estimates or through a bill of this kind — again,

indicating to the committee that this bill is not unique; it is not

something new — then that work which is no longer authorized will not

take place. It is as simple as that. It simply won't be done. That, I

think, is what my colleague clearly meant, in terms of shutting the

work down.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There are some aspects of the appropriation in this bill — I am moving away,

just for a moment, from the $100 million which is allocated to my colleague's

ministry, Transportation and Highways — where the government is clearly concerned

that it might not be possible to accomplish the work this year. Mr. Member,

that is not a threat. It is a straightforward observation. I don't think

we are in a serious situation yet, but there is some concern in some ministries.

I have to remind members again that the bill was introduced on March 11; there

was lengthy and extensive debate over many days prior to second reading yesterday,

May 15, and committee discussion today.

MS. SANFORD: You didn't have one answer.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm sorry, I didn't hear your interjection, Madam Member. It may be possible for me to respond later.

[ Page 2485 ]

The

statement was not made as a threat by any representative on this side

of the House or by any member of the government; but clearly, without

the legislative authority for some aspects of this bill, certain

activities cannot be undertaken.

MR. HALL: In

response to the reply by the Minister of Finance, I think the Minister

of Finance knew full well what the Minister of Transportation and

Highways said, and I don't think he really addressed himself to that

remark. The fact of the matter is that he knows, as I do, that the

legislative process here, which passes the estimates with the majority

over there, is going to make little or no difference to the amount of

money voted for in these pieces of paper that appear in front of us. If

indeed there is any substance to the last two or three sentences the

Minister of Finance delivered unto us, then why didn't he call the

session in January? Why did we only meet 40 days last year?

There

is in this

section alone an item of $5 million that appeared in front

of us in exactly the same form last year. You've not spent a nickel of

it. It's been in a piece of paper on my desk in 1979, and they didn't

spend a nickel or do a program. They didn't do anything at all. It's

back here as $5 million for the same program and has twice the

publicity for the same expenditure of no dollars. You're not pulling

the wool over anybody's eyes with those kinds of circumlocution

exercises from that side of the House.

I want to tell you,

Mr. Chairman, that I'm very concerned over the fact that the Minister

of Highways inadvertently let slip a Freudian slip about what he really

thinks is going on and what he thinks should perhaps filter out through

the revolving doors of this chamber to the public — that somehow the

discussion of estimates is slowing up work outside in the province. I

want to nail that right down, right here, because I've heard it before.

We've had delegations here saying that they've heard that. It's

absolutely incorrect. If any member of the cabinet benches over there

has indicated in any way at all to delegations asking for money, people

looking for grants or for the normal day-to-day supply, that there is

anything at all to do with discussion of estimates — that our presence

here is holding any of that business up — that is wrong, and should be

corrected. It's a disgrace that that should even be allowed — even

inferentially be said. I really can't tell you how upset I am to hear a

minister who we've all had a great deal of respect for inadvertently

let that slip across the floor of the House.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to reply to the second member for Surrey. He

seems to be a little exercised about some of the facts of life. I would

like to address it this way as well, regarding estimates and the

procedures and so on for them. The Minister of Finance referred to the

fact that we've been talking about this one bill since March 11. Today,

I think, is May 16. I won't go into estimates, but I'd like the members

to look at it in the light of trying to run a ministry. He made a

strong point about interim supply. I'm as aware as you are that we

passed interim supply, but do you know that we passed interim supply

for one-quarter of the total estimates of this government for the

twelve-month period?

MR. HALL: Bring in another bill.

HON. MR. FRASER: Just a minute now. You had your say and tried to twist

things up. As a minister of this government I want to tell you that our budget

in Highways will not be spent — more than one-quarter of it — in April, May

and June of this year. You know that as an ex-minister. That's the responsibility

of a minister of the Crown.

want to emphasize another thing: how it impacts on Highways. The only

time we've got in the majority of the province to do our work is in the

summer months, starting in April, May and June. Then it freezes up —

where I come from, for example, in October — and then you have a

balloon effect on construction, really throughout the whole province.

The lower mainland has inclement weather in the winter, and that's what

I'm saying. It does impact on this ministry — the interim supply.

Certainly that's authorization, but we can't go beyond that in the

quarter. We're in our best building time and most economic time for the

people that pay the bills. Certainly we are restricted on that basis,

because this Legislature is the boss. I want to bring the point out

that we can't spend the money other than for maintenance in the winter

months, October through to March or April. That compounds our problems.

MR. SKELLY:

I understand the difficulty that the minister has in organizing his

construction programs over the year. But it is the government's

prerogative to call business whenever they choose to call it. The

government can set their own priorities. They could have called the

estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways weeks ago.

Instead they chose the Minister of Agriculture or the Premier. They

were not concerned enough about the budget of the Minister of Highways,

and the fact that his program should have been begun long ago, to call

his estimates first on the line. Possibly the minister doesn't have

that much clout in cabinet. It's obvious if his budget was cut down

before Treasury Board from $1 billion before treasury board to whatever

it is now. That is not the fault of this opposition.

Any

delays, any problems with the minister's budget are the responsibility

of the cabinet, the Treasury Board and the Premier, because we don't

tell this Legislature when they can call a particular minister's

estimates. That's decided by the government House Leader and the

Premier, not by this opposition.

Mr. Chairman, we are asking

a simple question of the Minister of Transportation and Highways. He

went to Treasury Board with a proposed budget. He must have had

specific projects in mind under his capital budget. The Treasury Board

chopped his budget down. He's now been given an extra $100 million.

We're wondering, in a responsible way, before we pass these estimates,

Mr. Chairman, what the $100 million is for. What are the specific

projects that this $100 million is designed to cover?

look at a province like Saskatchewan. Every year, prior to the

consideration of the minister's budget, we get a list of the projects

that are going through in Saskatchewan that year, provided those

estimates are passed. A list comes out. They even send them out here to

British Columbia. We know more about their highways programs when

they're discussing estimates than we know about our own.

What

we're asking is a simple question of the minister. What projects does

he have in mind for this $100 million? Does he want us to vote him a

$100 million blank cheque? Is that why the people of his constituency

sent him to Victoria? Is that why the people who elect these members

sent them to Victoria? Well, I'll tell you, the people in Alberni

didn't send

[ Page 2486 ]

to Victoria to vote a blank cheque for the Minister of Transportation

and Highways. I'll tell you something else, Mr. Chairman — if they

don't even vote the estimates for the Minister of Transportation and

Highways, it won't make any difference in the construction projects

that take place in my constituency. At least it won't represent a

decrease. We want to know if there's anything in Alberni, for the first

time, out of this Minister of Highways. We've had accidents involving

children. The roads are unsafe. They're deteriorating. The Highways

department employees' morale is bad in Alberni constituency.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY:

That's absolutely right. They've been told that if they had returned a

Social Credit member they would have got the price. If they had

returned a Social Credit member they would have highways now. It's a

system of electoral blackmail that we've been used to in this province

under the Social Credit governments time after time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair cannot allow a comment like that. We are in Committee of Supply. The member is....

MR. SKELLY: We're not in Committee of Supply, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

We're in committee, and I would ask the member to withdraw any

inference to blackmail, if the member would please do that. The word

is....

MR. SKELLY: I don't think that's out of order,

Mr. Chairman. Perhaps you could define the term for me. If you tell a

group of voters that if they don't return a certain member they're not

going to get highway projects in their riding, how do you define that?

If a member threatens to resign from the Legislature and decrease the

government's majority in order to get a bridge project in his riding,

what do you call that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair has simply asked you to withdraw that comment.

MR. SKELLY: I withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The member continues on Bill 5.

MR. SKELLY:

But in any case, Mr. Chairman, the opposition feels that if we don't

get an explanation from the minister, and if the minister tells us that

we should wait until his estimates are called before we get an

explanation of the funds we are voting in this bill, then perhaps we

should hoist the bill until such time as his estimates are called. If

that minister feels that it's important in order to complete his

construction and maintenance program, because of constraints of weather

and that kind of thing, and construction programs in the private

sector, then perhaps we should call his estimates today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you pass them?

MR. SKELLY: Well, let's find out. We don't even know what's in the estimates. We don't even know what's in this $100 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pass the bill and we'll get on with the estimates.

MR. SKELLY:

It was the Minister of Transportation and Highways who brought it up,

Mr. Chairman. He was in a panic about the fact that his budget wasn't

being passed, even though we have passed a quarter of his total budget

already. He's got all the money he needs up to June 30, and we've lots

more time, Mr. Chairman. Suddenly the Minister of Transportation and

Highways becomes so concerned he stands up in the House and says that

he needs all this money right now. Otherwise he's going to have to shut

off projects for the year.

The Provincial Secretary (Hon.

Mr. Wolfe) said that there were certain items in this bill that he was

concerned about, and if we don't pass this as quickly as possible, then

those projects may not go ahead this year. But he wasn't all that

specific. I'll tell you, he could probably get an agreement from the

opposition if he is concerned about those projects not going ahead this

year. He could probably get agreement from the opposition to split off

those projects from the bill, and we'd pass them right away.

would just like to ask the Minister of Transportation and Highways —

since we've been allowed to do that in the discussion of this bill —

what specific projects are contained within the $100 million.

MR. BRUMMET:

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add a couple of comments. Certainly

I can't comment on the broader scope of things, but I can perhaps say a

few words about what it means in my riding. When you talk about

projects in a riding such as ours where development is moving ahead

rapidly, we always have a very minimum program in road maintenance and

so on which just has to be done. We have another project that,

hopefully, we will get done under the regular estimates. Thirdly, there

are a number of projects that can go ahead if and when these extra

funds are passed.

Without getting into too much detail, it

takes a little while to gear up for these projects. In our area

contractors make themselves available. In some cases they lease

machinery. They have to have experienced operators. They cannot go

ahead with some of these extra projects until the extra funds are

available, so they have to let lapse these leases for machinery, and

they have to let their operators go. It's almost impossible, then, to

get them back and to get the program going this year. It is very

important for them to get moving. For instance, you cannot start a

paving program this August, regardless of whether the funds are

available, if you have not been able to do the proper base work to

prepare the roads for that paving program. In other words, the funds

for paving could well be available in September, but it is useless to

us because the extra funds for preparing for the base work, which were

not in the regular estimates, were not available at the time.

would like to point out one example that's been tossed back and forth,

the Sierra-Yoyo road, which many people comment on and few know

anything about. However, in the regular scheme of things the

Sierra-Yoyo road was to be completed over a period of years. There is a

great deal of evidence that as soon as that road is completed, it will

provide a great deal more investment. As soon as the first seven miles

and the bridge over the Snake River were put in

[ Page 2487 ]

last

year, the lease sales in that area increased greatly. This summer

several of the oil companies, on the prospect of this road being

completed this year, have left rigs in the area so that they can engage

in a summer program. Mobil is building 12 miles of road to connect with

this one, between the Sierra and the Yoyo fields — they are both

important gas fields. But that road is useless unless you can get in

from outside. As soon as it freezes in the wintertime in that part of

the country you can put roads anywhere. Surely the program cannot

start, in anticipation of what the Legislature might do, until that

money is available, regardless of what interim supply moneys are

available. This is an extra project. And if that extra project could be

completed, it would bring in a great deal of money. There are

contractors and operators; there are all of these things available.

Hopefully this road can be built. If you start in August, the rainy

month, you might as well forget the building — or else you build at

twice the cost. So it is important that this type of extra program gets

put in as quickly as possible.

I'm not to the point where I

understand this, but I know from people in the parks branch in my area

that there is an extra fund of $6.5 million for an extra parks program.

Apparently university students have been interviewed; they are on the

scene and ready to start work. They do not dare start these extra parks

programs. They are going on with their regular program, in anticipation

that the regular estimates will pass eventually, but they cannot start

some of these extra programs. Students out there right now have been

interviewed and are ready to go to work, but they can't go to work

until such time as they at least have a strong indication that the

funds for this extra work will be available.

Mr. Chairman,

it is urgent. While we posture and do all sorts of politicking here on

these things, there are people who are not working. There are projects

that will not get underway this year unless they get started in

adequate time. That is why I would appeal to all members of this House

to get these extra projects underway.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, with leave I would like to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I thank the hon. member very much. We have a large group visiting from

Surrey, and on behalf of the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) and

myself, I would like to introduce 55 students from Cedar Hill

Elementary School and their teachers Mrs. B. MacIlhargey, Mrs. Hodson

and Mrs. Gibbs. I would ask the House to give them a big welcome and a

wish for a good day in Victoria.

MR. HANSON: Mr.

Chairman, I have just a couple of questions. I listened with interest

to the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet). He seemed to know

some of the projects that are earmarked here in this $100 million

special appropriation. I think it would assist the House, because we

cannot seem to get specific answers on projects from the minister, if

perhaps the member for North Peace River could identify those projects

in his riding, and then we could canvass each member in the House as to

the specific roads and projects in their own individual ridings.

MR. BARBER: Socred members.

MR. HANSON:

We could do the Socreds first, because on this side of the House we're

completely unaware of any projects in our own ridings, but obviously

the members opposite are. I would be happy to sit down and ask the

member for North Peace River if he could specify those projects, and

then we could go through each individual member.

MR. BRUMMET:

Briefly, Mr. Chairman, the member chooses to deliberately

misunderstand. There are perhaps — let us use an example, and I don't

know the figure — 75 miles of road that can be dealt with, if we have

the regular estimates passed. If we have the extra money passed, 100

miles could be done. Now which particular road is given priority in the

area.... We either do more of those roads or we do less of them,

depending on the funds. So I can't be specific about the projects, and

I suppose it's to your advantage to choose to misunderstand that in

that way. There are a lot of projects that could be underway but that

won't be underway, unless the extra funds are available. We've got ten

times as much road work to do as will be available in the regular

estimates and or any extra funds, so it's just a matter of which ones

you pick.

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

to thank the parliamentary secretary for highways for that information;

that is of assistance to us. Thank you.

MR. BRUMMET: You can be smart if you like; I'm concerned.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who is not in his

place at the moment, asked earlier today with respect to the placement

of the funds, and I said I did not have a list at that time for the

record. For his information, if he wishes to check later.... The

account names, with respect to the first clause in this bill, are: the

Land Registry Assurance, the B.C. Regional Hospital District Financing

and Sinking Fund, the B.C. Hydro Sinking Fund, B.C. School Districts

Sinking Fund, the British Columbia Railway Sinking Fund, the B.C.

Greater Vancouver Sewerage District Sinking Fund, the General

Improvement Districts — which would be a collection of them, of course

— and the Public Service Superannuation Fund. I hope that is of use to

the member.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to

express my appreciation to the Minister of Finance on behalf of the

member for Nanaimo and on behalf of the opposition for giving us the

specific details that apply to

section l(a). Unfortunately, for all of

the rest of those subsections, we haven't had any specific detail.

There

should be adequate time for the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Fraser).... Surely some explanation was made to him, when this extra

$100 million was placed in his budget, as to what the extra $100

million was for. Surely there was some request that went out from the

Minister of Highways to the Treasury Board or to the rest of cabinet in

which he requested an additional $100 million for certain projects that

should go ahead this year, and somewhere in the minister's files there

should be that list of projects.

Now it appears that the

member for North Peace River has some general idea. He stood up and

insisted that he didn't have any ideas at all and that the second

member for Victoria was attempting to twist what he had said originally.

[ Page 2488 ]

But

I'm also aware, after consulting with the department in my riding, of

what projects are going ahead. There are two of them. One is to pave

the road between the city boundary of Port Alberni and MacMillan

Bloedel (Cameron Division); there is also another project in Ucluelet

that was subject to an agreement last year when the village extended

its boundaries out to Spring Cove — two small projects that are

virtually irrelevant to the problems in the riding.

HON. MR. FRASER: You're against them, are you?

MR. SKELLY:

No, I'm not against them. In fact, it took years of writing to the

Minister of Highways to get them approved in the first place. I'll

gladly table the correspondence.

The minister went out to

Ucluelet in January of 1980 — I thank him for advising me that he was

going out there — and he made a promise. He said he was going to

improve 15 miles of the west coast highway at a cost of about $2

million a mile, for a total of $30 million. Here is how he was reported

in the paper: "He promptly promised a safe and improved highway at $2

million a mile sometime."

I am wondering: is the $30 million

a part of this $100 million? If so, you've got my vote right now, no

questions about it. I am satisfied that I will have adequate

information if the minister will stand up in the House and say: "Yes,

money for that Tofino highway and all those unsafe hairpin curves is in

this budget." Something like a quarter of a million or a third of a

million people use that road in 60 to 90 days every year. The Pacific

Rim National Park is one of the biggest tourist attractions in the

province of British Columbia. It is one of the most important highways

in my constituency. Some of those curves are so dangerous and some of

the people using those highways are so unused to that kind of terrain

and that kind of highway construction that it is pretty unsafe

travelling. If the minister would stand up in the House right now and

say,"$30 million of this $100 million is going to that highway to serve

all those people from the rest of British Columbia who come to your

constituency," I'll sit down right now and you have my vote.

can't be bought off with a promise of "sometime." That highway is an

absolute necessity. The condition it is in right now is an absolute

disgrace. The condition that rural roads in Alberni Valley are in right

now is an absolute disgrace. I can't see any money in this year's

highway budget — under the estimates or in this $100 million — that is

going to upgrade those rural roads so that they'll be safer and so that

my constituents can feel safe and comfortable in travelling on those

roads. If the minister would stand up right now and say, "Yes, we're

going to expand that program to make those roads safer and more

comfortable to travel," then I am definitely in favour of this.

I'm

not going to vote, on a blank-cheque basis, $100 million for that

minister to spend money elsewhere in the province on an inequitable

basis. I simply can't do that, and my constituents have told me over

the last two or three weeks: "Don't let Pothole Fraser get away with

it." I am using their words, because they are concerned about the

safety of highways in the valley. I am just asking the minister now,

specifically: are any funds included in this $100 million for

improvements to the Port Alberni-Tofino highway or for rural roads in

the Alberni Valley?

HON. MR. FRASER: To the member

for Alberni: you're correct; I was in your great riding in January

1980, and I'm happy to tell you I was the first minister of the Crown

there for 29 years.

MR. SKELLY: Not so.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Well, that's what I was told. I drove on this terrible road you talk

about, from Port Alberni to Ucluelet and Tofino. I will agree with you,

sir, that that road needs upgrading, because it is a beautiful part of

our province and we have a lot of attraction there for tourism

specifically, and, of course, for the local people as well.

you know, we have done some upgrading and we're going to do more; but

the answer is no, not at the rate that you're saying.... I think you're

being a little greedy, Mr. Member, when you want $30 million of the

$100 million. This is a pretty large province. We have worked in your

riding. We did Redford Street in Alberni. You don't give us any credit

for that.

Dealing with this year, one thing I asked our

ministry to do almost immediately — and I assume it has been done — is

to get some modern guardrail up on some of the tighter areas. I don't

know whether it has been done, but I believe it has. We are going to do

some repaving on the road. I can't give you a dollar allocation on how

much we'll get done on the major.... We've got to knock some mountains

down, as you know, and that becomes pretty expensive. I believe our

engineers are designing so we can get a little safer and better road.

Quite frankly, it is a priority item in the ministry because of the

heavy tourist traffic that that road bears. Of course, the other reason

is the local people. The road is two-lane. You can't pass on it. If you

get a freight truck there, as you probably know, you can't pass for 15

or 16 miles. At least, rather than knocking down whole mountains, I

suggested they get passing lanes or something to try to stop those long

line-ups that I guess are starting to occur now and have been going on

in the past.

MR. SKELLY: I thank the member for his

cooperation. Nobody wants the $30 million.... Well, I suppose I can be

greedy about it because my constituents are asking me to be greedy

about it. They wouldn't mind spending the whole Highways budget in

their riding. That's how conditions have been allowed to deteriorate.

We can't expect a project to take place overnight. If you spend the

money without doing the design, it's basically wasted money. But we

would like to know and have some assurance from the minister that at

least the design work is being done, something is happening and it's

not simply another promise that we hope to have resolved some day. I do

thank the minister for his cooperation on that question.

The

other question I asked was about the rural roads in the Alberni Valley.

You were not the first minister in 29 years to go out there. The former

Minister of Municipal Affairs went to Ucluelet as well and drove over

the road. The former Minister of Health went to Ucluelet and drove over

the road. A number of ministers from the New Democratic Party

government went up.

HON. MR. FRASER: Nobody knew they came, because I understand they just saw the NDP.

MR. SKELLY: No, they met with Mayor Bill Russell at the time in the mayor's house.

[ Page 2489 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: He wasn't NDP.

MR. SKELLY:

He wasn't NDP either, although the now mayor used to be Howard

McDiarmid's campaign chairman so maybe that's why you got the wrong

information. Be that as it may, Mr. Chairman, the other question I

asked is a serious question, and the minister is getting a number of

representations from my riding. It concerns those rural roads in the

Alberni Valley: the Beaver Creek Road, Cherry Creek Road and the major

roadways in the rural area of the valley. We would like some assurance

from the minister that some work is going to be done on those roads

this year. I've done a check on each and every one of the roads. I've

talked to the Highways manager in the area. He said he used to have a

program whereby he could pave three- and four-mile stretches of those

roads every year. He hasn't been able to do that since 1976. I realize

that we broke up that area into a new Highways region or a new Highways

district and problems are created with the change-over and the

development of a new administration, but really that's a priority and

it's a safety priority for the people of my area. I would like some

assurance from the minister, not just a sometime promise, that he is

going to pay some particular priority attention to those roadways

during this fiscal year.

HON. MR. FRASER: To the

member, as far as the local roads are concerned, I want to point out

one thing, Mr. Chairman. I don't think it's in this $100 million. A lot

of the money for what you're talking about could certainly be brought

up in my estimates. I think a lot of the minor betterment, as we call

it in our ministry, comes under the estimates in the maintenance side.

I would say yes, certainly we're interested, and we'll go into it in

further detail.

But I would like to tell you one thing. For

the last two or three years we have been giving money to a very popular

local road there that doesn't belong to us. I believe it's one of the

most popular projects I've seen on the Island, and I refer to the

future connection of a road between Cumberland and Port Alberni. Yes,

we have funded that in the last two or three years, gradually taking it

over from Forestry. Yes, there probably is in this $100 million some of

the funding for improvement to that road as well for '80-81.

MR. SKELLY:

I have a letter from the Minister of Transportation and Highways dated

December 19, 1979, saying that it's a forestry road and that he's not

going to put any money into it. So that's welcome information.

Again,

the priority is those rural roads. If the minister hasn't set anything

aside in the present budget and hasn't set anything aside in this $100

million.... If the $100 million isn't specifically committed to certain

projects I would urge the minister to examine those rural roads. They

are used by kids going to school, people going to work and logging

trucks working in small claims. Those roads should be examined because

at the present moment they're unsafe. Within the last week, as I

pointed out to the minister, two children have been hurt on one of

those roads because they're narrow, traffic is going fast and there are

a lot of school children on those roads. That should be the first

priority. The minister published a booklet — last year, I think it was

— advising teachers to set up a safe route to school for children. I

give him all the credit in the world for that. That's a desirable thing

to do and I think most of the schools in Alberni Valley followed it up.

But there's some schools where they can't find a safe route to school,

where the traffic is so busy and the roads are so narrow that children

are being threatened every time they go out on the streets to head for

home. I would urge the minister to come back to me with an assurance

that he is going to go and take a look at those roads and make them a

priority.

MS. SANFORD: The Minister of Transportation

and Highways did give some response to specific questions posed by the

member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) with respect to highways in his area.

But we still have no idea as to the special allocation of this $100

million in Bill 5. We don't know how the budgeting took place within

the ministry. For instance, was the minister aware last fall, when they

were working on the budget for the Ministry of Transportation and

Highways, that they were going to do a little political trip and put a

special $100 million into a special bill which they call Bill 5? Did

they do their planning on that basis? According to the minister's

responses this morning, there is nothing that is new or extra as a

result of the $100 million that is put in there, and that is one-third

of his total capital budget.

Surely if the planning had been

done in the fall they must have planned for $200 million. Now they have

this extra $100 million. Yet the minister cannot give us one specific

answer with respect to what is accelerated. The word I accelerated" is

in there — "accelerated highway construction. " I think they should

take the word "accelerated" out, because it is just part of the

Highways program. I suppose the government hopes that $100 million is

good publicity. They hope it is going to fool the people.

They

are expecting the people of the province to applaud because there is an

additional $100 million for "accelerated highway construction. " That's

absolutely ludicrous. I think the minister has very clearly confirmed

that this morning, because it is to pay for bridges that were built two

years ago in the constituency of Cowichan-Malahat, or it is to pay for

the acquisition of properties throughout the province.

HON. MR. FRASER: Santa Claus doesn't pay for it.

MS. SANFORD:

That' s very true. I didn't expect for one minute that Santa Claus

would pay for the highways. But I do expect that this government will

be honest when it is drawing up its budget and not bring in this kind

of political $100 million "accelerated highway construction."

The

minister has not been able to tell us whether or not he knew about this

$100 million last fall. If he didn't know and is suddenly given $100

million, what extra accelerated programs are there? I don't think we

are going to get that information. I think it is a gimmick on the part

of the government. As a matter of fact, I think the House Leader on the

government side confirmed what the opposition have been saying in all

of the hours of discussion on this bill.

This morning the

Minister of Finance explained that there has been extensive discussion

on the bill. The House Leader suggested: "Why don't we just discuss

this under the regular estimates?" — all of it, all of the $168

million, all of the 15 different sections. "The opposition needn't

bother asking us specific questions. This is really only part of the

estimated expenditures anyway." The House Leader is saying: "All we did

is to bring in a little bit of politics here and introduce this bill

talking about 'accelerated' programs" — which are not accelerated at

all.

[ Page 2490 ]

Yesterday the Minister of Finance summed up second reading in about two minutes flat.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: You didn't have much more time because it was almost 6 o'clock.

Normally

during second reading of any bill the minister responsible sits and

takes notes of all of the suggestions and questions posed by members of

the opposition. When he responds, in order to move second reading of

the bill, he gives answers and explanations as to what the government

is doing. He didn't give any last night when he moved second reading of

the bill. He did it in two minutes flat, but he assured us that during

committee stage we would be able to ask specific questions of the

various ministers on the various aspects of this bill. It is very clear

that under this bill we are doing nothing but discussing the estimated

expenditures of the various ministries.

The Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is not here this morning.

I'm wondering if the Minister of Finance might know what this

additional $6.5 million is, for the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing for accelerated park development. It's nothing to do with the

regular program, according to this bill. I would like some specifics as

to what accelerated park program is included under that particular

section of the bill. I don't know whether the Minister of Finance has

any answers to that or not.

The Minister of Education (Hon.

Mr. Smith) is not here. I'm informed that he is the one responsible for

section 1(1) of the bill, which talks about the Refugee Settlement

Program.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Heinrich is responsible.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, the Minister of Labour is responsible. The note that I have....

Interjection.

MS SANFORD: So there is no minister responsible for the Refugee Settlement Program.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, who is the minister responsible? Are you the minister responsible, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member. I'm suggesting that if the Chair is addressed....

MS. SANFORD: Oh, I see. I should address the Chair.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I understand that the Minister of Education is the one

who should be answering questions with respect to the Refugee Settlement Act

and this additional $2.65 million for the purposes of settling the refugees

in British Columbia. I wonder if the Minister of Finance could tell us how much

money has been spent by the government to date in locating the refugees

in this province. I would assume that there has been some expenditure of funds.

Where do those funds come from? Are they part of this $2.65 million?

The

Minister of Transportation and Highways was saying that he can't spend

any of his $100 million until we pass the bill. Has any money been

spent on the Refugee Settlement

Program? How has it been spent? How much has been spent?

the $2.65 million that we find in this bill in addition to money

already spent? I wonder if the minister might be able to answer those

questions.

Yesterday I spent a bit of time on the

section

relating to the Minister of Labour on the $4.5 million expenditure,

which is down half a million dollars from the amount put in this

program last year — the Youth Employment Program. But we are informed

that out of that $4.5 million there is $640,000 set aside for a

critical trade skill shortage training allowance program. We had no

information about that, and I wonder if the Minister of Labour might

give us some information on that as well.

Mr. Chairman, I

appreciate that that is a number of questions, but I would like to get

responses from the various ministers responsible.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I'm amazed at the member for Comox. Of all the members standing up here

criticizing this government for using the words "accelerated highway

program...." All you've got to do, Madam Member, is go to the records

and find out what you spent when you were government — you were a

supporter of that government and an MLA — and see whether it hasn't

been accelerated every year we've been government since 1976. What this

says is that we intend to continue with the accelerated highway program.

Now,

dealing with that and the effects on Vancouver Island, one of whose

ridings you have the honour to represent, it has had a real share of

the accelerated highway program — millions and millions of dollars from

Victoria, starting with Blanshard Street and the Trans-Canada Highway,

right through to Port Hardy. You, as the member, screamed and hollered

in this House and asked: "When did the road get built, who paid for the

road and why?" Under an accelerated highway program by this government,

it is the first decent road into Port Hardy from Campbell River in the

history of British Columbia. And you stand up in the House and

criticize the word "accelerated." You should be ashamed. We have one of

the best new two-lane roads in the province, right on Vancouver Island.

I'm absolutely amazed that you'd come up and say that we were playing

politics. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, to that member: that's what she was

playing when she was talking — politics.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER:

No, she's just waiting for me to sit down and say that there's nothing

specific. Well, we still are working on improving the roads up there.

The contractor is working for the Port Hardy access road, which you

were after; but come the first of July we won't be able to pay him.

Getting

into the specifics of your postage-stamp riding of Comox, that's been

shrunk down, and that's fine. You want the Courtenay bridge in the

worst way. You're a supporter of that. The regional district and the

municipal council support it. I can assure you, Madam Member, that a

part.... I explained when I first talked of $300 million in capital

money, $100 million is in this bill and, one of the footings of the

piers of the Courtenay bridge is in this — if you want specifics.

MS. SANFORD: One? Oh, thank you very much.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'd ask leave to make an introduction, if I may,

[ Page 2491 ]

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

In the gallery above me, just arrived, is the Summerland Senior

Secondary concert band. I believe their choir is with them. This band

has 80 members, and it is a combination of the senior concert band and

choir. Of the 80 members, there are 21 members who make up the

intermediate stage band, which is called the Swingphonics. The students

in this band are in grades 10, 11 and 12. They are presently on tour.

They played in Merritt on Tuesday, May 13, and in Courtenay and

Cumberland — Madam Member for Comox — on May 14 and 15. The concert

they put on in Courtenay was a public concert. Today they are here to

tour the legislative buildings, and if time permits they will visit the

museum. With the band are Mr. and Mrs. Jim Grinder; Mr. Grinder is the

band conductor. Also travelling with the band are Mr. and Mrs. Bob

Chalmers; Mr. Chalmers is the band manager.

Twenty-one

members of the intermediate stage band called "Swingphonics" recently

won first place in the Canadian National Stage Band Festival in Ottawa.

In order to qualify for this festival in Ottawa, they had to win at

regional competitions where the number of bands competing totalled

between 300 and 400. The Swingphonics won first place, competing

against 12 regional representatives from across Canada. Mr. Chairman,

this is the first time that a band west of Ontario has won this

particular level of competition. I'd like the members to give them a

warm welcome.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: There was a question

addressed to me by the member for Comox, and although I realize that

I'm following the Minister of Transportation and Highways, if she's

prepared to give me this opportunity to answer a couple of questions

put, I'm quite prepared to do so.

Reference was made to the amount of money in the bill, $4.5 million, and that it's decreased by half a million dollars.

Can I continue, Mr. House Leader?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Fine. Thank you very much.

would like to make a couple of comments with respect to manpower

training and apprenticeship. There were some comments made by the

second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) that a lot more could be done.

Well, I think he's right. I think a lot more could be done. He referred

to some of the numbers, and I agree that there is some deficiency

there. I might add that a recent study has established that there is a

shortfall in seven particular trades on the order of about 1,400. I

can't recite offhand what they all are, but that particular problem is

something which we in the ministry are going to address, and it is well

underway. I might make reference to the member that incorporated within

the $4.5 million is money which will be used to assist in that program.

There

was a comment also in an earlier debate about the amount of money

available. I think it would only be right if the member would refer to

the total amount in the budget, which is something in excess of $40

million, plus the special appropriation of $4.5 million.

a matter of fact, 6,500 private sector employers participated in that

Youth Employment Program. Of the 4,000 employers who completed the

questionnaires, over 99 percent felt that the youth hired were learning

skills. I think the significant thing, Mr. Chairman, is that the amount

of money which we have and which will be available will assist in the

programs which my ministry has in mind.

The member is right.

When we address the deficiencies, perhaps there ought to be a greater

emphasis on training. I am really not at liberty to discuss at this

time some of the plans which we have in mind, but I can assure the

member that part of those funds which are incorporated within the bill

will be used.

I want to tell you, that is the best news I've

seen today: the exit of the House Leader. If he's going over there, Mr.

Chairman.... My next topic was immigration; perhaps it ought to be

emigration, Mr. House Leader.

Some of the funds which are

there will, I hope, be used for a strong advertising program. Madam

Member, I have a theme, which I'm sure is going to encourage this:

"Come on, British Columbia, let's try a little harder." I think it's

going to work, but I need some of those moneys for that particular

purpose.

Immigration, as you know, isn't as attractive as it

once was, and we must train those people within our own province. Some

of those funds are going to be used for that purpose as well. Perhaps

we can, over the next 18 months....

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

The object of the game, if the funds are there, is to see if we can get

another 3,000 to 4,000 apprentices on stream. That is the main thrust.

I could flesh it out and talk forever on it. I have for a number of

weeks, as a matter of fact, through weekend engagements....

don't think it's really being received too well today, so I will just

let the member know that I know what she is referring to and I'm

concerned as well.

MS. SANFORD: I thank the Minister

of Labour for his responses. I certainly don't want to pursue this any

further today either. I was asking specifically about the $640,000

which is included in Bill 5, and, of course, he went into a whole long

routine about the apprenticeship program under his ministry, which is

better discussed under the estimates.

But I really must

respond to that vicious attack by the Minister of Transportation and

Highways. I don't think I've ever suffered such a vicious attack in

this House before.

I'm going to have to take just a minute

or two in order to correct some erroneous impressions that the minister

left this morning. He referred to the fact that the road from Sayward

through to Port Hardy was started under the Social Credit government

and was finished under the Social Credit government. That is true. But

what I have to remind the minister of — and I'm sure he remembers this,

because he has been a member of this House for a long time — is that it

was way back in 1956 that one P.A. Gaglardi announced in the north end

of the Island, when one Dan Campbell was running for the first time,

that if they elected Dan Campbell they would get a road through to the

north. What kind of a promise was that? Ten years later there still had

been no start on the road. As a matter of fact, there was no start on

the road for about another 12 years, and most of the work that was done

on the completion of that highway was done during the period 1972-1975.

I just have to set the record straight.

I hope that the minister won't attack me that way again. I was really quite disturbed by it all.

[ Page 2492 ]

MR. LORIMER:

I want to discuss briefly the question of the special purpose

appropriations connected with these items in

section 1. It would appear

that there are in fact no special appropriations whatever in the works,

and that the bill merely adds more funds for the different departments,

which might well have been put in estimates.

I was wondering

if the Minister of Finance — he's certainly been answering questions

today, and he normally does — could advise which came first. Was it the

finding of the extra money or the request for the special purposes that

came first? Was the money found, and then he went out to the different

ministers to find out what special purposes may be required?

The

Minister of Transportation and Highways has indicated that there's

certainly no special purposes in the $100 million coming to him. He

indicated that some of it might be used to pay off two bridges in

Cowichan-Malahat which were started some three years ago — which would

be the normal payment under the estimates.

It's obvious to

me that there was a mistake in the budgeting, that the $207 million was

located sometime. I'm not saying that this was the fault of the

Minister of Finance; at the start of the budgeting period he was

probably not the minister in charge. He might want to tell us when he

discovered the extra $207 million. He may be interested in telling us

where he found it. Maybe he will level with us and tell us all about

the mistake that was made in the budgeting procedure for the 1980

budget. I think it's time, Mr. Minister of Finance, for a little bit of

show and tell. We would be interested in finding out why these figures

are appearing now in a special bill. We have found out that there are

no special purposes involved in it. It's called the Special Purpose

Appropriation Act, 1980. We know there are no special purposes. Maybe,

Mr. Minister, when you are up on your feet next, you might be able to

tell us when you found the extra money and, maybe, where you found it.

MRS. WALLACE:

The Minister of Labour.... Yes, he's still in the House. I was very

interested in his comments in response to the member for Comox (Ms.

Sanford), regarding the youth employment and training program. He said

you had to look at the whole package, the amount that was in the budget

as well.

In my mail this morning, Mr. Chairman, was a letter

from the Duncan-Cowichan Chamber of Commerce. A copy was sent to me and

a copy to the program coordinator in the Ministry of Labour. The letter

is addressed to Mr. W.D. Taylor, director of operations services for

the Ministry of Tourism. It reads, in part:

"We made application under the Youth Employment Program

for five students to assist us in manning our tourist information office seven

days a week, and six days a week at the Duncan Mall, the same as last year.

We have been allotted only one student, which means a curtailed program — that

is, the Duncan Mall will have to close out entirely, and the tourist information

office will have to remain closed on Sundays and in the early evening."

That's

a pretty drastic cutback in that particular program. Here is the

minister getting $4.5 million more for youth employment and training,

and at the same time he's cutting back by some five students in that

one particular thing that has been carried on for several years within

the Duncan area.

I'm, concerned that we're being sold a bill

of goods here, that this is supposed to be more money, when we're going

to have curtailments like that in the Youth Employment Program. I would

like some assurance from the minister that he will use some of this

extra money to ensure that we at least maintain the same levels, rather

than being faced with these kinds of cutbacks.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) is in the House

but not in his seat. Therefore I'm protected from wild interjections

over the next few minutes. That man is a tiger, I remember how he

roared in here when he was on the other side of the House; and he does

the same now — vicious attacks across the floor again today. We're

terrified of that member, Mr. Chairman. The budgeting process went. He

asked precisely how. I wouldn't want the committee to be left with the

impression today that somehow there was a mistake by my predecessor,

now the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon.

Mr. Wolfe), or by me, in leading up to the preparation of the 1980-81

budget — the estimates and the total budget dollars.

The

single fact of the matter is, as I indicated earlier with specific

reference to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, Mr. Chairman,

that it will be known by members on both sides of this House that the

requests which come for the first cut at Treasury Board — the requests

which are submitted by the departmental people to the deputy minister,

then to the minister and which go on to Treasury Board — are obviously

going to be larger than the budget is capable of accommodating in any

given year.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I also dealt at length in the

budget speech on March 11 with the fact that our revenues were

outstripping the estimate for revenues at a very dramatic rate through

the course of the 1979-80 fiscal year. There is certainly no need in

any way — and we can deal with this in my estimates, if you wish — to

conceal that the revenue estimates were revised on a regular basis

every few weeks through the course of the last quarter of the fiscal

year in particular.

So if you step back and simply examine

the total budgetary process, Mr. Chairman, estimate work is now

starting in ministries — not the Treasury Board yet — in May and June

and certainly July, for the 1981-82 fiscal year. That will be known by

all members of the House, that work is underway. Those are the very

first rough figures in terms of expenditures and, of course, revenue

projections formed part of the supporting material which came in with

the budget. So the revisions are going to occur constantly and

regularly, almost up to the last moment when the budget is finalized.

That's

why governments have bills of this nature. Because we were able to go

to a request list from a number of ministries and, at the very last

minute, on the basis of the higher-than-expected revenues — with the

best intelligence in the world in the Ministry of Finance and all the

ministries associated with the budgetary process — we were able to

return this money for the benefit of the people of British Columbia.

That's the budget process. You can't close it off, Mr. Chairman, in

September of a fiscal year and say: "Well, we'll make no further

changes." You can't close it off in December of a fiscal year, and

that's why this bill is before us now. I may have strayed from

discussion of this particular section, but that's why it is here and

that's how it occurred, in answer to the member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

[ Page 2493 ]

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple of quick questions to the Minister

of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), if he

doesn't mind. He's got $6.5 million he wants to give away. There are

three lines in this bill and I'd just like to ask a couple of questions

about what it's intended to do,

I see the first one is $3.5

million to the Science Council of British Columbia. Are there specific

projects that have been put forward to the minister from the Science

Council that this money is intended to fund? Would he identify them?

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Chairman, when the Science Council put out requests for bids for

projects to be funded, their first round had $11.7 million worth of

requests. The Science Council at that time had on the order of $1.5

million to satisfy that. This amount of money will help to close that

gap. Of the $11.7 million, in normal competition, I can't tell you how

much of that would have achieved what we consider to be adequate merit.

Now,

when the Science Council was set up, the terms of reference that they

were given for all scientific projects they would fund were that they

would have to be reviewed externally, that is, by peers who could judge

the calibre of research — it would have to be international — and the

direction would have to be such as to bring special benefit to British

Columbia. Now even meeting all those criteria, the amount of money

which is currently available is still far short of the meritorious

applications. We hope that there will be some improvement this year in

national funding. In particular, the Natural Sciences and Engineering

Research Council (NSERC) has had a 35 percent increase this year,

specifically to replace equipment, so that there is a little bit of

progress on the federal side — not very much — and this money will be,

I can assure you, well utilized and quickly picked up. In the future we

may have to supply more funds, but certainly there is a stack of

projects waiting.

MR. HANSON: I would like to thank the minister for his response. Do you get a list of projects? Do you review the list yourself?

HON. MR. McGEER:

No way. Mr. Chairman, that's a very bad policy. It's our intention that

all of the individual projects be strictly on the basis of merit, as

viewed by scientists outside of British Columbia, and that the awards

themselves be made by the professional group, the Science Council.

MR. HANSON:

Would that same method apply to the Research Council as well — that the

money goes to them and they apportion it the way they see fit? Is that

the way that works?

HON. MR. McGEER: Are you talking about our Science Council or the federal way? We do it the same way as the federal government does it.

MR. HANSON: I'm referring to item (

h) in this section, which is $1 million from your ministry to be given to the B.C. Research Council.

HON. MR. McGEER: The British Columbia Research Council

gets a continuing grant from the federal government; it has done so for

25 years or so. That's supplemented by contracts that go outside of....

The British Columbia Research Council offers its services to government

and to industry, and in addition to that funds are given — what they

call in-house funds — so that projects can be pursued by the scientists

in between contracts that are being awarded for special projects. What

we're trying to do with the B.C. Research Council.... Normally that

body is accountable to its own board of management, which is made up of

scientists.... Actually I sit now as chairman of the B.C. Research

Council. I don't think that's a particularly good policy, and it's

going to change. But there are industrial and some scientific people

who sit on that board of management. It's our intention that in the

future those uncommitted in-house funds should nevertheless be reviewed

by the Science Council using the same criteria that are being used by

the Science Council for pursuing what goes on in industry and in

universities in their unsolicited grants.

The member should

know that we engaged Lapp, who has done reports for a number of science

councils across Canada. He recommended that our in-house funding for

B.C. Research be increased by $1 million a year for each of five years

so that we could build groups of scientists having an in-house

capability of serving sectors of opportunity in British Columbia

industry. We moved to establish one of these last year, which was in

the field of fisheries, because the federal government program had

collapsed. They've had success in that, and within a year of that group

being established they have come up with a patent for preventing what's

in the can of salmon turning white. It's our belief that the royalties

on that patent will do much to finance the whole of the B.C. Research

Council's operation in the future. So we were lucky in the field that

we selected and the capability of the scientists that were hired.

There

are four other programs still to come. This year we're going to be

emphasizing coal liquefaction and alternative energy development —

natural gas cars. Another one is machinery, and there are a couple of

others that will come. The general intent is to use this money to

strengthen the in-house capability so that when industry comes with a

problem the kinds of scientists that they need will be there. These

funds will go directly to the B.C. Research, but once the groups are

established there will be a similar review process for the work that

they do.

MRS. WALLACE: Has anything been allocated for agriculture this year in research? You recall that last year there was nothing.

HON. MR. McGEER:

I'd be interested in the member's suggestions in this respect. There's

a large federal laboratory out on the UBC campus and there were

forestry, fisheries and agriculture laboratories set up; really they

weren't terribly productive for B.C. Industry. I've had a little bit of

a running battle with the federal government on what we should do to

try and improve the calibre of that. Nevertheless, because that

laboratory is there and supposedly covers the field, we've been

relatively inactive. I'm not sure whether that's right or not. But that

was not one of the recommendations of the Lapp report, so I'd be

pleased to talk to the member about that.

MRS. WALLACE: Talk to Dean Kitts.

[ Page 2494 ]

Section 1 approved.

MR. HYNDMAN: With your comment or leave, I have about 60 seconds of comment, on two items in

section 1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, unless leave is granted.... The

section has already been passed, and once it's passed it is really through.

MR. HYNDMAN: While I, of course, accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman, from here I felt I was on my feet before you pronounced the magic words.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. HYNDMAN:

With respect to

section (j), may I, simply for the record, leave for

the interest and attention of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

my request that he give consideration to a formula that would permit

city of Vancouver community parks to apply for financial assistance to

provide either artificial turf or night lights for the purpose of

expanding the hours of use of those parks.

With respect to

section (o), I'm glad the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon.

Mr. Chabot) is here. May I ask for his attention and consideration to

two city of Vancouver park requests that I think may be forthcoming.

The first is for the large park area to the south of the Champlain

Heights development, at the intersection of Southeast Marine Drive and

Kerr Street, where a form of park is in the process of proposal.

Secondly, if Vancouver city council, in its wisdom, determines that the

foot of Angus Drive shall become Riverfront Park, then I anticipate a

request for some park funding there. Mr. Chairman, I'm just saying that

to let the minister know those two city of Vancouver park requests may

well be forthcoming, in which event we'd hope for his sympathy and

consideration. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, hon. members for

leave.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 5, Special Purpose Appropriation Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill 6, Mr. Speaker.

FOREST AND RANGE RESOURCE FUND ACT

The House in committee on Bill 6; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

section 1.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, this provides that money will be set aside in a fund. I

would like to ask the Minister of Forests whether he can tell me what

that fund will be invested in. It's not just going to sit in the

mattress, is it?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The fund is

provided for forest management work. The moneys will be drawn by the

Ministry of Forests from the fund. The management of dollars in the

fund, prior to their being withdrawn, will be the responsibility of the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis).

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I thought he might know. I believe these funds are all

going to be invested in short-term securities. The money has to be

available for the funds. I will ask the Minister of Finance the

questions I was going to ask the Minister of Forests.

MR. HOWARD:

If the minister responded to this the other day upon second reading, I

apologize for not having heard him. Earlier I put forward the

suggestion that we might consider using the natural heat that exists in

the Lakelse hot springs just south of Terrace, through a heat exchanger

system, to heat nurseries to germinate seeds and grow seedlings. I

wonder if the minister could give me some comments about what he thinks

about it.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm not sure that it's

appropriate in committee. However, I did cover that point in second

reading. I understand that the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing has

a study underway now as to the best use of the Lakelse hot springs. I

would advise the member, however, that the Forest Service is planning

to put a transplant nursery in Terrace. Also, one of the companies in

the area will be establishing a nursery in the Terrace area.

MR. HOWARD: What the minister says is correct, that there is a study

currently underway with respect to potentials for the springs. But the orientation

of that study is primarily to tourism and recreation and this would be a facet

of the springs' potential use that is seemingly beyond what the consulting

firm tells me is the ambit of their terms of reference. That is why I raised

it directly under the bill. That is all.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Simply to answer a question from the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich), the interest under this bill would accrue to the consolidated

revenue fund, and investments are short-term investments from CRF.

MR. STUPICH:

I thought we would leave this, but now that the Minister of Finance is

in the discussion, may I ask if he can tell me the average rate of

investment he expects to earn in this fund in the coming months.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

If I knew that, I suppose I would be out investing a lot of money of my

own. It is a crystal-ball question. I have absolutely no idea — who

would? — unless I've misunderstood the question.

MR. STUPICH:

We deal with a lot of estimates. We are estimating the total amount of

interest revenue that the government is going to earn on its deposits

for the year ahead. All I'm asking for is some rough idea as to what he

might expect

[ Page

2495 ]

earn on $148 million, less $9.5 million, which brings it down to an

average of $140 million over the course of a year — even a ballpark

estimate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, it would be

one of the biggest ball parks in the world, because we've seen what's

happened to interest rates in the last.... Strike an average of what?

Ten, twelve, nine or sixteen percent? I can't assist.

MR. STUPICH:

Well, Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether the government is now in the

habit of investing in 15-day, 30-day, 60-day, 90-day or one year term

deposits in short-term investments? What's the policy right now?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Actually we are covering virtually all of those categories, depending

on the money market of the day. This is perhaps straying a little from

this section, but the money will be placed to the most beneficial use

possible. It might be very short-term; it might be overnight money;

indeed, I think it was 20 percent yesterday, as an example; it might be

90-day, and it might be somewhat less, of course.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, seeing that the Minister of Finance is in the room and we

have been discussing the interest situation, I'm wondering what the

rationale is for having the interest returned to consolidated revenue.

The member for Nanaimo was trying to get a figure, but I'm sure that

it's going to be in the area of $20 million to $30 million in interest

that will accrue from this fund. What is the rationale for having that

returned to consolidated revenue? A year ago the auditor-general

mentioned the Lottery Fund. The same thing was happening with that, and

she made some recommendations where she felt there was an incorrect

procedure. Here we are starting a new fund and doing exactly that same

thing — having the interest returned to consolidated revenue. Since the

Minister of Finance has left, I wonder if perhaps the Minister of

Forests can answer that question.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

The program that we put forth for the five-year management in the

forest and range resource requires a certain number of dollars. These

dollars are provided through my budget, through offsets to stumpage and

through this fund. Those total dollars are what is required. That's the

optimum level of funding that we can manage effectively. As far as

financial arrangements, whether the interest comes into the fund and is

expended by us really doesn't matter. If that were the case, the fund

would be for a lesser amount to make up this total number of dollars in

the end. So these are the dollars required by us, not including the

interest.

Sections 4 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I was going to rise on a similar

section in

a previous bill, but I think the point can be well made on this one. This

is a normal

section to be found in many bills and it's one that has bothered

me for some time.

just had a statute revision and more and more bills are coming. We had

a speech earlier on today that dealt with the complexities of

budgeting, we have in front of us a billion dollar program, and we had

in the previous bill the question of expenditures of $100 million on an

accelerated highway program, which apparently is waiting for instant

action outside the door of the chamber and awaiting my affirmative

vote, according to the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

would like to know when the regulations may be expected on this and any

other bills, because it seems to me that they indeed might hold up —

and I would hate anything to be held up in — the expenditures that the

government is looking for. Again, and perhaps more importantly, I think

it's time that we saw the regulations accompany the legislation into

the House. I know it has not been done before. I know the government of

which I was a member, as the Provincial Secretary and a member of the

legislative committee, didn't do that. But I think it's time that we

started to do it. I think the regulations, in fact, although they must

always be in keeping with the act and nothing can be done by the

regulations that isn't permitted by the act.... I'd like to see them. I

think we can make a better job of it. I urge the minister, particularly

in the program that he is developing, that the regulations come as

quickly as possible, hopefully before his estimates. I know we've heard

vote 103 called once, but it never actually hit the floor. I think it'

s very important we do that and I would like to urge the Chairman and

the House to seriously consider legislators insisting that regulations

accompany bills in the future.

Section 9 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 6, Forest and Range Resource Fund Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill 2, Mr. Speaker.

FINANCE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 2; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I move the amendment standing on the order paper in my name.

On the amendment.

[ Page 2496 ]

MRS. WALLACE:

This is an amendment that I believe is well worth the government's

consideration. I know that this has been discussed in this Legislature

before. Unfortunately, when it was discussed before, although I had put

it on the order paper, I was travelling with a select standing

committee. It is an amendment that certainly should cause no problems

for that government. It is one that the Minister of Finance,

particularly, has indicated he would like to see adopted.

Indian

band councils are a form of government that have long been in existence

in this province, much longer than municipal governments or regional

districts. It seems to me that it would be only right and just to allow

those band councils the same recognition under the revenue-sharing

legislation as is granted to municipalities and regional districts. As

such, I have put this amendment forward to allow that change to be

made, to include Indian band councils in the sharing of resource

revenue. Surely no single group of people in this province is more

entitled to a share in the resources of this province than the native

people who lived here long before the non-Indian came to this province.

I would urge the minister to consider the amendment. I would urge him

to accept it and to include it in this piece of legislation.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat. The

ministry and the government have considered the amendment and we cannot

accept it, notwithstanding the points which the member has made today

and which have been made previously.

I'm sure the amendment

is in order; otherwise it would not have been accepted. But we are

dealing here with the question of sharing with organized local

government, and the option is open to any community — whether it is an

Indian band council, an improvement district or some other community —

to form into a municipality and to take advantage of the assistance

offered by my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm). Without taking too long in the committee, the Revenue

Sharing Act is a municipal revenue-sharing measure; it applies to local

government jurisdictions, institutions as it were: cities, towns,

villages, districts, municipalities or regional districts. The point

may well be made in the estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs

or by a private member's bill, but in indicating that we cannot accept

the amendment today, Mr. Chairman, I would observe that the option is

open to any native band council to form into a municipality. That has

occurred on a number of occasions with instant municipalities in

British Columbia in years gone by. So the availability to share under

revenue-sharing is open without accepting this amendment, and as I say

we cannot.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm quite aware, as the

minister has indicated, that many Indian bands have taken that step of

forming into a registered municipality, and on that basis the sharing

is granted. The point that I'm trying to make in this amendment, Mr.

Chairman, is that the native Indian band council is a long-recognized

form of government in this province, and whether it is incorporated as

a municipality really shouldn't make any difference. They are an

effective form of government, of one group of people in this province,

and their history goes back much farther than any regulations or laws

that we have made. To say that no, you must go through certain

white-man procedures before you can apply, seems to me a rather racist

approach to this thing. I would certainly urge the minister to discuss

it with his colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

says I can bring in a private member's bill. He knows full well the

fate of private member's bills, and that's why I chose to bring it in

as an amendment to this motion, Mr. Chairman. Knowing full well the

personal feelings of the Minister of Finance about how this should be,

I felt that perhaps he would accept an amendment to a motion he was

putting forward. I make my argument again that an Indian band council

is a long-time recognized form of government in this province; it's a

form of government that was established long before municipalities and

regional districts, and there was really no legal reason for insisting

that they go through the motions of forming a municipal council and so

being incorporated.

MR. HOWARD: What the Minister of

Finance says is correct: that any group of people can, if they desire,

combine themselves and apply to become a municipal structure under the

Municipal Act. As I understand it, there is a specific reference in the

Municipal Act — or used to be, in any event — that related to band

councils and Indian bands existing under the Indian Act of Canada that

could do that.

There is a bit of history about this that may

make the minister appreciate why Indian bands are not likely to avail

themselves of that opportunity. Very briefly, before the commencement

of the Second World War the Metlakatla people just outside Prince

Rupert considered the possibility of becoming a municipality. Well,

that was before there was any provision within the Municipal Act

specifically relating to native people. That move was held in abeyance

over the period of the war because other matters of greater importance

were being dealt with. Following the end of the war, the Metlakatlas

revived their consideration of this question, but then found that they

were faced with an order-in-council which transferred land to the

federal government to be held in trust. They discovered that if they

organized into a municipality, any land that they held under reserve

status and any of the moneys held in trust for them by the federal

government would revert to the province.

Basically they

concluded that they would wipe themselves out of existence as a group

of native people, and would lose their cultural inheritance over a

period of time, would deny themselves their own history. They would

basically — and this is becoming more prominent and more pronounced in

their minds now — by moving in the direction held out by the minister

as a possibility, be settling the land question, unilaterally,

arbitrarily, without any recognition thereof by the provincial

government. There isn't any move taking place at the moment to do it.

think there's an absolute refusal on the part of native people to

recognize any of the opportunities that the minister is talking about.

They don't look upon them as being opportunities; they look upon them

as something that will be a loss to them if they move in that direction.

There

is a vast and significant difference — in a very strong sense, but in a

respectful sense, if we look at it in that way, as we must — between

the organization of a group of native Indian people and the

organization of anybody else in our society under a municipal

incorporation. I think the minister and government would be well

advised not to hold that out as the way to go in order to get

cost-sharing. I would suggest that the minister and the government, if

they don't feel inclined to accept the amendment at the moment, on the

[ Page

2497 ]

face of it, examine it and come back at a later

date with a formal approach brought in by government that will say yes

to the native Indian bands in this province, that they will be involved

in revenue-sharing.

Native people pay taxes just the same as

anybody else does, with a couple of exceptions. One of those exceptions

is income earned on the reserve — a very small number of people,

relatively speaking, are involved in that. The other is the question of

land tax; but that is a possibility if the Indian band council want to

impose a land tax on the reserve for reserve purposes. It's a

deliberate decision on the part of the band council not to move in that

direction. But they all pay taxes the same as the rest of us do. They

have a stake in the resources of this province far more so than any of

the rest of us have, because this is their land. This is their claim to

this land, and I realize that's not recognized by the government. In

fact, it's denied if you go in the other direction of it.

I would say earnestly to the minister that there's a moral and an

ethical obligation here, for the government not to be dragged off in

the direction of saying to the native bands: "Look, you can get this

revenue-sharing if you give up your heritage and so on." Don't

denigrate their position that way; just be generous about it all and

move in the direction of permitting Indian band councils to participate

in the revenue-sharing program the same as other organized groups,

without forcing them to give up their status and their position and

forcing them to arbitrarily settle the land question.

MR. SKELLY:

I rise to support as strongly as I can this amendment. There are a

number of large Indian bands in Alberni provincial constituency. One of

the serious problems that those bands have had over the years is that,

as their reserves develop and as they wish to bring more of the

municipal amenities to their reserves, they find that they don't have

the same access to funds as other communities do, even though the

reserves are getting fairly large. They require water systems, sewer

systems, electrical distribution systems, garbage collection and those

kinds of things — everything that small municipal villages would

require to service their communities.

The particular Indian

bands in those communities do not have access on a fair basis to the

funding that is available. They do have federal funding, but none

through the provincial government. Again, as the member for Skeena (Mr.

Howard) pointed out, there are some specific exemptions, but in almost

every case they do pay taxes.

I would therefore ask the

minister not to make everybody have the same kind of structure in order

to qualify for revenue-sharing, but to recognize the Indian villages

and band councils as different structures, ones which can qualify for a

revenue-sharing on that different basis. I look at villages such as

Ahousat out on the west coast of my riding, a village of between 500

and 800 people. When we were in office we managed to get them a B.C.

Hydro diesel generator. They are now looking at a dial telephone

system,

whereas before they had the magneto variety. They are moving

into an era of modern services out there. Yet they can't maintain the

sewer system, because of inadequate capital funding from the federal

government. Provincial revenue-sharing would help.

They look

at a community like Tofino, just a few miles away, which has access to

that funding. They can go into debt with guarantees from the province;

they can obtain municipal revenue sharing from the provincial

government; they can obtain special sewerage and water facilities

assistance. And yet, because of the lack of access on the part of the

village of Ahousat and other villages on the west coast, they are

deprived of a good sewerage and water system. As a result, serious

health problems can develop and the community isn't as attractive as it

would be to Ahousat band members, who tend to move away to Vancouver,

Victoria and other areas.

Those people would like to bring

those amenities to their villages. There is a possibility, without a

large expansion in the budget — if the minister would see fit to change

this and other appropriate statutes — to give Indians living in British

Columbia precisely the same benefits as citizens of other racial

origins. This is a measure to clean up, in a small way, some racial

discrimination that is built, not by design — I don't want to say that

the government is discriminating against Indians — but it amounts to

discrimination when they cease to have entitlement to these

revenue-sharing funds even though they are citizens of the province and

have been for thousands of years.

I would urge the minister

to reconsider his decision to reject this amendment and to encourage

the members on that side of the House to pass it and to open up the

field of revenue sharing to band councils so that they may improve

their villages in the same way as other municipally constituted

villages in the province.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Three

speakers on the opposite side have made interesting comments. I rather

regret the reference made by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace) suggesting that this is a discriminatory move with respect to

native Indian councils or band councils in British Columbia. I would

like to think that she didn't really mean it in that sense. As I

explained earlier in indicating that the government cannot accept the

amendment, what we have here in

section 15 of this bill is simply the

deleting of fuel-oil tax from revenues which are shared with local

government — local government in the context which has been accepted in

British Columbia for a number of years. In the event that the

participants in revenue-sharing are to be expanded in terms of category

of community other than city, town, district, municipality, village and

regional district, that clearly would require very careful

consideration by the government and not only by this ministry. We're

dealing with my Finance Statutes Amendment Act today but certainly it

would involve the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. If I were the Minister

of Municipal Affairs I would be very unhappy if the situation were

reversed and it was indicated that municipal revenue sharing could be

expanded to other than what we know to be the municipalities

established under the Municipal Act. In effect, I would then say: "Hey,

what's going on?"

The point has been made by the members

opposite. I don't think the Chair would permit us to move into

improvement districts, although there is one member in this House, I'm

sure, who would like to make a speech about that again. But in the

event that this amendment were accepted, clearly then the next case

would be another category of unorganized community. I hope that we can

look back on the constructive comments that have been made, but we

cannot today accept the amendment in this context.

[ Page 2498 ]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS 9

Howard

Stupich

Nicolson

Hall

Hanson

Wallace

Barber

Skelly

Sanford

NAYS 26

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

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

MR. HALL:

Mr. Chairman, perhaps you could inquire from the Sergeant-at-Arms how,

after the bell has been rung.... The doors should have been locked and

no members should be able to enter the chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, hon. member. The point raised by the....

MR. HALL:

The bell was struck, the doors were not locked, and a member entered

the chamber. The member was the member for Point Grey, the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Firstly, hon. member....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He left.

MR. HALL: I know the member left. I say he entered the chamber — that's what I'm asking.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The point of order raised by the member is a well-made and well-taken

point and will be looked into by the Chair. The member, however, was

not counted in the division.

The member for Dewdney on a point of order.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Will the Chairman hear a point of observation in respect to the same point?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, with all due respect, hon. member. I would be happy to discuss the matter at any other time, though.

Sections 15 to 18 inclusive approved.

section 19.

MR. SKELLY:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. I

don't know if this is the appropriate

section in which to bring this

question up, but it is the only one I could find that really seems to

apply.

On March 31 or in that area the consumer taxation branch sent a letter out

to all those senior citizens who in the past had applied for gasoline tax rebates,

saying that in the future they could only apply for the gasoline tax rebate

on one car and they had to provide the licence number and that kind of thing.

I have a letter here from F. Body on gasoline tax. I talked to Assistant Deputy

Minister Alexander on April 15, 1980. I will send the material across to the

minister, because I feel it is important.

don't discount the stories given to me by your staff that some senior

citizens were claiming the rebate on as many as five different cars. I

can see that in a small number of cases that would probably happen. But

in the case of the constituent who approached me, he has a small car

and a pickup truck. He uses the pickup truck to supply firewood and to

get supplies to his cabin. He lives way out in a rural area near Port

Alberni. He can see the justice in limiting the number of vehicles on

which you can claim the tax rebate, but he thinks the limit should be a

little more realistic.

I would urge the minister, prior to

implementing this change in the Gasoline Tax Act regulations which

would work a hardship on this and a number of other senior citizens in

the province, to reconsider the limit and possibly raise it from one to

two motor vehicles, especially if one is a private passenger car and

one is a truck used for hauling wood and supplies. I will send the

correspondence over to the minister. I hope that he won't implement

that particular

section until such time as he has had an opportunity to

look at this case.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I

note the member's observations. It is necessary at times when there is

an abuse to perhaps over-react slightly. We are going to watch it very

carefully. I would appreciate receiving the information,

Sections 19 to 21 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 2, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Leave granted for the division to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

COMPLAINT AGAINST RCMP

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I wish to make a brief ministerial statement. I rise to make a

statement respecting recent reports concerning the handling of a

complaint against certain members of the RCMP in British Columbia

contained in a letter from Mrs. Dolores Schubert of Fort St. John,

which was addressed to Deputy Attorney-General Vogel on the date of

September 13, 1979.

Before dealing with this particular

case, I wish to commend to the attention of all members the procedures

established under the Police Act to deal with complaints respecting the

conduct of members of police forces of this province.

addition to the statutory procedures, when such a complaint is received

by the Ministry of the Attorney-General or directly by the B.C. Police

Commission, the

[ Page 2499 ]

chairman

of the commission is notified of the general nature of the complaint.

However, the letter or notice of complaint is sent to an executive

officer of the commission. The executive officer sends a copy of the

letter of the complaint to the commanding officer of the police force

involved — in the case of the RCMP, it would be sent to the detachment

commander — in order that he may investigate the allegations and carry

out the obligations set out in the Police Act.

Neither the

letter of complaint nor details of it are given to the policeman about

whom the complaint is made. He only receives such information as to

identify the incident giving rise to the complaint and is required to

make a written report to the person making the investigation. This is

the procedure that was followed in the case of a letter from Mrs.

Schubert.

At my request the matter involving Mrs. Schubert was investigated by Judge

McQueen, chairman of the B.C. Police Commission. He has reported that following

receipt of Mrs. Schubert's letter by the senior RCMP officer at Fort St.

John, written reports were obtained from each officer involved in the complaint.

Pursuant to RCMP internal regulations, each constable is entitled to keep a

copy of the report he submits. It was these reports that the three constables

took to Mr. Brian Harrison, their lawyer. Neither the constables nor their lawyer

were shown or given a copy of the letter of complaint. The specific matter raised

by Mrs. Schubert continues to be dealt with as a complaint under the act.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled answers to questions standing in his name in the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:53 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1980,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada