1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2281 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Trade and Convention Centre Act (Bill 23). Hon. Mrs. McCarthy.

Introduction and first reading –– 2281

Oral Questions.

Correspondence from government employees. Mr. Leggatt –– 2281

Storage of PCBs. Mr. Hall –– 2281

Salary of Minister of Tourism. Mr. Barber –– 2282

Confidentiality of Systems Corporation data. Hon. Mr. Curtis replies –– 2284

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Salary of Minister of Tourism.

Mr. Barber –– 2285

Division on Deputy Speaker's ruling –– 2286

Routine Proceedings

Special Purpose Appropriation Act, 1980 (Bill 5). Second reading.

Mrs. Wallace –– 2287

Mr. Levi –– 2289

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 2294

Mr. Passarell –– 2297

Mr. Hall –– 2299

Mrs. Dailly –– 2300

Mr. Cocke –– 2302

Mr. Lorimer –– 2304

Mr. Lea –– 2305

Mr. Lauk –– 2307

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 1980

The House met at 1 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Today we have a distinguished visitor in the gallery whom I would like

to introduce. He is a Member of Parliament from Australia. His name is

Mr. John Mason, leader of the opposition Liberal Party in New South

Wales. I might explain that this is a provincial House comparable to

our House here. Would the members please welcome Mr. Mason.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker and members of the House, I would like to acknowledge the

presence in our galleries today of approximately 40 ladies from around

the province who are the secretaries for the government constituency

offices. These ladies have been engaged in studies to determine

policies of government so they may better assist constituents by way of

their constituency offices. We are most thankful for their assistance

to the citizens of our province.

MR. BARNES: Mr.

Speaker, with us this afternoon is a constituent of mine from the West

End, Ms. Dorothy Cooke. I'm hoping that Ms. Cooke will be able to

continue in that capacity — as resident — in spite of the high cost of

rents in that area. I would like to have the House join me in welcoming

her this afternoon.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I deferred to the hon. member, and then he turned it into a political statement. Next time I won't defer, sir.

have the pleasure of referring members of the House to a member of the

last British Columbia Youth Parliament. Obviously, most of us have had

some contact from time to time with that particular parliament, which

meets in this assembly. The individual in the gallery today is James

Fraser, a constituent of Saanich and the Islands. James is a student at

the University of Victoria in Saanich and Oak Bay — not in Victoria —

and he was a sessional minister with the Youth Parliament. Would the

House make him welcome.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker,

visiting the House and in the gallery today is another constituent from

New Westminster, the Royal City. I'd like the House to welcome Doug

Hardy.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I am pleased on your

behalf, Mr. Speaker, to ask the House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Williams.

Laurie and Ann are here from Delta and I would ask the members to join

me in giving them a hearty welcome.

MR. LAUK: Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of the first and second members for Vancouver South

(Messrs. Rogers and Hyndman), I ask the House to welcome a constituent

of Vancouver South, a distinguished member of the provincial executive

of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Bob Staley.

MR. STRACHAN: I would ask the House to welcome guests of mine today.

We have 30 school children from Quinson Elementary School in Prince George,

along with their teacher, Cheryl Graves, and their chaperon, Nancy Graham.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Speaker, this is a rare occasion for me. I have guests —

constituents from Bella Coola, Mr. and Mrs. Barry Brower. I'd ask the

House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Speaker, today we are honoured by the presence in the gallery of a

member of the House of Delegates in the Parliament of Maryland, Ms.

Anne Baker. I ask you to make her welcome.

Introduction of Bills

TRADE AND CONVENTION

CENTRE ACT

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a

bill intituled Trade and Convention Centre Act.

Bill

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

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

Oral Questions

CORRESPONDENCE FROM

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, my

question is directed to the Attorney-General. On June 9 of last year,

Mr. Robert Kerr, an employee of the corrections branch, wrote a letter

to his MLA, the hon. member for Chilliwack, Harvey Schroeder. That

letter contained complaints concerning the operation of the Chilliwack

forestry camp. It was forwarded to the Attorney-General and wound up on

the desk of Mr. Kerr's supervisor, who was called in to explain why he

was writing these kinds of letters. My question is this: can the

Attorney-General advise the House whether it is the practice of his

ministry, when dealing with correspondence from employees of the

government or the civil service to their MLA, to refer that

correspondence to the supervisor of the individual concerned?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I learned of this incident just in the past few weeks and

the question of that practice and others of a similar nature is under

review by me now.

MR. LEGGATT: I am pleased that the

Attorney-General has that practice under review. What I would like the

Attorney-General to do now, if he would, is to assure the House that

Mr. Kerr will not be disciplined in exercising his democratic right in

raising complaints with regard to the correction service with his MLA.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to give that assurance.

STORAGE OF PCBs

MR. HALL: My question is to the Minister of the Environment.

[ Page 2282 ]

would like to speak with reference to B.C. Hydro's storage of PCBs in

Surrey and ask him if he has made representation on behalf of the

citizens of Surrey to ensure their safety and security.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Made representations to whom?

MR. HALL: To B.C. Hydro.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Perhaps for the edification of the member a little background into the

problems of PCB might be of assistance. The current status with the

PCBs throughout the western hemisphere is that they are stored in what

are considered to be safe storage areas. There are at the present time

no destruction facilities for these chemicals. The Americans were being

quite lenient with British Columbia until the first of this month, at

which time the American government closed the border between Canada and

the United States where we had been trans-shipping our PCBs to safe

storage in the state of Oregon.

I am advised by officials of

Hydro that for the interim period, the storage of PCBs in Surrey is in

a safe location. However, we are examining alternative methods of

removing PCBs to other areas farther away from densely populated areas.

At the present time we have only one place to ship them to and that is

to Nisku, near Edmonton, Alberta.

MR. HALL: Has the minister inquired as to the length of time the PCBs are likely to be stored in this so-called temporary storage?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Ever since the chemicals were put on the restricted list there have

been chemicals stored at this particular storage. They are generally

assembled there until there is sufficient volume to justify a shipment

from there to safer storage somewhere else. It comes in in dribs and

drabs. I'll undertake to get a definite answer for the member.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, in view of the condition in my riding that I've already

questioned the minister about, regarding radioactive material dumped in

Surrey, and now PCBs, is the minister working to establish some rules

for safe storage or disposal of dangerous substances, in view of the

reluctance of other jurisdictions to take these waste products? If he

is working on such areas for safe disposal, is Surrey one of them?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

The answer is no, Surrey is not one of them. The Canadian Council of

Resource and Environment Ministers convention takes place in Halifax

tomorrow, but for obvious reasons I'm not able to be in attendance. My

deputy is there. This is the lead item of discussion for this

conference. I've discussed the subject of finding a safe storage and

disposal site within British Columbia, and the four western ministers

of the environment have discussed the possibility of building one site

in western Canada which would be sufficient to accommodate all our

needs, because quite frankly the volume isn't sufficient to justify the

horrendous expenditure necessary so that we each have duplicate plants.

We are looking at it, and I would hope we'd have an answer relatively

soon. The problem is that we don't know what the volumes of wastes are.

Until we know what the volumes are it's difficult to judge what kind of

plant we're going to build.

I would refer the member to the

fact that radioactive wastes are a responsibility of the federal

government under our agreement with them.

MR. HALL:

In view of the minister's intervention that he reported to the House —

that he had been in touch with the federal minister but nothing has

happened regarding radioactive material in Surrey — is the minister now

prepared to table any letters to the Atomic Energy Commission, the

federal Minister of the Environment or B.C. Hydro which refer to any of

the matters I've asked him about today?

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

SALARY OF

MINISTER OF TOURISM

MR. BARBER: I have a question to

the Minister of Tourism. Could the minister inform the House whether or

not she is currently — and has been since her appointment on January 11

— in receipt of a salary as Minister of Tourism?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the minister may wish to answer, but the question is not that regular for question period.

MR. BARBER:

My question is to the minister specifically. Has she, since her

appointment as Minister of Tourism on January 11 of this year, been in

receipt of a salary specifically designated for the Minister of

Tourism? I believe that's in order, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I'd like to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARBER:

I have a couple of other questions. Is the minister aware that she was

appointed Minister of Tourism on January 11 of this year — a position

that ordinarily qualifies the minister to receive a salary? Yes or no?

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, before responding to that, I would call the member's

attention to the fifth edition of Beauchesne,

section 359(4), under

"Question Period": "It ought to be on an important matter, and not be

frivolous.

MR. BARBER: It is not frivolous.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The question is a frivolous question in the view of the Chair, hon.

member, and there is no debate on a ruling of the Chair in question

period.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I

think that this is a presumption, perhaps, on the part of the Chair,

and I just want to assure the Chair that this is a very serious matter

that the member is questioning the minister about, and thoroughly

legitimate in terms of her responsibilities and duties as a minister.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, there is no debate on a ruling of the Chair in question

period. That has been a long-established practice of this House.

MR. MACDONALD: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 2283 ]

the right of a member to sit in this House is not a frivolous matter.

MR. BARBER:

To continue — because for the opposition it is a matter of grave

concern — I don't know why the minister would take the question on

notice.

Let me put another question, which I know you will

find in order. Has the minister, since January 11 of this year, when

she was appointed Minister of Tourism by order-in-council 51, been in

receipt of any public funds for the purpose of travel, or such other

out-of-pocket expenses as she may have had to pay in the performance of

her duties as Minister of Tourism?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I believe I've taken the member's question as notice.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is taken as notice.

MR. BARBER: I appreciate that in the uproar the minister might not have heard the question, so let me rephrase it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, a question which has been taken as notice....

MR. BARBER:

The first question, Mr. Speaker, with all respect, asked the minister

whether or not she, since her appointment as minister by

order-in-council 51, January 11, 1980, has been in receipt of public

funds and specifically of a salary as the Minister of Tourism. She took

it as notice. I am now asking whether or not, separate from the issue

of salary, she has received any expense money for travel or other such

out-of-pocket expenses.

HON. MR. MAIR: She took it as notice.

MR. BARBER: She took the salary question as notice, not the expense question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, address the Chair.

MR. BARBER:

Certainly, Mr. Speaker. My question is: has the minister received,

apart from the question of salary, any other funds from the Crown for

her expenses as minister, be they for travel or any other out-of-pocket

purposes? Yes or no?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the question is virtually identical to the question that was just taken as notice.

On a new question, the first member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, my question is distinct from the first, which was specifically about salary.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Could you bring the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) to order?

The

second question is whether or not she has received expense moneys

claimed from the Crown in the performance of her duties as Minister of

Tourism. This is not salary moneys, but expense moneys. It is a new

question.

AN HON. MEMBER: She took the question as notice.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Speaker, a new question for the Minister of Tourism: has the

minister received, as Minister of Tourism, funds for any purpose

whatsoever individually in the performance of her duties as Minister of

Tourism from any source?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Speaker, another question: specifically, has the minister received

funds from the Crown to operate an automobile in her capacity as

Minister of Tourism?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order, it is my understanding that the practice

in this House has been — for as long as I've been in it, at least —

that when a question has been taken on notice, you can't supplement at

that time. The supplementaries come when the answers come in. Mr.

Speaker, there is a practice growing in this House of attempting to ask

new questions which really aren't new questions; they are simply

supplementary to the same question. I think that the House should take

notice of that at this time and make some ruling on it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I would advise members that this is coming out of question period time.

MR. HOWARD:

With respect to the point of order which was really a smoke-screen

raised by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, one is

entitled to ask why. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, you have identified

them as separate questions because you have permitted them. It doesn't

seem proper in accordance with the rules that you should have permitted

the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to raise a false

and improper point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair will determine when points of order are not points of order.

MR. BARBER:

I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will the Minister of

Finance inform the House whether or not the Minister of Tourism has

been in receipt of a salary since her appointment as Minister of

Tourism January 11, 1980, under order-in-council 51?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In response to the question, specifically, I will take it as notice, except...

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: One member of the opposition claims it's serious and the other members laugh. I'm not through with this question, Mr. Speaker.

...to

say that the point to which I believe the first member from Victoria is

alluding has not gone unnoticed by the government. Therefore I think

that the question should be taken as notice and be answered at the

appropriate time, as soon as possible.

[ Page 2284 ]

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to answer a question which was put to me in question period some time ago.

Leave granted.

CONFIDENTIALITY OF

SYSTEMS CORPORATION DATA

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would

like to answer a question which was posed to me by the first member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) some time ago concerning the

confidentiality of information held by the British Columbia Systems

Corporation. I thank the member, Mr. Speaker, for his patience while we

explored the matter very thoroughly in order that the answer could be

as complete and, obviously, as accurate as possible. As the member's

question — as you will recall and as Hansard

shows — related to two preceding questions that day, as I remember,

which he directed respectively to the Minister of Transportation and

Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and to the Premier, I should perhaps take

this fact into account; and I think that he should as well, because it

was a series of questions.

In his preliminary question the member was, I believe, referring to two separate matters, both involving the same union....

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, we are going through the reply to a

question taken on notice in question period and it would only seem fair

that our courtesy be afforded to the member who is giving that reply.

That is not the case.

The Minister of Finance has the floor.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the preliminary questioning that day was

referring to, I believe, two separate matters, both involving the same

union, which came before the Labour Relations Board. The member stated

— and I paraphrase now — in these two hearings: "The B.C. Telephone Co.

provided confidential information to the B.C. Ferry Corporation about

the telephone accounts of members of the B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers'

Union." However, what the member omitted — in error, I'm sure — from

his questioning of my two colleagues was that in both of the two

instances when this occurred, the information about the accounts was

obtained, I am informed, under a summons from the British Columbia

Labour Relations Board. As I'm sure all members of this House are

aware, this province's Labour Relations Board is an independent

quasi-judicial body which may summon or enforce the attendance of

witnesses in relation to any matter relative to the resolution of

issues faced by the board and, further, may compel them to give oral or

written evidence on oath and to produce such documents as the board

considers necessary to hear and determine any matter within its

jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, I think you have a willing questioner and a willing answerer, but....

AN HON. MEMBER: Question period is over.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

By leave, I believe, I'm answering a question. Mr. Speaker, I sense

that the member opposite, who put the question to me and has waited for

the answer, would like to hear it.

I was neither about to

offer any legal points to that member, who is a member of the bar in

British Columbia, nor to this House, but obviously it touches upon

legal matters. I would then point out that in one of the proceedings

before the Labour Relations Board to which the member for Vancouver

Centre referred, counsel for the person affected initially objected to

the admissibility of telephone records and then withdrew the objection.

In the second of the proceedings, I am informed — and the member

referred to this — no objection as taken by counsel acting for the

person affected. I feel that I should also point out that it's my

information that if an objection is made by any of the parties involved

to a summons issued by the Labour Relations Board or to the production

of any documents referred to in such a summons, then a closer look is

taken and the summons is either maintained or quashed by members of the

board.

I think that deals with the two particular instances

which were referred to. As for the member's question concerning the

British Columbia Systems Corporation and the confidentiality of

information it holds, I would like to state clearly here that the

matter of confidentiality of data held by the Systems Corporation is

indeed of continuing and major concern to me, the other directors, and

the management of the corporation. The role of the Systems Corporation

in preserving the confidentiality of information it possesses on

individual British Columbians is clearly a most important one. The

Systems Corporation has a written policy on data security and

confidentiality which was issued as a directive to all of the

corporation's managers and staff in December 1977 and to all the

corporation's clients — that is, other ministries of this government.

This policy relating to the data security and confidentiality states

that, firstly, "Data prepared by a government ministry is considered

the property of that ministry"; secondly, "Permission for access to and

distribution of data can come from the client ministry alone. The

Systems Corporation does not extend" –I repeat, "does not extend"

access to another ministry without authority"; thirdly, "The Systems

Corporation accepts responsibility for the confidentiality of its data."

other words, the Systems Corporation is essentially a custodian of the

files and responsible for their security within the corporation. The

information that is collected by a ministry and stored by the Systems

Corporation is for use by that ministry alone.

For the

information of the member opposite, and with the leave of the House, I

would ask leave to table a copy of the British Columbia Systems

Corporation policy as it appears in the corporation's management manual

dealing with the question of confidentiality.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Further, Mr. Speaker, just very briefly to conclude what I know has

been a lengthy answer, on the first two matters which the hon. member

raised to other members of the government on the day to which I

referred — and I'm not speaking now of B.C. Systems Corporation

confidentiality — my colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams)

has informed me that he has answered a question in writing. To put it

more accurately, he has correspondence to the hon. member for Mackenzie

(Mr. Lockstead) which deals only with the first two questions which

were asked on the day referred to. I ask leave to table the document to

which I refer.

[ Page 2285 ]

Leave granted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first member for Victoria seeks the floor.

SALARY OF

MINISTER OF TOURISM

MR. BARBER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I

do so under the provisions of standing order 35. I rise on a matter of

urgent public importance, and this matter of such importance, if I may,

will be briefly stated as follows:

On January 11 this year,

signed by the Premier, countersigned by the Provincial Secretary (Hon.

Mr. Wolfe), an order appointed Hon. Patricia Jane Jordan as Minister of

Tourism. The Constitution Act,

section 9(l), the edition as revised

October 21, 1977, says: "The executive council shall be composed of

such persons as the Lieutenant-Governor appoints, not exceeding 23,

including the Premier of the province, who shall be president of the

council, and not more than 19 of those persons shall receive a salary

under this act." This particular statement of the Constitution Act is

from RSBC 1960, as revised effective October 31, 1977.

Now

the act was subsequently revised in the form of Bill 35 and it was

given royal assent on July 31, 1979, and

section 2 of that revision

reads as follows: "Section 9" of the act itself, the

section which I

just read to the House, "1(a), 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 is repealed and the

following substituted: 'The Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall from

among those persons,' etc...." The point I make by reading this, Mr.

Speaker, is to indicate that under amending Bill 35, assented to July

31, 1979,

section 1 itself was not amended. It was not repealed; it was

not rescinded; it was and is still in force.

Section 1(

a) and all the

rest were repealed, but not 1 itself.

To continue with the brief statement of the matter, Mr. Speaker, I have before me, as does every member, a copy of Revised Statutes of British Columbia 1979 .

This assembly will know that those statutes are not yet law. They are

an enactment; they are not law. They have not been proclaimed as law.

Reasonably enough, the government has delayed, in order to inform

persons, barristers, judges and others of the contents of the new set

of Revised Statutes 1979 . We have no complaint with that. Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, we find in RSBC 1979 ,

which is not yet proclaimed as law, the following, in

section 10 of the

Constitution Act: ''The executive council shall be composed of persons

the Lieutenant-Governor appoints, not exceeding 23, including the

Premier of the province who shall be president of the council. "Section

10(2): "Not more than 19 of those persons appointed shall receive a

salary under this act."

To restate briefly, Mr. Speaker, it's clear from RSBC 1960 ,

from the amendments of 1977 and 1979 and indeed from the statute which

is about to become law when it is proclaimed that the Constitution Act

has specifically limited and prohibited to 19 the number of persons who

may be in receipt of a salary as a designated minister with portfolio.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I think the member has very clearly made his point.

MR. BARBER: Now to continue briefly to state the point, Mr. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, with all due respect, I find that the member has put his

case forward quite well. If he would forward the motion....

MR. BARBER:

I haven't finished the case. The case is, sir, that there are currently

20 ministers with portfolio, number 20 having been appointed on January

11, 1980. As the Speaker will remember, I asked today whether or not

she was in receipt of a salary. It is a curious fact that she declined

to answer. Therefore it is, we feel, the responsibility of the

opposition to determine whether or not the Constitution Act has been

observed in its entirety, to learn at the earliest....

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, again I must call to the member's attention the fact that

this is not the time for debate, and I believe the member has gone

beyond the bounds of putting forward his case, which under standing

order 35 very clearly is to put it forward briefly. And now, I believe,

the member has a motion that he's going to forward to the Chair.

MR. BARBER:

Yes, I do. Recognizing that there are apparently, contrary to the

Constitution Act, 20 ministers with portfolio in the executive council

including the Premier, concluding that apparently this minister would

be paid a salary, as are all the rest....

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, again I would caution the member for the final time that

he is now engaged in debate. He has made his point and I am waiting for

the motion.

MR. BARBER: I ask leave to move a motion

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

public importance, to wit, the possibility that the Minister of Tourism

has been in receipt of a salary contrary to the provisions of the

Constitution Act as read before.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon.

members, I am in receipt of the written statement from the member, and

in view of the circumstances I shall reserve opinion on the matter,

without prejudicing the member's urgency motion, as laid out in the

standing orders. I will bring this back to the House at the earliest

opportunity.

MR. HOWARD: The motion has been made,

and nothing to the contrary can put it aside. I think that your

reserved decision cannot be accepted, and I appeal your decision to

reserve judgment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, in

fairness to the matter that has been raised, it would be much more

appropriate if the members were to allow time to come back with a more

learned decision on the matter. I have not made a recommendation other

than to come back at the earliest opportunity with.... Does the member

not find this in accord with...?

MR. HOWARD: Every minute that this situation prevails is important, and I do appeal your decision to reserve your judgment.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, is it in order for me to

[ Page 2286 ]

address myself to whether or not that motion is of urgent public importance?

MR. HOWARD: On a question of order, Mr. Speaker....

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I will take my ruling from the Speaker and not from the member who is on his feet when I'm on my feet.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. members would allow the Chair just a moment of consultation on this matter.

Hon.

members, it is and has been a long-established practice of this House

that the Chair has the right to reserve a decision, particularly on a

matter of this importance. I would ask all hon. members to afford the

Chair that opportunity to do so in this case.

MR. HOWARD:

There may well be — and we don't know that — a transgression of the

constitution, and every minute that passes by makes it more difficult.

What ruling are you making with respect to the appeal that I launched

against your decision to reserve judgment?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you have stated what is the

long-standing practice in such matters before this House, and this

right of the Speaker to reserve on a matter of urgent public importance

is not subject to appeal.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, you are making a ruling. Is that correct?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am citing the long-established practice of the House, hon. members.

MR. BARRETT:

That is correct — and making a ruling on that long-established

practice. Is that correct? To instruct the House you have to make a

ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The right to reserve has always been a long-established practice of this House.

MR. BARRETT: That is your ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is my ruling on....

MR. BARRETT: We challenge your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

MS. SANFORD: Is that debatable?

MR. BARRETT: There is no debate on a challenge of ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) rises on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I've challenged your ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT:

There's nothing to say. I've challenged your ruling. Mr. Speaker, you

have made a ruling and I've challenged your ruling and there is no

further debate.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members will please take their seats.

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 26

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 26

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair's ruling is sustained.

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the Minister of Tourism

(Hon. Mrs. Jordan) cast a vote on this particular question....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HOWARD: Just be patient.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, the member for Skeena is on his feet on a

point of order and has been recognized by the Chair. Please continue.

MR. HOWARD:

Let me start from the beginning, Mr. Speaker, so it's all in one easy

sentence. Inasmuch as the Minister of Tourism stood and voted on the

particular question which has just been decided, and because she had

earlier taken certain questions on notice about whether or not she had

received any salary, allowances or any other thing, obviously what the

minister has done by casting that ballot is to opt for the position

that she has received no salary and she is clear of any question.

[ Page 2287 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, by no stretch of the imagination can I find that a valid point of order.

The Minister of Health on a point of order.

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Speaker, is it now the rule of the House that the member for Skeena

can get up on any drivel and tripe that he wishes, attain the attention

of this House and take up our time, or does he have to name the

standing order under which he rises? Every day we witness time after

time this drivel from this member, over and over again rising on

frivolous points of order and taking up the time of this House.

Interjections.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. Neither the point raised by the last speaker nor the

point raised by the first speaker were valid points of order.

Interjections.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, could you inform the House under what standing order your

vote was the tie breaker in terms of a challenge to the Chair?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Under standing order 10, hon. member.

Orders of the Day

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Nelson-Creston has the floor on a point of order.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that there is a priority motion which

gives priority to the disposal of departmental estimates until they are

disposed of. The way to proceed to bills would be to ask leave and then

for the Chair to put the question asking that leave be granted. I rise

because I don't want to see us falling into some sort of slipshod new

practice which would make that government more of a laughing-stock than

it already is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Nelson-Creston has raised a valid point of order.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, I guess that in all of the noise going on in the House and

our good humour the member for Nelson-Creston didn't hear what I said:

"...to proceed by leave to public bills and orders."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In that case, hon. member, it was the Chair's omission that leave was not called. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 5.

SPECIAL PURPOSE

APPROPRIATION ACT, 1980

(continued)

MRS. WALLACE:

It's a long time, Mr. Speaker, since we discussed Bill 5. When I

adjourned the debate some days ago, I had dealt with some of the moneys

covered in this particular bill. I had indicated that I was a bit

concerned about the priorities that were being placed on the moneys

allocated in this bill, and I had also indicated that I was a bit

surprised that it was a bill at all. In fact, I think I had referred to

it as the third supplement to the estimates. It is that particular

facet of this bill with which I wish to deal today.

We have

a bill here that totals some $168 million, which is a very small amount

in relation to the total budget. Certainly the specified amounts

allocated to the various given ministries under this bill are minimal

compared to their total estimates, which we hope to be discussing at

some point in time. The opposition and certainly I feel that it is a

very unnecessary thing to allocate the small amounts of money in the

form of a bill, because it would indicate that the government was not

aware of how much they were going to spend or how they were going to

spend it when the estimates were prepared, and dribble by dribble, as

the money came it, they kept popping bills onto the order paper to

utilize this money that they had collected from the taxpayers of the

province.

I was interested to look at the totals, Mr.

Speaker, in relation to the way the moneys were used last year.

Certainly last year there seemed to be no necessity to have a bill to

provide for a great deal more money than is provided in this particular

bill. In fact, last year, according to the statement of special

warrants issued in the comptroller-general's report, in excess of $282

million was expended without an estimate, without any authority at all

except an order-in-council. It seems very strange that we suddenly have

to have a bill to allocate nearly half of that amount, that this year

we're faced with dealing with a bill for these piffling little amounts.

It's interesting to relate those various amounts in relation to the various ministries....

HON. MR. CURTIS: What did you call the amounts?

MRS. WALLACE: Piffling little amounts.

Under

the Labour estimates, for example, some $4.5 million are allocated.

There is a total estimate for Labour of $56.9 million, and here we have

this very small amount covered in a special bill. Last year there was

no compunction about issuing a special warrant, not for that much, but

certainly for nearly $1 million for Labour overexpenditures.

the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, we have two different

amounts: one for $1 million, and one for $6.5 million — a total of $7.5

million out of a total budget of $63.3 million; again, a very small

amount of the total budget that is allocated under this special bill.

This

year we have a $1 million special appropriation under your bill. Last

year $2.3 million was accounted for in special warrants for that

particular ministry. Again, it seems a very strange of procedure, Mr.

Speaker. In education, with a budget of over $1 billion, we have $1.2

million allocated under this bill. Now why in the world couldn't that

simply have been included in the minister's estimates? Certainly last

year when it wasn't in his estimates he was prepared to spend 1.8

million under special warrants. This year we have a bill for $1.2

million.

[ Page 2288 ]

go on to Mines, Mr. Speaker. Allocated to Mines under this particular

bill is a sum of $1.8 million, yet in the estimates we have a total

budget of $21.1 million and — horror of horrors — last year that

particular ministry had an overrun for which special warrants of $17.3

million were issued. Yet here we have a bill to give them $1.8 million.

It is a very strange method of financing a government and government

operations.

The Provincial Secretary has $5 million on a

budget of $195.7 million. Last year there was an overrun of nearly $1

million. Mind you, that is just a fifth of that amount, but it was done

with an overrun and a special warrant last year. You have a budget of

$195.7 million — it could have been up to $200 million — and no need

for this bill. It is a very unnecessary bill.

Last year the

special warrants for science and technology were included in Education.

This year with an estimate for science and technology of $292.5

million, we have $6.5 million as a separate item in this bill.

The

purpose of this bill escapes me. As I said, it is nothing more than a

supplement to the estimates. It has no place on the order paper. It

either shows a need to try to build a little image by bringing in a

bill and talking about surplus revenue or else it shows some very poor

bookkeeping and accounting practices. Perhaps it shows both.

go on to Industry and Small Business Development, where that minister

is getting $10 million under this particular bill. His estimates for

this year are $59.1 million. Last year he had almost half that $10

million covered by special warrants; an equivalent amount — $4.3

million by special warrants. Here we have two allocations of $5 million

each going to that ministry and it could just as well have been

included in the estimates. There is no need for the bill.

course, when we get to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways we

have a very apt example of how what was good for last year is not good

for this year. Last year that particular Minister of Transportation and

Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) had overexpenditures and overruns covered by

special warrants in the amount of $119.6 million. Yet this year we have

a special bill to give that Minister of Highways $103.4 million in

total from two different projects. His expenditures for the year are

estimated to be $513.8 million.

So the point I am making is

simply to clarify and emphasize the position that I had stated earlier,

that this bill is an unnecessary bill; it is a political bill to try to

gain a few points with the electorate, to try to build some prestige on

the idea that they are granting these moneys, that they are able to do

all these sorts of special things for the electorate, when really it is

no more or less than just a part of the estimates. That is where that

money should have been; that is where it should more properly be

accounted for to do a proper job on estimating so you don't have to

have a special little bill for special little amounts of money in the

hope of making some political mileage out of it.

What

assurance do we have that this time around, in spite of the estimates

that are discussed in this House and in spite of this bill which is

going to give them some extra moneys, that we're not also going to be

faced next year with the same kind of special warrants that we had last

year? I have no confidence in the ability of this government to get the

estimates right, to do a job in estimating what they are going to spend

and how they are going to spend it, or in estimating what their income

is going to be. They certainly have not proven over the last few years

that they have that capability, and I don't expect this year to be any

exception.

So I expect that not only are we going to have

the estimates, we are going to have Bill 7, which could be part of the

same thing; we're going to have Bill 5, which most certainly should

have been part of the estimates; and I would expect by the end of next

year we're also going to have a whole lot of special warrants to show

that even after three attempts they're not able to get it right. For

that reason I just have no reservations at all about opposing this

bill, because it's a bill that should never have been here in the first

place. It's simply something that should have been included in the

estimates. We shouldn't be wasting the time of the House discussing

these kinds of fiddling little amounts of money for fiddling little

projects, to try and create a bit of political prestige. And for those

reasons, Mr. Speaker, I certainly oppose the bill.

I am

concerned that we are taking up time debating this particular item in

isolation from the rest of the expenditures of the government. We

should far more properly be dealing with the total estimates for each

ministry, so we can get a true and full picture of what those ministers

are proposing in each of their areas of responsibility, instead of

dealing with it piecemeal like this. We have these little bits in this

bill, other bits of money — more sizeable, I agree — that could just as

well be included in the total estimates. I'm sure that there are many

projects in the estimates that are just as high-cost as the specific

items in either this bill or Bill 7 — and I know I can't relate to

other legislation, Mr. Speaker; I'm just doing it in passing — but

certainly there is no need for this kind of bill to be on the floor of

this Legislature, unless, as I say, it's done to try and build up a

little bit of political prestige by trying to highlight a few things.

would suggest that one of the most likely reasons is that the

government has just not been able to master the ability of estimating.

Whether it's deliberately done or not I'm not sure; it could be

deliberately done. I have certainly indicated that I have had those

concerns when we've discussed estimates before, Mr. Speaker. It could

well be that this government deliberately underestimates the revenue

and overestimates expenditure in order to build up surpluses, so we can

have these kinds of little bills. Or it could be that they are just not

able to come up with a ball-park figure of what the revenue is going to

be and what the expenditures are going to be. Or it could be that

having once arrived at what they're going to expend their money for and

how it's going to be expended, they have not been able to live within

those limitations which they have set upon themselves. For whatever

reason, we're faced with some very strange numerical gimmicks in this

House, in having so many different forms of putting expenditure before

the House.

This concerns me, because I really feel that when

we're dealing with a given minister in his or her given estimates, we

should be able to deal with all the facets of his or her responsibility

instead of talking to the Minister of Finance about things that are by

no manner of means the responsibility of that minister; they're

definitely the responsibility of the many other ministers that are

named in this particular bill — some seven or eight of them — and have

nothing to do with the Minister of Finance at all. They're the

responsibility of those other ministers; they should be being discussed

in the estimates of those other ministers, not in this bill. I would

just hope that this year would see an end to this kind of bill on the

floor of the Legislature, where we do not have that opportunity

[ Page 2289 ]

discussing those various items that a minister is responsible for under

his or her particular estimates. They should be included in the

estimates. No more of these bills, Mr. Speaker. For that reason I'm

opposing the bill.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, it's nice

to see you sitting there. It was pretty close there before. I was

wondering whether we were going to carry on.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI:

Well, you must not say anything. We don't even know whether you should

be here, Patsy. You'd better keep quiet. You know, it's not going to

make your case any better if you keep talking.

AN HON. MEMBER: You big bully.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, you don't really think that that minister could be intimidated, do you?

The

Minister of Finance has had an opportunity three times in this

particular session of the House to have a budget speech. He presented

his budget speech; he presented another bill which made reference to

another kind of budget, which was a surplus; and now we're into the

third budget speech under this bill, which again talks about surpluses.

The government has not had a particularly good record in terms of

understanding what it has to do with the money that it gets. Every year

since they've been in government since 1976 they've either had to

re-write budget speeches or issue enormous overruns in terms of

expenditures. In this last fiscal year alone the overrun was almost

$400 million. Here we are again with another bill.

Oh, the minister's now coming into the House; we can feel much freer about debating it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I was listening.

MR. LEVI: You were listening? That's good, Hugh. I'm glad you were doing that.

think the minister should, when he's closing the debate on the bill,

give us some idea what the government is doing in terms of looking at

its whole estimate process. What does it mean when he talks about the

future of capital investment in this province? Upon what is he basing

his remarks?

For instance, Mr. Speaker, in respect to the

finances of this province, for two years we've been trying to get from

that government a series of reports that have been paid for by the

taxpayer. I have in mind the Schroeder report, which deals with capital

markets. That report was announced. It was given to the Schroeder bank

people — people with an international name in respect to giving this

information on capital markets. What kind of investment process do we

have in British Columbia? It cost the taxpayers $125,000. Presumably it

did an analysis of the kind of capital investment projections that we

can have, which must be of value to the minister. After all, he has to

be able to look at future revenues. The theme, generally, in the way

the minister and his predecessor have been handling his portfolio has

been to underestimate, to get a large amount of revenues, and then to

have to come into the House with a series of bills.

Now we know that they don't have that much trouble with the estimate process.

After all, the estimate process starts in July. Nobody can tell me that by October

or November, which was the usual time when the estimate process was finished,

the minister would not have a good idea as to exactly how much money he was

going to put into his budget for the following fiscal year. He could avoid this

kind of nonsensical game that we have of having not one but two supplementary

estimates. Two supplementary estimates!

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

MR. LEVI:

Yes, it is nonsense, Mr. Member. I know that the minister is upset

because we call it nonsense, but you've had three chances at making

budget speeches and you're getting boring. We can't keep listening to

you coming into this House and making budget speeches.

would like the minister to tell us if he has had a look at the

Schroeder report. Has it been of any value to him? After all, the

Schroeder report was going to examine the whole capital market

structure. It was a worthwhile effort. I'd like to see it; I think

everybody in this House would like to see it; I'm sure that the people

in the investment field would like to see it, even if it's only the

stock exchange people. That report comprised a study of the stock

market.

So there's value in that kind of investment.

Unfortunately, I'm told in a letter I've received from the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) that the report is

now out of date. They've spent $125,000 trying to understand the

capital market. It could have been made available to that minister. He

would have had a better understanding of what the capital structure

was, the investment structure was, and what kind of projections he

could have made. But it's not been made available. I don't even think

he's seen it.

It's very important, Mr. Speaker. I know

you're looking rather skeptical, trying to see whether this deals with

the principle of the bill. Of course it does. We're dealing here with

the Special Purpose Appropriation Act, which deals with the whole

business of surpluses. This is the second surplus bill that we've had,

and I'm asking the minister to take a look at this report so that he

can have some understanding and won't make the same mistake next time.

There's

also another report that would be of value to him. It was a report that

was commissioned by the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) in conjunction with his colleague, the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It dealt with with whole

question of debt and the equity situation in the province.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI:

Yes, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), there is

such a report by Brown, Farris and Jefferson. It cost $60,000, and is

another useful report that the government could make use of and not

make these kinds of mistakes. We haven't seen that report either. We

hear from the minister all the time about the kind of economic planning

that's going on over there, the kind of wooing that they have to do to

get the right amount of investment capital into the province. After

all, that's what helps to provide the revenue, albeit it's not that

large in terms of the corporate sector that pays just under $400

million in taxes versus the average worker in that employee category

that pays pretty close to $2.5 billion. There's a great difference

between the contribution from the private sector in terms of the

revenue of this province and what the workers

[ Page 2290 ]

pay. Nevertheless, the reports are necessary to have that kind of understanding.

the bill, one of the items.... Item (

f) is something worthwhile to

consider. This deals with the additional $5 million to the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development. Mr. Speaker, we have been

debating in this House for pretty close to five weeks a very serious

problem that exists in the Fraser Valley in respect to Maplewood

Poultry. There is $5 million there. That $5 million presumably would

provide money to assist operations like Maplewood — but not the kind of

offer that was made by the minister; we're not talking about that. If

the minister will get up and assure us that out of that $5 million he

is going to pick up and take care of all the problems of Maplewood

Poultry, I am sure that every member on this side will say, right,

let's push the bill through, let's get the Lieutenant-Governor in,

we'll pass it and give them the money.

But, Mr. Speaker, we

only know that the government is prepared, at the moment, to pick up

half of their losses. Now we know that within the Ministry of Industry

and Small Business Development there are a number of programs. The

minister said the other day that there are lots of programs to do this

kind of development work. So we begin to wonder why he needs another $5

million. I would hope that a significant amount of that $5 million is

going towards the saving of the poultry and turkey industry in this

province. That is how that money could be applied, because that is a

worthwhile effort. But we haven't heard that, mainly because we deal

basically in these kinds of bills with a lot of window-dressing.

Not

even under the previous Social Credit government can I recall that they

ever brought in a Special Purpose Appropriation Act. Even the name is a

mouthful. It doesn't really have any relevance to what you're supposed

to be doing. Special Purpose Appropriation Act — it sounds like it came

out of the U.S. Senate. "Special Purpose Appropriation Act, 1980. The

purpose of this Bill is to authorize the payment of an amount not

exceeding $168.65 million out of the 1979-80 surplus for the purposes

specified in the bill."

I'll bet you, Mr. Speaker, that in

the next fiscal year we are going to have at least three of these

bills, because I'm sure the Minister of Finance is not going to be able

to come into this House with a surplus of something like a billion

dollars that is going to be sitting in his surplus fund. A billion is

anticipated because of the way they've done their budgeting. They've

announced a number of programs, and then we find at the end of all the

programs very little spending at the end of the fiscal year. The

Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has 120-odd million dollars,

and the most they are going to spend, even according to the minister's

documents, is $19 million. So next year there will be another Special

Purposes Appropriation Act to take care of the surpluses in the fiscal

year 1980-81. But it is going to be tougher because the amounts are

going to be much larger. Then we're going to have to go through it a

second time and a third time.

Obviously we have to question

the kind of economic planning that they do. I hope the Minister of

Finance is prepared to tell us, in respect to the two specific

questions I've asked him, whether he's had an opportunity to look at

the Schroeder report and the Brown, Farris and Jefferson report, both

of which should be of great assistance to him in the job that he does.

We haven't seen any of these reports. We would like to see them,

because we want to have some understanding of the actual picture

vis-à-vis the capital market situation in British Columbia,

particularly because it does affect the function of the Minister of

Finance in calculating his revenue.

We have had for four and

a half years now a great debate in respect to the first item in this

bill, which is the one to reduce the unmatured debt of $235,347,790.

Nobody out there believes them anymore, but they keep repeating the

myth all the time. If that's what they want to do, that's fine, they

can do that.

One of the interesting amounts is the amount

not exceeding $100 million to the Minister of Transportation and

Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). Every time I look at the Minister of

Transportation and Highways and every time I have to deal with him in

one way or another on this floor there is always some mention of $100

million. He and I have something in common. My gosh, in three years

he's had $250 million worth of overruns. I don't know how you can sit

in front of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and not blush around your

ears. He is sitting there totally embarrassed, Mr. Speaker, having to

sit behind the Minister of Transportation and Highways, who is an

absolute wastrel in this government. After all, he has $100 million

overruns.

You know, I can remember that minister when he was

over here and was Chairman of Public Accounts. He was the first

opposition member in this province to be Chairman of Public Accounts,

because that is what the previous government did. In 1974 he went to

the press and said: "That Minister of Human Resources and his $100

million overrun! We're going to have him in front of Public Accounts,

and we want an accounting." Well, I waited with bated breath for 18

months, and I did not get my appearance before Public Accounts.

Here

we are talking about giving that minister something not exceeding $100

million. You know, his is one of the better planning departments in the

government. After all, what does he have to do? He has to measure all

the roads in British Columbia and then calculate how much blacktop

there is and how much he's going to put down this year. That's not too

difficult. The only variable in that is probably the cost of the

blacktop. But here he is having to have another $100 million. He's a

$100 million man. He's a much better looking $100 million man than the

other one. That's the guy. There are only two ministers in this

province who ever had $100 million overruns and there's one of them

sitting over there. And my gosh, have we got expectations to get a $150

million overrun out of that guy! The trouble is he was jealous. He

thought that only the NDP could have overruns. My God, they've been

creating overruns since they've been the government, for four years.

Every year they have $200 million, $300 million or almost $400 million

overruns. But they don't call them overruns; they call them "planned

program budgetary surpluses." They have words like "special purpose

appropriation funds." That brings us back to the principle of the bill.

The

Minister of Transportation and Highways is going to get almost $100

million for accelerated highway construction. That has an interesting

ring. I'm never quite sure what it means — "accelerated highway

construction" — but it's certainly a worthwhile thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: "Faster roads."

MR. LEVI: Oh, right. That's to get the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

[ Page 2291 ]

back

to Langley more quickly. Well, if that's the case, we're prepared to

get him a large rubber band and flick him over there. We don't want to

spend a lot on blacktop. My gosh, that's expensive.

We've

got an interesting item which really is, in fact, a second $5 million

grant to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon.

Mr. Phillips). That's $10 million he's got. Well, he's got all sorts of

options now to help Maplewood, to keep that big, bad giant, Cargill,

out of the province. He's got $10 million with which he can deal with

development in this province. I know that they had a hand in the job of

doing something with the Trigull people. Fortunately, today I see the

present federal government finally came through. That looks like it's

going to go again. That's pleasing to see. Well, what could we expect

from that minister? He's got $10 million over and above his budget to

spend. Presumably he's not going to spend too much of it on studies,

because that department is famous for its studies and things that

really don't happen after the studies get up onto the shelves. I want

to look at the....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Is that Fred Flintstone speaking there? Every now and again you get a mumbling from the caves over there.

MR. BRUMMET: No, I'm just trying to get your members to listen to you.

MR. LEVI: Look, we don't want any mumblings from the caves over there. Go back in, roll the rock in front of it and leave it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. All hon. members, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam....

MR. LEVI:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You've got to protect me from that member. That

man must keep quiet. I'm usually very well behaved in this House, but

not when he speaks. You ought to drop a net on him one day.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to turn for a minute to the whole issue of the

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer).

This has been a very worthwhile creation in terms of a ministry. There

is no fault on that at all; I think that it's something that has needed

to be done. Here we have $2 million in one

section of the bill and $1

million in another

section of the bill, and you begin to wonder why all

these $1 million, $2 million and $5 million afterthoughts went into

making up the budgetary process. That's what takes away from the new

Minister of Finance and his staff the kind of credibility which you

have to have in that department when you make up the budget. You can't

simply keep doing little addendums. After all, I think I'm right in

saying there's a massive bureaucracy attached to the Ministry of

Finance whose job is to take a look at the estimate process, the

expenditures, revenues, accountability — Treasury Board and support

staff. Surely all of this should obviate the necessity for this kind of

thing.

Sure, we can go into the political intent of the bill. I'm not sure that

the public understands that thing very well. We understand it. We get an opportunity

to debate it in terms of what it really is, which really, in a way, tends to

show up the inefficiency of the government in developing this budgetary process.

But in respect of the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications,

we have for the future the development of research and development, which is

a significant factor in our society today, which will do a great deal to contribute

to future job possibilities, and that's something that's extremely worthwhile.

But, again, why do it this way at all? Because, after all, in that ministry,

which is not a very large ministry at all, the expenditures are not that difficult.

We're not now talking about the financing of the universities, which has

been long planned and laid out and is not a difficult process at all.

Right

down at the bottom we have one other item for the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser).

section (

k) is an amount

not exceeding $3.4 million — they've sure cut him back here — to the

Minister of Transportation and Highways for the purpose of

establishing, expanding and improving airport facilities. Yes, that was

a program started under a previous Minister of Transportation and

Highways which has been carried on. Now that we've got all these

upgradings of the airports, perhaps the Minister of Transportation and

Highways will tell us in his estimates whether we have any chance of

obtaining a provincial airline, which is something worth looking at. I

know that the major customer would probably be the government, but it's

a worthwhile thing to look at. In this day and age where the plane is

so important, is there any consideration being given...? I see this

money is all for the establishing, expanding and improving of airport

facilities. We would like to look at something that relates to some

future forward look on the question of the use of airports.

I understand that my friend from Central Fraser Valley would like to say something. I'll yield the floor to him.

MR. RITCHIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd also like to thank the member who has just given me the floor.

I beg leave to introduce a group of distinguished guests who have just now arrived.

Leave granted.

MR. RITCHIE:

We owe a great deal to the senior citizens of this province, Today I am

very proud indeed to introduce to the House part of a group visiting

the building today and tomorrow. I believe we have 46 with us today.

They are members of the Clearbrook Golden Age Society. I would like the

House to honour them and welcome them to this chamber.

MR. LEVI:

I love the way the member for Central Fraser Valley introduces. He begs

leave. It was very nicely done. I thought he was going to introduce a

bill.

I want to deal with the notes that the minister has

within the bill, which I think are relevant to the kind of thing we've

been talking about. He's got an item on the back of page 2: "Unexpended

money." It says:

"

(1) Any part of the money

appropriated under

section 1(

c) to (

n) that may be unexpended at the

end of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, shall not be expended

after that date.

"

(2) Notwithstanding any

other enactment, the appropriation under

section 1...continues in

effect until the end of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982...."

So there's a kind of forward-looking plan of what they're going to do with the money if they don't spend it this year.

[ Page 2292 ]

That's

a key thing in what they've been doing in terms of introducing their

budget. We went through it under another debate in which there was an

enormous amount of money that will be unexpended at the end of this

fiscal year. In this

section of the bill — and I'm not really going

section by

section but looking in terms of the general statement — they

anticipate that if it's not all expended.... There are those of us over

here and those of us in the public who believe that where you have

surpluses you have to take a look at your tax structure, and first of

all ask if the people are being overtaxed. That's been a long debate

since the government has been here for four years.

Overtaxation

leads to an increase in revenues, particularly if you've overestimated

your expenditures and underestimated your revenues. Consequently the

people that suffer are really the people who have to pay the taxes.

Bear in mind that even people with low incomes pay taxes in this

province. Consequently the kind of planning that appears to have gone

into this bill is the rider that if it's not expended at the end of

March 1981 it shall not be expended after that date, so presumably

what's left over will come back.

But we begin to wonder what

it is they have in mind with all the programs, and of course we now

know. I think we can well accept that the programs are really not that

planned. It would have been far better, in terms of the kind of

planning that departments do, to put the money into the general

estimate of the department and have them carry on. After all, what we

look for in some of the departments is that they are job-creating. If

we are dealing with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways we are

certainly looking for job creation. They are very large job providers.

Regardless of what we might look to in terms of the public sector, the

government is still a very large provider of jobs, albeit it on a

seasonal basis, but a very important part of the economy.

The

thing is that without all of this kind of little details that we get in

terms of expenditures, we don't have what the programs are that are

behind the expenditures. That's basically the criticism that we have

here. What we have is some window-dressing and a lot of financial

frippery. Nobody's suggesting that the amounts are not....

Interjection.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

MR. LEVI:

Frippery. It's a kind of word. I think sometimes the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) uses the word "piffle," but I would never

attach the word "piffle" to money.

It's the way it's done,

the style. It's not the money. The money obviously becomes part of the

economic lifestream of this province. In some respects it's a little

bit insincere the way it's done. We don't really know what they've got

in mind, because the rider in the bill says if it's not expended by the

end of the year, it's not to be expended afterwards. Well, you don't

put that in when you really have some planning, because usually what

you look for is that things are going along so well that you really

need more money to put into these programs — and not that you're

anticipating that you're going to have surpluses. After all, this is

what this bill is all about: we have a bill dealing with surplus funds

that anticipates a surplus.

That's a very interesting kind

of economics — super surpluses. Underestimate, overtax, create

surpluses, bring in one bill that will spend some of the surplus, bring

in a second bill that will spend some of the surplus, and then in the

second bill put a rider that if you have a surplus of that, well, what

are you going to do? You'll probably get another one. So it's not the

kind of economic planning that one would have expected from the

government that is constantly saying that it has an understanding of

the bottom line. We hear it from the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development when he is in full flight, Mr. Speaker, when he is

telling us about the glories of Social Credit and economic planning —

he could probably spend every dollar he could get his hands on. I know

that he would never spend it frivolously. He is not a frivolous man,

the Minister of Small Business Development, not a frivolous man at all;

he is many other things, but he is not frivolous. He wouldn't take the

money and just spend it with gay abandon, because he is not like that.

But he has never really told us — not really, in all the years he's

been the minister — what it is he's ever created. We know what he's

destroyed under his ministry, but we don't know, even in this

particular bill where he gets $10 million, what he has in mind. He's

never told us that, never really demonstrated to us that he's capable

of anything.

Now we'll see. We're all waiting to see what

happens in the next few days with the announcements in respect to the

coal. That will be very worthwhile listening to. Then maybe we'll get

up, Mr. Speaker, and we might change our mind — after all, we can all

learn from watching the maturation of the minister over the years. You

know, he no longer flies, he treads water. He has a different approach

now when he speaks. He doesn't wave his arms; he pats his hands up and

down, which means that he's beginning to understand a little bit that

loudness will not overcome his inability to be a good minister.

don't know from this bill at all what he's going to do with the extra

$10 million. I did make a suggestion before you resumed the chair, Mr.

Speaker, that there is an ideal opportunity for that minister to do

something about the Maplewood-Cargill situation. We now know that the

government is not really interested in having Cargill in the province

buying up more companies. We've never had an explanation from the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) why not, but that's their

approach. The bulwark against this kind of thing is this kind of money

in the bill — $10 million. How much is going to go to Maplewood?

Certainly, I hope, more than the offer to pick up 50 percent of their

losses for five weeks. Then I presume that they'll all go into the

poor-house after that. We're still waiting; here is an opportunity.

would have thought that we would have heard from one of the ministers

that if the members would only pass this bill, we could put the workers

at Maplewood back to work, because within that bill is the money we

need to transfer to Maplewood. With reasonable assistance — and, of

course, reasonable assistance from the government as we know it,

because as free enterprise goes it's not too much.... They get very

worried that somehow somebody is going to turn around and say: "That's

government involvement. My gosh, that's almost socialism, and we can't

have that!" They have enough schizophrenia over there with politics

without injecting the accusation that they might just be socialists.

But

when we really examine it closely, Mr. Speaker, along with all of the

grants that are made by that government, there is an incredible amount

of assistance that goes to the private sector. That's okay too; I don't

feel badly about that at all. But what I feel badly about is, when

there is a constant

[ Page 2293 ]

protest from the people over

there, that the free enterprise system has to fly by itself with no

government involvement whatsoever. I think it's a good thing. If the

private sector won't produce, somebody has got to produce it. I've

always believed that until the private sector demonstrates otherwise,

the employer of last resort is in fact the government, because that's

what we have to do constantly as governments. We constantly have to

come up with plans for students in the summer, because those jobs can't

be created by the private sector for any number of reasons. Perhaps

they're not economical; they don't fit into their plans, so the

government has to step in.

So gradually, even though they're

free enterprisers and they scream at the top of their lungs that

they're not involved in the private sector, we know that that's not

true. Mr. Speaker, we know that the government is very heavily involved

in provision of assistance to the private sector. My gosh, the Ministry

of Transportation and Highways all by itself is a great big land-lease

program for the private sector. Who creates more opportunity for the

private sector than the Minister of Highways? All those miles and miles

of accelerated blacktop! He provides all of that money to all of those

people that build the roads. Sure, it's the private sector that is

building the road; and it's the people who work for them that pay the

taxes, along with the companies. But if you talk about that to that

group over there, they get a little embarrassed, because somehow they

feel there is something wrong if people know that they assist the

private sector. I don't think there's anything wrong with it. By all

means, let’s assist the private sector. But we don't want the private

sector telling us that we can't have government interference.

Mr.

producing a report about the amount of government assistance that was

paid out in 1978. It was put out by the Department of Industry, Trade

and Commerce. There was $7.5 billion of direct assistance to the

private sector. In that same fiscal year the private sector paid $6.7

billion in corporate taxes. So they're ahead of the game by

three-quarters of a billion dollars. That's how much assistance went

into the private sector.

When the minister closes the

debate, he should tell us whether any of the $10 million that is going

to economic development is going to be earmarked for assisting a

company like Maplewood — you know, to get back the 124 jobs, to do that

kind of development. We haven't heard that. We don't know what is going

on behind the scenes. We have all sorts of problems understanding what

the minister is really doing. He's not creating jobs. We know that the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) said that those kinds of

decisions are made by the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). Well, we'll have to wait. I keep

calling him the minister of economic development, because at one time I

had expectations that he would be the minister responsible for

developing the economy. But I think he now has the right title for his

job. He is the minister of small business, with emphasis on the small.

He is a small minister with a small portfolio, and I would like him,

sometime in the debate.... The Minister of Transportation and

Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) looks like he's dead keen to get up and

debate this bill. So I think that he should get up and tell us just

what they have in mind in terms of the $10 million supplementary

appropriation — the surplus — that is going to the Minister of Industry

and Small Business Development.

I want to make a comment, Mr. Speaker, about the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich), who will be receiving up to $4.5 million for youth employment and

training programs. That is something that we've debated long and hard in

this House. We've debated it in reference to the greater provision of apprenticeship

programs. I know that there are always problems in terms of creating apprenticeship

programs because you have to deal with trade unions that in some cases have

provisions that do not allow for the wholesale provision of apprenticeships.

I've

often worried and wondered about summer employment programs, because I

always get the feeling that while we are dealing with summer employment

programs for a group of our young people who are at school — and we

have a lot of concern about that — somehow it's not demonstrated in the

programs that we create any continuing concern about that young group

in our society between 15 and 20 — not even up to 24 — for whom there

appear to be no continuing programs. There is no continuing focus on

that group. We have a continuing focus on summer employment for

students, but we should also be having a continuing focus on

employment for people who are not students, particularly for those from

15 to 20. I know that they have to battle with the whole business of

Canada Manpower, but I think that people who have been involved in

government realize that there are a number of hurdles that people have

to go over. Nobody at 15 or 16 or 17 has access to that kind of

training. After all, there is always a constant argument over the

regulations — you have to have one year in the workforce before you can

qualify, and some of these young people never get one year in the

workforce.

We do need to develop some very special programs,

and I would hope that this is what the Minister of Labour has in mind

for this $4.5 million — that it's not just addressed to university

students, that it is addressed to people that we rarely talk about.

There are a group of people out there who are no longer in school.

They're not in trouble, but they're a burden on their family, because

they appear to have no future for many years down the road because of

their age. They're not in the school system, and they're not really in

the workforce. I would like to see us have a continuing program. If we

have a summer program for students, then let's have an all-year program

for the non-students, because they are people we have to concern

ourselves about as well.

The last item that they deal with

here is $1 million for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon.

Mr. Chabot) — accelerated construction of senior citizens' housing.

Well, that's nice. After all those years of developing a program for

senior citizens housing, in came a new government in 1976 and out went

the development of senior citizens' housing. They just got out of the

whole business; now they want to get back into it again. They want to

tippy-toe back into the business of providing senior citizens' housing.

It is called social housing, Mr. Speaker. Given the fact that we have a

high unemployment rate, that we in fact have a housing shortage, the

government says they'll put $200 million into a mortgage subsidy

scheme. But I don't know that the addition of $1 million is going to

make a very significant impact on the senior citizens' housing needs of

this province.

All of that surplus — $168 million — could

have gone to senior citizens' housing, and the spinoff from that in

terms of the forest industry, the construction business, the small

businesses that operate around the construction industry, and the

employment of the construction trades would have been remarkable. We

often question why it is that they don't do it.

[ Page 2294 ]

Why

don't they take the whole surplus of the Special Purpose Appropriation

Act, 1980, and put into parentheses "accelerated senior citizens'

housing program" — even take the money away from the accelerated

minister over there on highways — and put it into housing? Not

everybody can work on the highways, because much of the work that the

ministry is doing is outside of the lower mainland. It'd be up north.

True, those people need too. But in terms of housing, that's something

that a lot of people can do. After all, we have 30 percent of our

construction trade unemployed. We have to deal with some kind of

priority. That's what we could have done with this — taken all of it

and wrapped it into the very last item under (q), which is an

accelerated construction program for senior citizens' housing.

Just

about when you get wound up with $1 million Mr. Speaker, you've run out

of money, because when it's accelerated, it really is accelerated. I

don't know that in going through all of these items that.... If

they wanted to have credibility in this bill, real credibility in terms

of the effort and planning, meeting the kinds of economic crises that

we have, they might just have looked at the bottom item and talked

about accelerated housing for senior citizens and nothing else. Then it

would have been a bill for this side of the House to really contend

with, because basically we don't agree with the principle of bringing

in bills every time you have a little surplus.

You know how

to create surpluses — underestimate your income and revenues — so

that's not necessary. That's part of the frippery that goes on. But in

terms of changing the thrust of this bill to an accelerated housing

program worth $168 million, you would have got the support of this side

of the House. Yes, you would have got the support. But there is no way

we can support little bits here and there, no way at all.

It's

not a question of it being too much or not enough. You keep telling us

you've got all this money. You tell us that you're going to have $1

billion in surplus. In the middle of the kind of economic crisis this

province is faced with, the answer by that government is that we're

going to underexpend. That's what they've said in their budget papers.

"We're going to underexpend to the tune of $1 billion." I find that

very unprincipled. That's not a question of too little too late. It's

all sitting in the bank. It's like BCRIC; it's become a great big

savings fund. They're happy to leave it in the bank and pick up just

the interest on the money. It's incredible. Why worry about risk? We've

got the Premier on the one hand standing up and saying, "Each British

Columbian should participate in the risk of this province," but BCRIC

doesn't seem to be doing it. They've got it in the bank; there's not

much risk there.

MR. KING: They're going to pay the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) out of surplus funds.

MR. LEVI:

Oh, right. Well, we could get — and my colleague has just pointed this

out to me — a message amendment bill from His Honour the Administrator,

in which it will show under item (

r) that could go into this

bill.... It would probably be entitled: "Special Purpose

Appropriation Act, 1980 — Minister of Tourism, Rehabilitation." We

really have to restore her, because she's going to be on unemployment

insurance very shortly.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI:

It's very difficult, Mr. Speaker, to overcome the humour of my

colleagues on the front bench there, especially the member for Shuswap,

who has such a beautiful Irish belly-laugh. After all, when he laughs,

the whole world laughs — even the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Vander Zalm), without his green uniform.

In closing, I

just want to go back to what I said earlier. If the bill would have

been a special appropriations bill related to the business of an

accelerated housing program for senior citizens, I have no doubt that

this side would have supported the bill wholeheartedly despite how we

feel about the whole business of surpluses.

The basis on

which you operate in this House is that sometimes you've got to shift

from one foot to the other, sometimes back and forward in terms of what

it is you look at and what your beliefs are. You can go so far in being

flexible. Okay, occasionally in this House we have votes that we all

agree on. I know that the people in the galleries sometimes think that

when we walk out of the corridor the government....

gosh, he's back. I want to welcome the Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

Mr. Hewitt); he's back. You know, if you'd have got back before, they

wouldn't have been in the mess they were in when you weren't here. My

God, I never thought I'd ever see the day there would be a vote in this

House — 26-26 — and there was the Deputy Speaker not knowing which way

to go. He had to get the advice of the Clerks. The only solid piece of

advice that came across the House was from the members on the front

bench who said: "Put out the writ!" But that advice was not heeded, so

consequently we're still in debate.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI:

No time limit? I've got another 35 minutes. How are we doing for time,

Mr. Speaker? One minute? Okay. Well, I've got it made. I've got one

minute in which I can repeat.... Oh, here's the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). Garde, where were you

when they needed you?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: I don't know what you were doing over there, but 26-26, my gosh, that's....

Interjections.

MR. LEVI:

For those in the gallery who are not familiar with the gentleman that

just entered, he is the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey. For 15

years he was the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, and then something

happened last year and he became the first member. Now he's Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations, and I do welcome him. Am I out of time?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. LEVI: That's too bad, because I had so much more to say.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I'm very happy to take

part in this great debate on Bill 5, special

funds appropriation, and certainly to follow my friend from

Maillardville-Coquitlam,

[ Page 2295 ]

who

has got a distinguished record in our province of having overruns. He

was referring to the overruns that we have here. I recall the overruns

when that member was a minister, and his explanation for them was that

it was a clerical error of $100 million. I want to tell you that we got

a better highway system for the overruns that have happened in

Highways. You can see what we got for it all over British Columbia

today. It also supplied a lot of badly needed jobs in our province. So

there's quite a difference between your overruns and ours.

The

point I want to make regarding Bill 5 — the $168 million which we are

debating — is a little background why it's here in surplus funds. I

want to say that I'm very proud to be part of a government which

created surplus funds, which were caused by government policy directing

the economy of this province.

MR. LEA: From overtaxation.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Yes, I've heard those remarks from the negative nellies on that side

calling it overtaxation. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, and the

members of this House that we reduced taxes last year, specifically the

sales tax, from 5 to 4 percent, and we still came up with a surplus.

Therefore, I am proud that our economy was able to generate the funds

so we could stand here today and debate a bill like this.

That

leads me to another story. The very first paragraph in here.... The

only down side in this bill is in

section (a), which provides for $26.1

million of debt reduction in British Columbia. If it had been those

people when they were government, we would be looking at a deficit bill

here today and not a surplus bill, I can assure you. We are still

paying for the deficit for the socialist games that we had in this

province from 1972 to 1975. We're providing for one of ten instalments

to reduce the debt that they created for the citizens of our province

in the short time they were government. When they took over government

here in British Columbia in 1972, the cookie jar was full, and when

they left in 1975 — and they were assisted greatly by the voters of

British Columbia, who booted them out — they left behind them a debt of

$265 million. This bill provides for a payment on that. As I say, we'd

be looking at a deficit bill instead of a surplus bill if they were

here, and that's why I'm proud to be part of a government that created

this. The people are going to get it all back.

This is

absolute nonsense, this "overtaxation." We have some of the lowest

taxation rates in Canada, and because our economy is in good shape it

generates funds which we can in turn give back to the people of British

Columbia in extended services.

The press don't report these

things properly, and every day we have people in the gallery who don't

even know what we're talking about. I'm trying to explain, particularly

to those people, that we are talking here about a special purpose bill

created by our good economy in this province, and we're in turn voting

it out in this Legislature with this bill.

The next item

here is (d) — $100 million for highways. Mr. Speaker, I might be a

little biased, but I couldn't think of a better place to spend that.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You are biased.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I am very biased, but it creates jobs, and it also improves our highway

system, which, I might say, they left full of potholes. They were

filling the potholes with snow, and it's taken quite a while to replace

the snow in the potholes with proper paved roads and improve the

highways system and add new roads. There is certainly a member here who

knows what I'm talking about. I'm referring to the former Minister of

Highways, now the MLA for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea); he knows what I'm

talking about. This $100 million in here augments what we call in the

Highways ministry the capital side of our budget, and will give us

about $308 million for capital works in the fiscal year 1980-81. It has

nothing to do with the maintenance side, which is a separate item in

our ministry in which.... This year, I believe, we have around $160

million in the Highways ministry budget for maintenance. This $100

million in this bill deals with the capital side only and will let us

get on with the stepped-up highway program we've had since 1976 to

rebuild our existing roads and build new roads. I think it's better to

go into further detail when my estimates come up, but really what it

does is give us a little more money than we had in the year just

closed, fiscal year 1979-80, by augmenting it with this $100 million.

There

are a lot of items in this — aid to small business, research, and so on

— that are all excellent, and I think even the other side agrees with

that. The item that the member was just talking about, an amount not

exceeding $1 million for Lands and Parks to accelerate construction for

senior citizens, is excellent, Mr. Speaker. This will allow approval of

most of the requests for most of the badly needed senior citizens'

housing projects in the province for this year, and will again create

jobs, and so on.

I'm happy also to see in here $6.5 million

to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) for

accelerated park development. This is badly needed in our province. As

the economy has boomed so well and we have new citizens here, we also

have a terrific increase in tourism and a further demand on all of our

park system. This will help this ministry get along with looking after

the increased demands on this very important public service.

Also

in here is money for accelerated expenditures for recreation, and that

will be welcomed by everyone in our province, I'm sure.

The

item in here that I wanted to deal with more than any other — it was

referred to by the previous speaker, but it comes under the

responsibility of this ministry — is item (k): "An amount not exceeding

$3.4 million to the Minister of Transportation and Highways for the

purpose of establishing, expanding and improving airport facilities."

This program, Mr. Speaker, was started by this government in 1978. The

legislation was put through the Legislature and it was started then.

There was never before a program for airports in our province. Most

airports were — and the major ones still are — under the jurisdiction

there was a real gap in rural airports and in the upgrading of some

more urban airports, so our government developed the policy. As I say,

it was introduced here in 1978, a five-year program at an estimated

cost of $26 million.

I have had the responsibility of seeing

this program go on since late 1978 through 1979. I might tell you that

I'm very proud of this small program, and the funds that are in this

bill make sure that this program will continue.

Interjection.

[ Page 2296 ]

HON. MR. FRASER:

Yes, Mr. Member, and I notice when you talk in your riding you never

mention it at all; you just say it's all terrible transportation

service. But I've never heard you say in your riding that we helped at

Bella Coola and at Powell River; you never acknowledge that. Your

citizens up there think Ottawa does it. Well, I'm telling them today

that we did it, Ottawa didn't do it. But if they listen to their MLA,

Mr. Speaker, they'd never know that. They'd still have grass and gravel

airstrips.

In any event, he's always hollering about

transportation. But when something happens, still nothing has happened

as far as he's concerned. I just want to get that on the record. I'm

glad he asked about airport assistance. As a matter of fact, I think

there is sitting on my desk right now another application from the

district of Powell River for further expenditures so that they can get

on with further improvements, and you'd better believe that we'll give

it worthy consideration. But when I see their member standing here

bad-mouthing this bill and this legislation — saying he's going to vote

against it.... Wouldn't it affect your thinking if you were the

minister in charge, sitting there and saying whether Powell River

should get the money or not?

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER:

They're against it. Wait till they vote. We'll just see whether they'll

go home and say: "Yes we voted against better transportation, but we

really didn’t mean it." They'll have a reason, I'll tell you.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Well, the member's a little upset. I'm just getting to him, because I

know how he mouths off tip in his riding — that is, of course, if he's

quoted right; but I follow his local press very closely.

Anyway,

back to the principle of the $3.4 million in this bill, I'm very proud,

as I said, to be part of this. I think it's the only program of its

kind in any province in Canada. We have got along quite well, and this

will allow that program to go even further. As I've mentioned, we've

improved airport services at Powell River, Bella Coola and also in the

great metropolis of Nanaimo. We have spent a lot of money upgrading

that airport so that there is better fighting, better communication and

they'd have waited a long time.

Another member from a rural

area, like myself, is the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell). He's always

hollering about the inadequacy of transportation in his riding, and

dealing with this airport program. I've never heard him say that we

paved the strip at Stewart. They've got a paved airstrip at Stewart

now, thanks to the policies of this government. Presently we're

investigating — and hopefully will get it built — a paved airport strip

for Dease Lake. I hear him talking all about burning tires to keep warm

because of the terrible roads and all that, but he never says anything

about these things. So I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and the members

of this House, that even in the remote areas like this member comes

from we're trying to improve their transportation through the Air

Transport Assistance Program.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Yes, I understand that he also will be voting against the bill. I

intend to follow him home whenever he goes back to his riding — my

information is that it's very rarely he goes there — and I'll tell his

people what we have done for transportation in his riding. I'll give

them the real story.

That is just a few of the places. What

the program does is upgrade strips — the odd one to gravel, but also to

pavement — and directional lighting, and so on. There's very little

that we won't approve of as far as the policy is concerned. There is an

overall policy that the government doesn't mind getting in on the

capital improvements and so on.

We want to deal with a local

elected body. In some cases we deal with the regional district, in some

cases with a city, but we want to deal with an elected body — make the

arrangements with them — so that when all the improvements are done

there are local people to look after the operation of these smaller

strips. It's worked out very well. Just recently we have also got

involved in a study regarding insurance for these local strips, which

has been a problem for local authorities, particularly after the

unfortunate episode at Cranbrook. Municipalities and regional districts

were very concerned to get involved in the operation of airstrips

because of the legal obligation, and I'm happy to tell the House that

we've had a study done on this. Now we've found a way that the

municipalities can get together, and they'll be assisted. I would like

to publicly thank the B.C. Aviation Council for doing this project and

advising us on it so that we can get reasonably priced liability

insurance to cover these smaller strips in the province of British

Columbia.

I would just like to say that the member for

Maillardville Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), when he referred to this subject in

this bill, wanted to know whether we are going into the airline

business. Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. We have no intention of going

into the airline business through this fund or any other fund. What we

are trying to do with the funds in this Air Transport Assistance

Program is to try to upgrade our air services and then encourage

regional carriers so that they have the facilities to land and take off

and bring more and better transportation services to the more remote

areas of British Columbia. I have mentioned a few such as Stewart and

Dease Lake. We have done some work at Bella Coola. In the case of Bella

Coola, for example, it was difficult there. They had a scheduled

airline service, but it was difficult because of inadequate airport

services. They now have a regular daily service from Bella Coola to

Williams Lake because of the upgrading of airports from this program.

That gives better transportation to the citizens. I don't see why all

the urban citizens have to have all the best. We are trying to make the

rural and semi-rural person have some of the facilities of airline

travel as well if they so choose.

The other item we are

trying to strive with in this program, Mr. Speaker, is the government

air services. It comes under this ministry, and they provide the finest

service I know in bringing upgraded health care, if required, to remote

areas of the province. We have a fleet of eight aircraft, four of them

jets. We have 25 of the best pilots in Canada with a total staff of 80

mechanics and dispatchers, and so on. I can't speak highly enough about

the work that these people do bringing health-care facilities on the

order of a doctor to places like Fort Nelson. They take a person that

needs higher medical care and they bring it to them if they are a long

way away from Victoria or Vancouver. They bring the stretcher case down

in an hour and a half on these government jets. We

[ Page 2297 ]

had

in mind on the Air Transport Assistance Program to make available these

smaller airports so our government jets can go in there to more places

than they can go now.

I might say that the government will

be faced with a problem because we'll have to buy more and get more

pilots. They are flying night and day now, seven days a week on this

service, but we are trying to expand it even further so that none of

our citizens are denied the highest health care required from wherever

they live in this province. I wanted to get that word out because I am

very proud of our air services, particularly on the ambulance side.

Recently

we have converted two of the jets and doubled the width of the doors.

They were having problems with stretchers on the standard door and we

have just doubled the size of doors on two of them, so two of our jets

will be practically 100 percent on air services throughout the

province. All this goes hand in glove with the program we are

discussing here. We must have better airstrips for this equipment, not

only for the individual owner — there might be a logger who has his own

plane — but to bring a higher level of health service as well, as I

say, if required hospital facilities aren't available or so on. That is

going on.

I just say in closing, Mr. Speaker, because I know

there'll be a lot of discussion under my individual ministry vote, that

as a member of this government I am proud of this bill and proud of how

the funds became available. I am also watching with keen interest to

see how the members of the opposition vote. I am sure that most British

Columbians are watching and I'm pretty sure from what I hear....

I've listened to their stories which they twist and turn in this House

on this bill and everything else. They're going to vote against it. I

only hope they don't change their mind and they do vote against it.

We'll go out and tell the citizens of British Columbia that want these

services who supported them and who didn't.

MR. PASSARELL:

I haven't seen the lion of the Legislature wound up like that since the

last time we were up in the Ned DeBeck lounge watching "The Three

Stooges."

Mr. Speaker, concerning Bill 5, it was interesting

to hear the comments from the Minister of Highways concerning the first

time he ever drove up on Highway 37, and he had four flat tires within

the first few miles and needed a helicopter to come and pick him up.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. That is not a true statement and I want it withdrawn.

MR. PASSARELL: I'm sorry. I'll withdraw that — it was only three flat tires.

Going

back, the senior member of the Legislature spoke about a debt. I could

see how this provincial government could get into debt, especially when

you look at the last two sessions of the House, Mr. Speaker, when this

government has allocated $1.4 billion to increase Hydro's debt to $6

billion. I could see how you could get involved in debts. Supposedly,

this is a government of businessmen, be it used-car salesmen or

hardware store owners.

Concerning highways, it's encouraging

to see that the Highways minister has been able to use his charm to get

an extra $100 million out of this government. I have to congratulate my

friend, the Cariboo cougar, for using his charm in getting this

increased. I know he's going to put this entire $100 million, Mr.

Speaker, up into Atlin. I can just tell from the smile and the twinkle

in his eyes. But when the paving costs are running in excess of almost

$1 million a mile in the north, I would expect that the Highways

minister would use his vast influence with the younger leader of the

government to get more than a few miles paved up north.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

section 3 of this bill, Mr. Speaker, there is $5 million to help small

businessmen in the metropolitan areas of this province. I was wondering

why the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is

discriminating against the small businessmen of the province who live

outside the lower mainland. Doesn't the member care about the small

businessmen in Dawson Creek or Rolla or Pouce Coupe? They might be

manufacturing something other than hot air balloons that fizzle out

once they get down to Victoria. So I would hope that the $5 million

would not go for metropolitan areas for business development, but for

secondary industry in the rural areas of this province. There is a need

to help small businessmen outside the metro areas. This bill offers

little to those dedicated entrepreneurs of the province.

Section

4 of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is the Science Council. I'm just wondering

if these moneys are going for the development of elementary school

science research programs, or to develop horoscopes. Or is the Science

Council using moneys allocated in this

section of the budget to do a

science study on the feasibility of putting a tunnel between Vancouver

and Victoria?

Section 5 also allocates $1 million to the

B.C. Research Council. I'm just wondering why the minister of

universities and small brains doesn't include this in the estimates of

his proper part of the budget.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that comment was unparliamentary. I'll have to ask you to withdraw that.

MR. PASSARELL: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker — what was the comment?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It was an unparliamentary reference made to a member of this House.

MR. PASSARELL: Whatever I said about the minister of education...universities....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Universities, Science and Communications is the title.

MR. PASSARELL: I said small brains. I withdraw that.

Section

6, Mr. Speaker — another $1 million. Is this to research an exhaust

pipe, once again between Vancouver and Victoria? Or to research

improvements, maybe, in the research staff of that ministry — to do

research on literary skills involved in correspondence? Maybe that's

where the $1 million is going to.

Section 7 — $2 million for

science research again. I'm wondering why this total was not included

in the Minister of Universities' estimates — the third of the

minister's liabilities. Let's look at what this $2 million could be

used for. Not knowing what the Minister of Universities is using the $2

million for, we can only put it in theory. Maybe he's going to buy some

equipment, and this equipment's going to be an underwater mole machine

for $2 million, or he could buy a

[ Page 2298 ]

propane spaceship for $2 million. It's hard to understand what the minister is using this $2 million for.

Section

8 — Provincial Secretary — $5 million. I'm wondering if the Provincial

Secretary is going to use this $5 million for funding of the First

Citizens Fund to increase that allocation to the native people of this

province. I would also hope that this $5 million isn't going for the

First Citizens Fund and that they would allocate the $5 million for

playfields in the north — a very touchy issue up there. I'm certainly

sure that the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) would join

with me if that $5 million went for School Districts 81 and 87 to

improve recreational facilities for the school districts in those two

northern parts of the province.

Section 9 — the airport

assistance. It's a good idea for rural areas, and once again the senior

statesman from the Cariboo has wielded his power to the good of the

people of the north.

But let's look at two programs and the

effect they're having upon the constituency of Atlin. The minister

mentioned Dease Lake. They are expanding a dirt strip to over 5,000

feet. That's correct, Mr. Minister. The community of Dease Lake is

still quite upset about why the airport has to be built over the only

cemetery in the community.

HON. MR. FRASER: That was all straightened out.

MR. PASSARELL:

Well, I don't know if it's all been straightened out, having been there

last week; there are still a lot of hard feelings about the expansion

of the runway. But I would take the word of the minister that it would

be straightened out.

It was interesting to note, talking

with some of the people up there last weekend concerning the airport,

that one man had stated that a Cat operator on the equipment which was

used to expand that runway to 5,000 feet used to start up the Cat and

go to sleep for six hours. Another

part is that the expanding of the

airstrip has caused quite a hard feeling in the community because it

has gone by the only subdivision in the community of Dease Lake.

Atlin there is another concern, and I have written the Minister of

Transportation and Highways numerous letters concerning the conflict of

interest involved with the airport expansion. There are problems

associated with the expansion, contracts and approvals given to an

organization in Atlin that represents a political party. I still

haven't received answers to letters I've written to the minister.

You're quite aware of the letters that I've sent to you, Mr. Minister.

There hasn't been any free and honest debate in the community of Atlin

concerning the need and the feasibility of the airstrip. It has simply

been done by a political organization in the community that picked up

the contract and now is starting to play a little payola. I certainly

would hope that the minister would look into the investigation up there

of money transactions going on between members of a political party for

their own benefit.

Section 10 — $2.65 million for a refugee

settlement act. This is a good move and I congratulate the minister on

this aspect. I would certainly hope that it would go to help new

Canadians from all parts of the world, Mr. Speaker, that they may

become citizens of this great country of ours. Moneys were allocated

years ago, and I wonder if they were ever spent. If my recollection is

true there was $5 million at one time for refugees.

Section

11 — $1.8 million for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) to construct this Sierra-Yoyo road up

in northeast British Columbia. Has this government developed a program

that each time a multinational company needs road access they bend over

and pick up the tab? Because quite a few companies up in northwestern

British Columbia would certainly like to have grants by the provincial

government to build roads into their operations.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL:

Mr. Speaker, could you protect me from the wrath of the member for

North Peace River? He will have his turn to talk. He can sit back there

and be quiet for a while, show a little courtesy in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Atlin on Bill 5.

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

What

about the small mining operations like Erickson Gold Mining Corp., who

must pay for cost of their own road access? I would certainly hope that

the government would show some kind of leniency to mining operations up

in northwestern British Columbia to pay part of the cost of road

construction into their sites.

Section 12 — $1.2 million for

the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) for the development of

delivery services for educational opportunities. Why isn't this

included in the Minister of Education's estimates? Is this a carryover

or white elephant from the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications? This $1.2 million could be spread out to rural areas of

this province to help them benefit school children without recreational

facilities.

Section 13 — $6.5 million for the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). It's a shame he's not in

his seat now. Why isn't this included in the minister's estimates, and

who has this been promised to? What is the $6.5 million for Lands? One

good thing that I would like to see, Mr. Speaker, is $3 million of this

program being used for park development at Sidney Island. The

government could secure this island for a little less than $3 million,

a park that would generate revenue as well as providing a recreational

opportunity to residents of the capital region. This matter, Mr.

Speaker, will be discussed during the appropriate estimates where it

belongs and not, as this bill tries to do, in a special appropriations

act.

Section 14 — $4.5 million for youth employment

opportunities. Six years ago the NDP government of the province

allocated almost $30 million for a youth employment program. Taking

into consideration that thousands and thousands of youths in this

province are unemployed, this program allocation of $4.5 million is

much too small.

Instead of spending almost $6.5 million to

put projects in this bill for the whims of the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications, I would rather see that money

go to the youth under

section 14, to increase that estimate from $4.5

million to over $11 million.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker,

section 15

— that's $1 million to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing for

senior citizens' housing. Once again I congratulate the minister for

doing something, at least. But the average cost of homes in this

province being somewhere between $50,000 and $70,000,

[ Page 2299 ]

million doesn't build too many homes. For construction costs one

couldn't even build a 45-room senior citizens' home out of this fund.

To the senior citizens of this province, it's almost like getting into

a lottery, where they have a one in 10,000 chance to receive anything

from this program for senior citizens.

In conclusion, every

one of these items should be included into the minister's estimates

where they belong. One of my concerns, looking at this, is why....

What about the poor ministers who fell out of grace with the Premier?

For instance, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) — why isn't

there anything included in the appropriation for him? What did he do

wrong? Or the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair)? There's nothing

included in Health estimates here. Or the Minister of Tourism (Hon.

Mrs. Jordan), and to go further than that, eight other ministers?

I'd

rather see us using the provincial moneys to benefit areas of this

province that have gone without for years, specifically the north. I'd

rather see $168 million thrust into the north to provide services that

are presently not in place. This money could be used for the north.

MR. HALL:

In discussing Bill 5 with you, Mr. Speaker, it occurs to me that if we

look back over the history of the financial bills that have become

before us in this Legislature this last 20 years or so, we can see how

the genesis of Bill 5 has been traced. We can see its parentage in,

first of all, the Social Credit administration from 1952 to 1972, and

it will come as no surprise to observers of the financial scene in this

province to realize that when we dealt with budgeting and when we dealt

with surplus accounts, the first and second years of the New Democratic

Party administration, in the main, followed the kind of budgetary

practices that were exercised for some years before that. We saw, in

1969, 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973, the creation of some special funds and

special bills applied to those funds for special purposes.

Here,

Mr. Speaker, we've seen a departure from that kind of tradition. What

we've seen in Bills 5 and 7 is a complete mixing of the principles that

operated in the governments from 1960 onwards and, indeed, the

government from 1972 onwards. Now we've got perhaps the worst of all

possible worlds. Instead of seeing a budgeting procedure start at the

turn of the year, by establishing what is required for estimates to run

the business of this province and taking into account the anticipated

surpluses by the normal budgeting methods of anticipating those

surpluses and, in effect, asking the departments to go their best lick

and produce a set of estimates that reflect what is likely to happen,

we've seen this kind of lottery take place now for the second year on

the run, in which money that should normally go into estimates has been

put forward in a bill like this and also in a bill like Bill 7.

There

are many of us who see certain aspects of Bill 7 and Bill 5 as worthy

of support. On both sides of the House there are really.... If we

could take a section-by-section free vote, there would be a number of

people on both sides of the House that would be of differing opinions

as to the worth of each of those sections. As a result we've got the

worst kind of budgeting and the worst kind of financial debate.

Instead of adopting, as a new, crisp government, newly elected with a very

slim mandate and a slim majority in 1979, zero-based budgeting or some new techniques

with a new minister, they've taken the simple, old-fashioned method of incremental

budgeting. They've taken the anticipated surpluses and dashed them at the

estimates in some fashion, none of which is really rational. On top of that

they've produced another bill — Bill 7 — which seeks to set up special purpose

funds.

Mr.

Speaker, that's not the way, in my view, to budget for the 1980s. It’s

not the way in which to see the job that we all want to see done next

year accomplished. A lottery among the members of the treasury benches

over there for some extra money for estimates, a "money for marks''

program controlled by the Premier, is not, in my view, the best way of

handling the estimates of this province.

It's bad budgeting.

It's bad bookkeeping. It's a bad principle. It's bad planning from a

programmatic point of view. There is no doubt about that. There is no

doubt that if you talk to comptrollers, if you talk to the people that

we've been listening to — for instance, the public accounts

Committee.... That's not the way to build up a sustained approach

to the programs that this government wants to put into operation.

also introduces for the first time a new element, one which I hope the

minister perhaps would address in his summing up of this second reading

debate. I don't necessarily anticipate he's going to answer every

debating point in second reading. We can do that from time to time

throughout his estimates anyway. But it does introduce a new element in

debate, because I can't remember ever seeing him print in a bill

introduced by a government the anticipated surpluses of a surplus being

carried forward into a fiscal year one fiscal year away. In other

words, this bill contemplates a surplus from this bill in fiscal 1982.

I’d like to know how the Minister of Finance anticipates showing the

unexpended portions of, at least, the $12 million contained in

sections (o), (

p) and (

q) as surpluses in his books. That's a brand new

principle which we've never seen before.

In fact, if this is

the beginning of five-year budgeting and the beginning of something

new, I hope the minister will take some time out in summation of the

debate on second reading and tell us if we are getting into a brand new

form of budgeting through the back door, perhaps, by talking about

surpluses i