1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 25, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5745 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Attendance of Governor-General at B.C. Winter Games. Mr. Barnes ––

Mrs. Dailly –– 5746

Site C dam hearings. Mrs. Wallace –– 5746

Proposed royal commission on WCB. Ms. Sanford –– 5746

Bank of Canada appointment. Mr. Leggatt –– 5747

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Communications estimates. (Hon.

Mr. Fraser)

On vote 189: minister's office –– 5747

Mr. Lockstead, Mr. Segarty, Mr. Cocke, Mr. Brummet, Mrs. Wallace, Mr. Lorimer

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 12). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

section 1 –– 5757

Mr. Cocke

section 2 –– 5757

Mr. Nicolson, Mr. Stupich, Mr. Cocke, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Lorimer

Tabling Documents

Ombudsman annual report, 1980.

Mr. Speaker –– 5770

MONDAY, MAY 25, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, seated

in the gallery today are representatives of the Australian Flying Fruit

Fly Circus, who have been visiting Canada for the last five weeks. They

have performed in Vancouver, as part of the Vancouver Children's

Festival, and they were very well received. As a matter of fact their

performances were sold out weeks in advance. This group returned

yesterday from a two week stay in Edmonton, where they again performed

to capacity crowds. The group leader is Mrs. Julie Ling, who is here

with her husband. Their son is one of the performers. This group of

performers range in age from 6 to 18. There are 27 performers, a dozen

parents and several staff. The majority of this Flying Fruit Fly Circus

live in Albury, New South Wales, and several come from nearby towns.

The group was formed by a small group of people who believed that all

children have abilities that can be easily developed, and put together

with other ordinary kids they can provide very professional

performances. They are here today under the auspices of Mr. Graham Bell

of the Canadian Hostelling Association. I ask the House to welcome them.

MR. LEA:

I ask the members of the House to welcome to the precinct and the

gallery a Tory from England, Mr. Fred Eve, the father of one of our

Gravesham and serves on the housing and planning committee representing

the swing ward of Whitehill. Gravesham, Kent, has a population of about

80,000. This would be somewhat along the lines of a district

municipality in our country. He's visiting us here today and is in

Victoria for ten days. I'd like to ask the members to welcome him.

MR. PASSARELL:

Mr. Speaker, sitting directly behind you are 18 students from Nishga

School District 92 of my constituency. They are with their supervisor,

Dr. Ben Thomas. I would ask the House to give them a warm reception.

Oral Questions

ATTENDANCE OF GOVERNOR-GENERAL

AT B.C. WINTER GAMES

MR. BARNES: My question is

addressed to the Premier. Could the Premier advise the House whether or

not he intends to officiate at the 1982 Winter Games in Trail?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I have responded to every invitation to the B.C. Summer and Winter

Games since their inception. So far I have been able to respond

favourably to every invitation. I would certainly assume that 1982

would be no exception.

MR. BARNES: Is the Premier

aware that the Mayor of Trail, Mr. Chuck Lakes, has requested that the

Governor-General attend, and that he was denied the opportunity to do

so at the suggestion of the B.C. Games director, Mr. Ron Butlin?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have a question?

MR. BARNES: I'm asking if he's aware of that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

MR. BARNES:

I think the issue that I am asking about is this. The games are a

public provincial affair and Mr. Ron Butlin has stated that no

politicians would be invited to those games — that it's strictly a B.C.

affair and that the Premier of the province is the only one who is

permitted to attend. You say that you have no knowledge of that.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The member is incorrect inasmuch as members from all parties on both

sides of the House, depending on where the ridings are, have been

there, including — although they play no

part in putting on the games

either financially or in any other way — federal MPs from various

parties who have been there as part of the opening ceremonies. I think

everybody is there in a nonpolitical role, and they are just

enthusiastic about the games. In fact, I've seen some games where the

second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) has also been invited

and present.

I would hope that nobody would attempt to

diminish the real value of the games and the sense of community, not

only in a local sense but in a provincial sense, that they've inspired.

British Columbians are proud of the B.C. Games and that they are the

most extensive in Canada. We're able to do what most other provinces

and the country as a whole have been unable to do. That's to be able to

hold two very large and successful games in a year. They're growing

every year. It attests to both the concept and the administration of

them, which has harnessed the efforts of thousands of volunteers on the

local level. I'm proud of the games. I think every British Columbian is

as well.

MR. BARNES: I agree fully with the Premier.

That's the way we all feel about the B.C. Games. However. I think that

the director of the games, Mr. Ron Butlin, is of a different

persuasion. He has been contacted by the mayor of Trail, Mr. Speaker,

with reference to whether or not the Governor-General, Mr. Ed Schreyer,

would be permitted to officiate at the games. He was emphatically told

no, he was not, because no politicians are allowed — and, of course,

the Governor-General is not a politician.

MR. SPEAKER: May we have a question.

MR. BARNES:

I am asking the Premier if he is suggesting that Mr. Ron Butlin is

correct in his statements — because these can be verified; he has made

those statements — and if he intends to call Mr. Ron Butlin to task for

discouraging the attendance of the Governor-General to the games.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the purpose of question period is to ask questions and not to enter debate. Does the Premier wish to answer?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have no reason to believe that the statements

contained in the question by the second member for Vancouver Centre are

correct either in their being paraphrased, in their entirety or in

their concept. All I know is the games have worked well, and we

[ Page 5746 ]

are

very proud of them as British Columbians. Certainly all other Canadians

are welcome to come and visit us during our games; as British

Columbians, we are very proud of them. For the life of me, I have

difficulty understanding just what the member is questioning today.

MRS. DAILLY:

I have a question for the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker. Can the

Provincial Secretary advise whether he instructed Ron Butlin to reject

the invitation to the games to the Governor-General?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I know of no such rejection nor I have I issued such instructions.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I think it is of concern to a number of people

in the province whether this is a fact or not. I would ask the Provincial Secretary

if he'll come back to the House and advise us after he has investigated

whether Mr. Ron Butlin did do so or not. Can we have a commitment from the

provincial Secretary to return to the House with an answer?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, we are very proud of the job the

games do and also the job their general manager, Mr. Butlin, does. I

had not heard this information and will be happy to look into it. But I

think what we're talking about here is just a rumour situation.

MR. BARNES:

I'm prepared to wait until the Premier returns with his indications as

to whether or not this is accurate or not. He is suggesting that we

don't have accurate information. When the Provincial Secretary is

suggesting that there are rumours, we're quite prepared to verify the

fact that inquiries were made. I'm asking the Premier and the

Provincial Secretary whether they will invite the Governor-General to

the games as has been requested by one of the MPs in Ottawa. It's Mr.

Lyle Kristiansen, as a matter of fact, who is representing that area.

He has been told emphatically by Mr. Ron Butlin that no politicians

would be invited.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the Governor-General, whom I happen to know and respect very

highly, has already been in attendance at one of our B.C. Winter Games

in Kamloops. Mr. Butlin was the general manager then as well. I would

presume that nothing has changed. However, everybody is welcome at

these friendly games. Everybody's welcome to participate.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) interjects

from his seat. I'm saying that everybody's welcome, Mr. Speaker. I'm

not about to interfere as the second member for Vancouver Centre has suggested,

and start saying who should come, or start sending out invitations from

the Premier's office. As I say, everybody's proud of the games now. They're

run in a very community fashion in a non-political way. I would hate anyone

to start trying to use them politically for a headline; I would hate to have

anyone suggest to me that I start interfering with the community and saying

who should be invited and who should not. I'm not going to do that, Mr.

Speaker.

MRS. DAILLY: To follow up on the Premier's last remarks: is the Premier suggesting that the Governor-General is a politician at this time?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I never said that, Mr. Speaker, nor have I ever thought that.

SITE C DAM HEARINGS

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

The Agricultural Land Commission has stated its intention to intervene

before the Utilities Commission, relative to their hearings on the Site

C dam, in order to preserve their jurisdiction over B.C. farmland. Will

the minister assure the House that the approximately 4,000 acres of

agricultural land under Site C will not be removed from the

agricultural land reserve without application being made and hearings

held under

section 12 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the member inquiring into future activities?

MRS. WALLACE:

I'm asking the minister to assure the House that this will not happen.

If you would prefer me to reword the question, I will ask: has the

minister decided to ensure that this doesn't happen?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, the Agricultural Land Commission will be putting forward a

submission to the Utilities Commission hearings on Site C, within the

mandate they have as the Land Commission.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm quite aware that that is going to happen. What I want

is an assurance from this minister as to whether or not he has decided

that that land will not be removed from the reserve without following

the normal procedures of going through the Agricultural Land Commission.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister may wish to remark on steps he has already taken. Please proceed.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, the legislation in place allows for the procedures to be

followed. We, as government, would follow those procedures.

PROPOSED ROYAL COMMISSION ON WCB

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Labour, it is now nearly two years

since we on this side of the House called for a royal commission to

examine the workings and the functions of the Workers' Compensation

Board. The then Minister of Labour refused that royal commission. The

deficit for the WCB increased 50 percent this year and has now reached

a staggering $385 million, and worksite safety inspections are below

the levels reached in 1976 and 1977. Has the minister now decided to

appoint a royal commission to investigate the operations of the WCB?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

MS. SANFORD: I'm wondering what action the minister has decided to take to clean up the mess that currently exists

[ Page 5747 ]

at the WCB and to ensure that the workers in this province have a safe place to work.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is clearly argumentative.

BANK OF CANADA APPOINTMENT

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In

January of this year, Mr. Ronald Longstaffe was appointed as British

Columbia's representative on the board of governors of the Bank of

Canada. Would the minister advise whether the federal government made

the minister and his government aware of that appointment in January?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, insofar as the Ministry of Finance is concerned, to the best of my recollection the answer is no.

MR. LEGGATT:

Would the minister advise whether the government was advised about this

appointment, and would he also advise the House whether the minister

made any recommendation to the Bank of Canada about the appointment

from the province of British Columbia to that very powerful board?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I would think that it's correct to say that the government

was not consulted with respect to that particular appointment.

MR. LEGGATT:

On May 21 of this year, the Bank of Canada set its rate at 19.06

percent, which must be an all time high for a Bank of Canada rate.

Could the minister advise whether Mr. Longstaffe, who is a

representative of British Columbia even though not advised as such by

this government...? Is he in touch with our representative on that

board? Has he made any representations at all concerning this

inflationary and disastrous interest policy being imposed on the

country?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I have not

made representations to an individual who is essentially and in fact an

appointee of the federal government. The appropriateness of the

appointment ends in the fact that this individual is from British

Columbia. What I would like the member and the House to know is that

clearly all members, government ones as well as those opposite, must be

very seriously concerned about the high interest rate levels.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) is interjecting, and again he's out of date and out of touch.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's been away, you know.

HON. MR. CURTIS: He has been away, yes. I understand he's considering a second visit to Aukland.

Mr.

Speaker, through you to the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr.

Leggatt), the question of high interest rates was discussed by the four

western Finance ministers at a meeting just about three weeks ago in

Victoria. Within a few days I will join my western colleagues again for

a second meeting. I think that indicates the seriousness with which we

are approaching a number of matters, not the least of which is the

interest rate question, which is, after all, a federal responsibility,

but should be of concern to all of us. Additionally all ten Ministers

of Finance — or Provincial Treasurers, as they are known in some

provinces — will be in Victoria for a full-scale two-day meeting

towards the end of June. Obviously the question will be discussed at

significant length then as well.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, would it be asking too much of members to extend the

courtesy of the House to Clerks at the table when they are giving us

the direction for the day? I think we could extend it to them. I would

recommend the same to the members.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On vote 189: minister's office, $213,962.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Chairman, I have a few brief questions for the minister as we get

into the estimates this afternoon. The House is settling down and

clearing out, so we'll just take it easy. I know that there are a lot

of members on the government side and on our side of the House who have

something to say under this vote very briefly and right to the point,

The other day we did touch on the water transportation problems, and I

want to take this opportunity to suggest to you and the B.C. Ferry

Corporation — but particularly to your ministry and the government —

that right now on the coast of British Columbia four new, properly

constructed vessels should at least be on a drawing-board, if not

actually under construction. There is a real problem, and the problem

is going to compound itself. Utilizing your own figures, the

anticipated increase in water traffic over the next year — we all know

what those figures are; there's no point in going into all that — is

going to be a minimum of 12 percent, probably more like 16 percent per

year, I would bet, I'm suggesting that two new vessels be considered

for the Powell River-Comox run — not the huge monstrosities, but the 24

and 26-knot vessels with a carrying capacity of 100 to 120 vehicles,

and a bi-hourly service instead of the four-hour service we now have. I

don't want to go into a lot of detail.

The other route we

should be considering is the Prince Rupert–Sandspit route; a vessel

should be constructed for that. I know the Queen of Prince Rupert

was constructed to sail in those waters, but in my view that vessel is

too large for that particular run and could be better utilized on

another route. I'm sure that you and I have discussed this on previous

occasions, but I just wanted that on record. I think you'll find that a

lot of people on the Queen Charlotte Islands would agree with that

point of view.

Last but not least, we need a new; vessel, properly designed — perhaps the Vancouver Princess , I'm not sure — for a direct ferry service between Comox and Vancouver.

The other topic I wanted to discuss with you briefly — we should really be doing this under your vote, but we'll save

[ Page 5748 ]

time

and do it under the minister's vote; then we won't have to re-examine

the matter — is the staffing of the Motor Carrier Commission. I'm sure

that you, your staff and even I, as a member of the opposition, have

received a great deal of correspondence — oftentimes relating to

decisions of the commission, but that's another matter — about the

length of time it takes for the commission to make a decision. I

understand the procedures, but I understand from personnel within the

commission that their main problem is lack of funding — i.e., lack of

staff in order to look at the various applications that the commission

receives all the time. I'd like to advise the minister that perhaps a

portion of the Highways budget should be increased to meet that

shortfall, so that people who own trucks, people who are applying for

licences of whatever nature — taxis, you name it — at least don't have

to sit on their heels wondering if they should make a bank loan or not,

or pay the current high interest rates on bank loans while they're

waiting for a decision from the Motor Carrier Commission. Perhaps the

minister could look into that.

There are one or two small constituency items while I have the floor, Mr. Chairman. What better chance do I have than right now?

HON. MR. GARDOM: He's doing a terrific job every day.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That comes at the end, if he's doing a good job. We'll see.

just want to mention to the minister that ever since I've been around

in elected politics, one of the things I am often asked is why we don't

have a road from Port Mellon to Squamish. I've been through this with

your ministry on many occasions. I understand the figures and the whole

thing, but I thought I would like this on record. I understand that the

ferry presently serving the area is much quicker than the proposed

highway link, which has to cross some six major creeks and rivers with

fish spawning and all of those things — 18 miles, $3.5 million per

mile, etc. Nonetheless, that particular question is raised all the

time, and I must say that one of your people within the ministry —

maybe your deputy; I'm not sure — said they would re-examine and get a

ball-park figure for that proposed 18-mile link.

During estimates last year I raised the matter — a small thing, but a big item to people living up and down the Sun shine

Coast and particularly in Powell River. There are no real, fully

serviced rest stops, which means lavatories and things like that, and

you did say you would have your ministry look into the matter. Have you

looked into the matter? There are no rest stops along the Sun shine

Coast. I think there's a need for two at the present time for those

people who are travelling straight through between Langdale and Earls

Cove particularly. I wish the minister would take that under advisement

and assure me once again this year that that matter — it's not

earth-shaking — will be looked into and something will be done.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr.

Chairman, the minister and I have discussed this matter on a number of

occasions, but I do want it on record; the proposed airport at Bella

Bella. The minister is aware of that problem and the situation there.

Since our last conversation, we have received some communication from

the federal government that they seem to favour the Campbell Island

site and are prepared to put up some funding; how much funding I don't

know. If it's just a few dollars, forget it. But if they're prepared to

take an actual

part in significant funding for the airport location on

Campbell Island, then I think perhaps we should start doing something

in that area. That's a long stretch of coastline without an adequate

airport. Everybody from Prince Rupert right down to Vancouver — people

who are flying up and down the coast all the time, including our

Canadian Coast Guard and everybody else — agree that we should have

some kind of airport in that particular area. The residents of that

area have been attempting for years to get an upgraded major facility

or some type of facility. Perhaps the minister would care to answer

that.

I have three or four other local items, Mr. Chairman,

but I think I'll leave them for the present time and let somebody else

get on with it.

HON. MR. FRASER: I have brief replies

to the member for Mackenzie. I didn't catch the first part, but I think

he said that B.C. Ferries should get on with another four new vessels.

I just want to say what I said the other day: two new vessels are going

in the water before July 1. As a matter of fact, I think the new Queen of Surrey is going to take its place on route 2, Horseshoe Bay–Departure Bay, on Wednesday, May 27. It's a $30 million vessel. The Queen of Oak Bay

is coming on before July 1. Another $30 million vessel is going on

route 1 between Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay. We have two other vessels

which we're lifting and putting another deck in — the Queen of Vancouver and the Queen of Victoria . They'll be in the system with additional capacity not later than July 15, 1981, I believe.

Looking beyond that, there are plans to further lift two more vessels that we have in the system now; one is the Saanich ,

and I forget the other one. That will be additional capacity for 1982.

The Ferries directors have not made any decisions regarding new

vessels, but I believe I said in estimates the other day that possibly

we should be considering at least another equivalent to the Alberni ,

the truck ferry. No decision has been made. That's where we're at

there. Generally, the capacity has been increased about 25 percent in

1981, while the traffic is advancing about 10 percent. We have not made

any decisions. We're further aware that once they are made, it will be

two years before we get a brand-new vessel in the water.

Motor

Carrier Commission. I think all members are getting complaints

regarding the time it takes to process applications for licences or

even permits. We have authorization in this budget to increase the

staff of the motor carrier branch by four. I would like to say that I

don't look for immediate, clearing up of that, while it's a move in the

right direction. We only have a staff of 48 in the whole province. In

other words, we've been authorized to increase about 10 percent, but

the applications for licences and permits and so on have advanced about

200 percent.

We are going to have a problem for a while.

We're going to take a whole look at the Motor Carrier Act. I'm not

saying that we'll do anything about it, but we'll take a look at where

we're going with the Motor Carrier Act and whether new procedures are

required. It hasn't been looked at in a very intense way for quite some

time. I'm not saying that we'll get rid of it or expand it, but there

are some problems there that we have to deal with. The one you brought

up is certainly one of them — the shortage of staff to process. I think

it will clear

[ Page 5749 ]

somewhat. It makes the applying citizens quite frustrated when they

can't get answers. The Motor Carrier Commission itself has had some

changes by resignations — that is people going on retirement. It's at

full complement now — that is a chairman and two commissioners in

place. They're kept quite busy with hearings on licensing amendments as

well as new licence applications.

You mentioned the Port

Mellon to Squamish road. That has certainly been looked at before. The

estimate on that is about $30 million. I guess it's one of these cases

with a lot of rock work. They're taking further information on it now.

There could well be a move — not to complete the road but I think there

are going to be some developments at Woodfibre that might see a change

take place from Squamish to Woodfibre. In other words, we have a ferry

running there, and while it is paid for mostly by the company, we are

still involved. With developments that might take place at Woodfibre we

might see a road start from Squamish to Woodfibre. That would be the

general direction it would eventually go.

I'm not aware of a shortage of rest stops on the Sunshine

Coast, but I will ask the staff. There is no reason we shouldn't have a

rest stop or two on that busy road. Through this debate I hope that, if

we haven't got them, we get on with developing at least one and maybe

two.

The last item that you brought up is the airport at

Bella Bella for the central coast. That has been ongoing ever since

Otto Lang had something to do with public life in Canada. I guess

you're aware that, first of all, our government feels that the

that when Otto Lang was the minister, he said they'd build an airport

there. I think that was in 1975 or 1976 — I'm not sure of the year —

and there has been a continual discussion about it ever since. The

position of our government is that they had better fulfill their

promise. I also want to say that I don't think they have any intention

of doing it. In the meantime, the private sector has built an airport

on Denny Island, which is right across from Campbell Island. There are

no public funds in that airstrip at all. I'm not saying there mightn't

be at some future date, because it's a rough strip. They can land on

it, but to get finely upgraded....

Regarding the location —

Campbell Island or Denny Island — it was made quite clear to me in

correspondence with the present federal Minister of Transport that that

decision rests with the government of British Columbia. In other words,

he's not favouring one over the other and they would like that decision

made by us. When that decision is made, we have a commitment — they'll

give some navigational aid to wherever the airport is located. In terms

of dollars I think we're looking at upwards of $3 million to develop

what we should have — a proper central coast airstrip, whether it be on

Campbell or Denny Island. They say they'll help with navigational aids.

To put it in perspective, I think that's about $150,000.

That is my

interpretation of the current government in Ottawa: they're

prepared to go ahead once a decision is made as to where it's going to be

developed; they'll assist in navigational aids but we're on our own.

That's what it looks like. We haven't made any decision at all, but

in the meantime the airplanes are landing on a gravel strip there. I understand

the commercial service going in there is also using that strip. Somewhere down

the road someone has to make a decision to put public funds in there, but that

hasn't happened at this point. The people on Campbell Island want it there.

I'm aware that that's where a lot of the people live; but the fact remains

that the private-sector money has developed a strip on Denny Island, which is

being used. So that's where the matter's at. What I'm trying to

of British Columbia, have been expended on either island up to this time. I

think that clears up that matter. By the way, the strip is a 2,200-foot strip.

There's some irony here. I understand the people on Campbell Island are

using that for transportation as well — they fly in the planes that land at

Denny Island now. That's the situation as it exists.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Chairman, on the airport situation, I was informed informally that

if the government of British Columbia is prepared to make a decision on

site location — and this comes from Ottawa.... The minister knows

because he has copies of the correspondence.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Well, you're not interested in that part of the coast anyway. Quite

seriously, if the provincial government will make a decision on

location, there is a distinct possibility of some federal funding,

according to our MP who has met with the federal minister. No firm

commitment has been given, and I understand what you said, but I just

wanted to have that on record.

The problem with the present

site that the minister talks about — the airport built on Denny Island

— is that there is no real access to that airport at the present time.

That's one of the problems, but the problem is further complicated. The

so-called easy part, the flat part, has been built. If that airport is

to be extended — and it is too short by any criteria; you're taking

your life in your hands to land there, and I wouldn't do it when I'm

flying — it is going to cost a horrendous amount of money, because

there are whole gullies to be filled in. It's very rough.

I'm

not coming out against a private enterprise airport. I can understand

very well that the people have been frustrated over 20 or 30 years of

attempting to get some kind of decent transportation service. They

finally went ahead on their own. But at some point it's going to

require federal or provincial funding to get a decent air

transportation system into that area. I know you're aware of this, but

I'm just putting it on record, and I'll be back in touch with you.

MR. SEGARTY:

Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to rise for a few minutes and thank the

Ministry of Highways and their crew for the fine job they've done in

the past year in keeping the roads clear all winter from the extremely

heavy snowfall that took place in my riding. I particularly thank the

area managers, George Austin in Ferne and Harvey Popoff in Cranbrook.

I'd just like to thank them for their cooperation over the past year,

and I know it's going to continue for quite some time to come.

There

are just a few areas of concern in the riding of Kootenay, particularly

in the community of Sparwood in the Elk valley. There's an urgent need

for the immediate replacement of the old single-lane wooden bridges on

the highway north into Elkford. That's a real problem at the present

time. They're causing problems with height and weight restrictions,

because they're old, wooden bridges and can't carry too much heavy

traffic. There's a great deal of mining activity taking place in that

particular area. I wonder if the minister would give me some indication

as to when he expects tenders to be called on these bridges.

[ Page 5750 ]

Another

problem in the same area is a level crossing off Highway 3 onto the

Elkford highway. There's a level crossing there and coal cars are

getting longer and longer as the days go by. It's not fair to have

people who work long hours up in the mines having to come down and wait

for a long period of time for trains to go by; they want to get home

from work as quickly as they can.

There is also an urgent

need for the construction of maintenance garages in the growing

municipality of Elkford and in the community of Yahk. I wonder if the

minister would give me some indication as to where we stand with those

projects.

The ministry has done a really good job in

constructing the road between Cranbrook and Kimberley. It's been under

construction for the past couple of years. The construction project is

completed. The only thing that remains now is the bridge, and I was

wondering if the minister could give me some indication as to when the

bridge will be officially complete and open to traffic.

would also like to thank the minister for widening the Crowsnest

Highway 3 to four lanes from two through Cranbrook. I was wondering if

there is any money in the ministry's budget to have a beautification

project take place to clean up the landscape of the roadside going

through the city of Cranbrook on Crowsnest Highway 3.

Looking

at the future, in the next four or five years there will be a need to

widen the Crowsnest Highway 3 from two to three lanes for about ten

miles from Elko through the Elko bluffs and along the Moyie bluffs.

There

is another situation in the Elk Valley regarding an airport. The

regional district of the East Kootenays currently has a study underway

which, I understand, is now completed. That study will make a

recommendation on the location of an Elk Valley airport. I don't want

to question the location, but I do hope there are funds in the

ministry's budget this year for the construction of that airport. I

wonder if the minister would be kind enough to give me some indication

of when those projects will take place. Is there money in his budget

for those projects?

HON. MR. FRASER: I thank the member for Kootenay for his kind remarks.

Regarding

the larger issues in the Kootenay riding, because of the member I'm

aware that the big issue there now is the replacement of the bridges to

Elkford. I'm happy to tell him that three bridges and two rights-of-way

overheads are on their way. We'll be calling the contract on the

bridges in August 1981. Regarding the overheads, the railroad is

subject to CDC approval, and I don't believe we have that. I don't know

the specific completion date for the work we've done from Cranbrook to

Kimberley, but I should be able to get that. It's definitely this year,

but I don't know which month. I'm advised that hopefully it will be put

in the system in July or August of this year. The future widening of

different roads you mentioned will come along in their priority.

believe you did mention beautification. We definitely have funds for

beautification. If you're not getting your share, you should get in

contact with us, because we're upgrading that program all over the

province. While we haven't got a lot of money, it's not confined just

to Blanshard Street in Victoria, where a lot of funds have been spent.

There's also been a lot of good beautification money spent on the

freeway from Vancouver to Abbotsford. But it applies throughout the

province. We'll gladly cooperate in any way we can to beautify over

there.

Regarding airport assistance, you say that you

applied to the airport assistance program and that there's a study

going on. If you're past the study stage we can get down and make some

decisions as to where it should go. I'm not sure where it is in our

priorities, but that's one program that has been very successful. While

we might not complete it all in 1981, I certainly think we can get to

it in 1982. I'm not aware of exactly where that is. Once we pass the

study stage, and the regional district people, your local people and we

all agree together, then it's a case of getting on and doing the

physical work. The program seems to work excellently that way. I don't

anticipate a problem with that.

MR. SEGARTY:

Regarding the Elk Valley airport, the regional district of East

Kootenay commissioned the study and it is complete. The three

municipalities in the Elk Valley have agreed to agree that the

recommendation made in the study will be the one accepted by the three

municipalities. I expect they'll want to be getting on with that

project this year. I hope that it will place high on the ministry's

priority list.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I think that

there are a number of issues I would like to take up with the minister.

I know that he has had a busy time having dealings with the House

Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and so on, as to whether he's on or off, and

now he suddenly finds himself on again. But as confusing as the hon.

House Leader makes things for that poor minister, I'll just try to help

him along and see if I can give him some advice that he might be

interested in.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I

notice the member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is beginning to get

a little tense. Speaking of the member for Surrey, years ago we had a

delightful member for Burrard here by the name of Harold Merilees, who

unfortunately died. But before he died he made a suggestion that

certain plants be planted along the freeway. Those plants were to be

planted, say, from Vancouver out to Abbotsford, or as far as they could

possibly get them. Suddenly we saw those plants emerging — a beautiful

little yellow flower that I see now is beginning to run into

competition. Now that daffodil that almost became part of the freeway

is being usurped by tulips, and I wonder if the member for Surrey....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE:

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the member for Surrey, the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, when he went back to his homeland, Holland, last

year, probably imported more tulips than he could use, and suddenly we

see them sprouting up, on the freeway. Congratulations. It's at least

some place to sow them, and I rather like them. But in memory of Harold

I think that we should make sure that there are more daffodils than

tulips on the freeway between Vancouver and Abbotsford — certainly the

member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) would go along with that.

Mr.

Chairman, one of the things that disturbs me about a number of the

roads in the province.... The particular geography of the one that's

most disturbing to me is the banking of the Pattullo Bridge. Of all

accidents looking for a place to happen, all they have to do is go to

the north end of that bridge. I know it's very difficult for us to do

anything

[ Page 5751 ]

about

it, and I realize that it was done in the good old Liberal patronage

days. But there have been some modifications to that bridge, and I

would like to see a further modification. We are still having trucks

coming across that bridge and suddenly losing their load, and once in a

while we've had some very serious accidents. I have asked for a further

look at that particular end of the bridge, and I've really seen very

little happen lately. Oh, yes, I see all sorts of options that we're

going to be given in the future. We're going to be given a third

crossing to curse us, but aside from that I've seen very little being

done with that particular end of the bridge. I say it's dangerous, it's

always been dangerous, and there is nothing significant being done

about that bridge approach and the banking.

We've got a

"Slow to 20," and when you put up a "Slow to 20 m.p.h." in this

province, that means that you just take your foot off the accelerator

for a second, but there is just no slowing to 20. Some of those heavy

trucks coming down that grade, as the minister probably well knows, are

a threat to themselves, to people going the other way or to people in

the next lane to them. So either we get some heavy-duty policing there,

so we get everybody down to a snail's pace, which, I'm sure, will

enrage those people trying to get home and trying to go to work, etc.,

or we're going to have to see something done in terms of the banking on

that bridge.

Having said that, I really don't think that I

have ever criticized the ferry fleet. I think that that was a super

idea. I know that there have only been two businesses nationalized in

our province: one was B.C. Electric, and the other one was Black Ball

Ferries. Both were nationalized by one W.A.C. Bennett — in other words,

by legislation.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Socialism.

MR. COCKE:

That's right, socialism. Why did you ever join that party if you don't

like that kind of situation? Anyway, they were the ones who did it.

Having done it, I congratulate the concept that the then Premier had

about providing fair access for the people on Vancouver Island and fair

access to the people on the mainland wanting to get on the Island by

use of these ferries. They're excellent. Of course we need more, and

we're building more. But I heard the minister the other day suggest

that one of the ways we're going to circumvent some of the problems we

have — or at least we're studying this — is that we're going to move

the Alberni onto a new run. For those who are not familiar with it, the Alberni

is the Cowichan-class truck ferry: a super ferry with good speed that

carries a tremendous load. The minister suggested that they're

contemplating putting that truck ferry on a run from Tsawwassen to

Departure Bay just outside Nanaimo. If that occurs, the extremely heavy

demand for food on the southern end of this Island is, I think, going

to be hurt. I know there's a tremendous demand for the northern end of

the Island, but the southern end is the area where most of the people

live.

I think what the minister should be contemplating at

this time is to put some other ferry on that line temporarily, but not

take the Alberni off this

line. I travel the ferries — I don't happen to be a cabinet minister

anymore, so I have to travel the ferries every week — and I see the

loads getting on the Alberni

as I see the loads getting on other ferries. I see them lined up, and I

happen to know something about what they're carrying. Truck after truck

is loaded with food for the tourist industry and the needs of the

people on the southern end of the Island. I think it would be a

disservice to this particular area to move that ferry from this run and

put it on the northern run.

What would very likely occur

under those circumstances would be that some of these heavy trucks

would then take that run, get up to Nanaimo and then drive down over

the Malahat. I believe that would be a disservice to the highway system

too. I think it would be dangerous, and far too much traffic on that

line coming down from Nanaimo and back up to Nanaimo to catch this

ferry across.

I really hope the minister will take another

look at this. We've got some ferries being fixed up and we've got some

more ferries coming on stream. Maybe there is some ferry you can find

to put on that run for the test run, but not the Alberni .

I really hope that that is not done without an awful lot of thought,

because I can think of far too many problems that could evolve from

that situation.

Speaking of the Alberni ,

I don't know who — whether one of our people who I know had a hand in

the design of that ferry, or someone else — should take the full

responsibility for what I see as a damned insult. It is an insult from

this standpoint. We who are the blessed ones driving cars or walking on

and walking off the Queen of Nanaimo , the Queen of Saanich

or whatever at least get a food service — not so great any more — where

we can get a cup for our coffee, a plate for our hamburger or a bowl

for our clam chowder. What do they get on the Alberni ? The Alberni caters to truckers, and the Alberni

gets plastic and paper nonsense. I really think that's an insult. Do

you know what they charge a large 40-foot truck to get on the Alberni ?

It's $100 each way. Then the poor old driver goes upstairs, is faced

with this lineup, and gets cold eggs — possibly warm, if he's lucky on

a paper plate.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM . You'd better get your facts straight. Remember

the doctors. Remember the hospitals.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE:

The insulting Minister of Municipal Affairs should get to work. He sits

around here and ignores the municipalities in this province. He's

totally lazy, and all he can do is heckle. It's unfortunate that we

have to carry on this kind of debate across the floor. But when I'm

encouraged, I will continue. There's not one of those big bullies over

there who will stop me. The Richmond hospital will be brought up in the

estimates, and we'll get down to the bottom of that. Meanwhile, there

are letters on....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, yes. The minister was dead wrong, if you want to get into that one. But anyway, I'm not getting into that one.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I'll remind all members of the committee that the member for New

Westminster has the floor and is speaking to the estimates of the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

MR. COCKE: I

was speaking to a minister who has ears and who listens, not to one of

those little hecklers back there who should be doing their work for the

taxpayers of this province.

[ Page 5752 ]

Getting

back to the Minister of Highways, I would suggest very strongly that we

think very seriously about the question of how the truckers should be

treated on that ferry with respect to food service. As far as I'm

concerned, they are probably deserving of better food service than we

get on the other ferries, because they're stuck with it. That's their

job — back and forth and back and forth. I really think that we should

very seriously think about this whole question.

Mr.

Chairman, think about the whole question of the garbage on our ferries.

I watch the trucks come on and go off those ferries, heaped with

garbage. I suppose it may be minutely cheaper to get throw-away items

than it is to get dishes washed under sterile circumstances. But

anybody who knows anything about plastic knows that it is not

biodegradable and knows full well that we, as a civilization, are going

to suffer the consequences of the use of this non-biodegradable product

to the extent that we're now using it. We're ultimately going to bury

ourselves in our own garbage. It's a Crown corporation that could well

be a leader in the field of the conserver society, rather than a

follower. What's easier? Of course, plastic this and plastic that and

plastic everything. I know if I were the ferry manager, I would be

saying: "I guess I have to go that route because I have to save a

buck." But are we saving a dollar at the expense of something very

important — our future? Ultimately, we will either change our ways or

die with the way we're really handling this whole question of

disposables. They're not even disposable — that's the problem. If they

were, in fact, disposable....But once that synthetic material is created, it's very difficult to destroy it.

would hope that the minister might think about that, particularly in

view of the fact that he's coming up with two more ferries in the near

future and a third ferry, hopefully, in the not-too-distant future. As

I understood the minister the other day, we've got two more large

vessels coming on between now and the first of July. Good. You have my

full applause. I just think it's super. I'm glad that you ignored the

second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer), the Minister

of Universities, Science and Communications, who wanted to build a

tunnel. Heaven only knows where he came up with that idea. I presume it

was in one of his dreams subsequent to the dream about the university

hospital that he's now trying to get people into — advertising and all

the rest of it. We warned them at the time.

MR. BARBER: They're running ads for the hospital?

MR. COCKE:

They had a big open house. They're running ads about the open house and

trying to get people to use the emergency. In other words: "Go out, get

hurt and come in and use the university hospital. You've got to make

the minister look good."

I hope that the minister will look into the whole question of the movement of the Alberni .

We on this side of the House are very supportive of the whole ferry

system. We certainly recognize the fact that this minister is trying to

keep his handle on the timetables and so on. We find that this year

they're much more convenient than they have been from time to time in

the past.

One other thing. On behalf of those MLAs who do

the right thing in terms of car-pooling and the conserver society, we

want to thank the minister for giving us access to the employee parking

lots. That way we don't have to pack our cars on and off the ferry,

which inhibits others. We walk on and off, and it's making things much

better. It's a reduction in the utilization of the ferry when others

need to use it. It's also a reduction in terms of fuel; rather than

having cars running back and forth we're able to share cars. It's a

real help.

So, Mr. Chairman, let the minister be warned. If

next year the ferry system hasn't got back to a little more china on

the truck ferry, and has the Alberni

on the northern run, he's in deep trouble. Failing that, if he starts

to put things right, then he'll be making some friends and everything

will be lovey-dovey — almost as it was as I was listening to the member

for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) giving that fighting speech about the roads

up in Kootenay. Unfortunately we don't have any in New Westminster. We

pay for the whole thing ourselves.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member's observations. I'd just like to

go over them briefly. First of all, he referred to landscaping. The

idea came from our colleague at that time, the late Harold Merilees. It

was his idea to plant the daffodils. Speaking to the member for New

Westminster, Harold Merilees was first elected to this Legislature at

the same time he was and at the same time I was. He contributed a lot,

but we're continuing on a larger scale and developing it further. This

year I understand there will be $1.5 million spent on landscaping.

MR. COCKE: But not too many tulips, and more daffodils.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Well, yes, that could well be, but I still give Harold Merilees the

credit for getting the idea in the first place for beautification

generally.

MR. COCKE: So did I.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. FRASER:

I'm quite surprised at the observation that the north end of the

Pattullo Bridge is not safe. We're not getting that comment, Mr.

Member, and we'll certainly look into it. While I'm dealing with the

bridge, though, we are going to do a fair amount of work on the south

approach to the bridge this year to get more capacity and four-lane the

Old Yale Road and Bridge Road. This is to get improved access to the

bridge for the northbound traffic. I emphasize that's the south end of

the bridge. It's a very busy structure. I hate to date myself, Mr.

Chairman, but I remember when it was built. I watched it being built,

and it was well named because it was a toll bridge. We used to call it

the Pay-Tollo Bridge at one time. It's a really important bridge in our

system today, and we've got to get on with improvements to it. Our

engineers are concentrating on the south side at the present time.

Your observations on the ferry fleet are interesting. I just say to clear things up that we would never take the Alberni off route I and jeopardize the capacity between Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay. We are now going to take the Alberni and try it on route 2. It's a longer run and we have a lot of problems in that run. But when we do that, the Queen of Nanaimo is going to be put on, modified for route 1, to assist on route 1. So we should have the same capacity, if not more.

I might also point out that overall both these runs should end up with 25 percent increased capacity, because the Queen of Oak Bay is going on to route 1 as well. That's the first time we've ever run the jumbo vessel on that route. I agree with

[ Page 5753 ]

you

that we'll start having trucks running the Malahat, and we don't want

to encourage that. But I think that route 2 is getting extremely busy

truck-wise because of the road right through to Port Hardy........

MR. COCKE: So put the Nanaimo up there.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Well, we're going to beef up both; that's really what I'm trying to

say. But I think because of a decent road to the north end of the

Island, commodities originally going by boat — say from Kelsey Bay to

Port Hardy — are now going by wheels up the road. It puts a further

load on the boat transportation from Departure Bay to Horseshoe Bay.

Your

observation about garbage, plastic and paper plates leads me to say I'd

like to see all the ferries back to the white linen and chinaware and

silverware, but I'm afraid those days are gone. The reason is the

terrific amount of people we're hauling. Last year we handled 12

million people. It's probably going to be 13 million people this year.

How do you service this quantity of people in a short time? Management

is saying that we're using plastic because it's disposable and fast.

That's the basis. We get a lot of comments about this, but when we have

one of the what I like to call jumbo vessels on there, I believe we

have 1,500 people to look after in an hour and 40 minutes. It's pretty

difficult if you don't have a faster service. We have contracts for the

disposal of the plastic and paper cups. I haven't actually followed it

to the incinerator, but I assume that's where it's going.

MR. COCKE: It's going to a land-fill.

HON. MR. FRASER: Or to a land-fill, yes. That's what's happening there.

You

mentioned that truckers should have better service. I would be partial

to that too since I used to be one of them, but I think they're

basically happy. Regarding the price they pay, it's $1.80 a running

foot. Some of our rigs are 80 feet long and they're paying even more

money than you mentioned. Unfortunately, I think that before Christmas

of this year, they'll be paying more again because of the necessity of

increasing the rates.

The other thing I would mention

concerns freight for the south end of the Island. Don't lose track of

the fact that the CPR is still in there hauling freight. I hope they

stay there. They are hauling to Swartz Bay now by barge. They are

hauling commercial vehicles and so on. We have that capacity as well.

But no, we don't want to jeopardize the capacity on route I to get more

capacity on route 2, and I hope that won't happen.

MR. BRUMMET:

I suppose we all see things from our own point of view and our own

particular bias. It's very interesting to me to listen to a discussion

of landscaping and beautification of highways — decorating the

highways. In our part of the country, landscaping would include

levelling out the low spots, filling in the potholes and things of that

nature. That's the type of landscaping that we would really love to

settle for. You hear discussions about alternate pave routes as a

matter of convenience. We'll settle for the original paved routes up in

our part of the country. We'd really love that.

MR. SEGARTY: Be nice now.

MR. BRUMMET:

I am being nice. The temptation is, of course, to stand, jump up and

down and scream when hearing a discussion about spending money on

decoration and beautification of roads, when we're just looking for

roads.

I know that the ministry is putting the normal amount

of money into maintenance and building of roads in the northeast. I

would like to suggest that that is insufficient. We have a very rapidly

growing area there. The high revenue-producing industries — the oil and

gas industries — have moved a lot of heavy equipment over roads that

were originally designed for farm use. Logging trucks are using those

roads and beating them down. I would like the minister to use whatever

influence he has with his colleagues on Treasury Board to try and come

up with a four- or five-year program, putting in two or three times as

much as the normal increase, to catch up in that part of the country.

As the minister said during earlier discussions last week, I believe,

our proportion of paving is the lowest in the province — some 14

percent. We would certainly like to have a lot more paving. However,

it's impossible to demand paving until we get the roadbeds upgraded and

gravelled. Gravel is, of course, a scarce commodity in the right parts

of that area. There's lots of gravel but it's in the wrong places. So

it takes a long haul.

At this time, particularly when the

oil and gas industry has taken a beating, and so many contractors are

sitting there wondering whether they're going to be able to stay in

business or go under because of lack of work in the oil or gas fields,

an alternative would be to increase the day-labour program to upgrade

and construct the roads, so we can ask for paving in the future. So as

the minister will probably agree, it's a never-ending cycle. The more

roads you improve, the more of them we'll want paved. However, we do

feel that we are entitled to a fair proportion of the paving and

improved roads in the area. Particularly at this time, we know from

plans that are being made that the oil and gas industry will pick up,

but it would certainly be nice if something could be done fairly

quickly to upgrade the amount of money being spent in the area to tide

over these contractors until such time as the oil and gas industry

picks up again and until such time as some of them can get in on the

northeast coal projects and other projects of that nature.

would like to commend the minister and the ministry for the push

they've put on to complete the Fort Nelson–Fort Simpson road, or the

Laird Highway, as as it is known. I'm highly pleased that it is going

ahead. I know that will create a loop road for tourism, and it will

also mean access for British Columbia businessmen funnelled through the

Peace River area into the Mackenzie Valley where pipelines and other

projects are planned. That will mean a great deal to the area.

Once

again, I would like to urge the ministry to try and put some extra

money into the Fort St. John and Fort Nelson areas as quickly as

possible this year. The Fort Nelson area is particularly hard hit

because they are more dependent on the oil and gas industry than the

southern part of the region. They need whatever help they can get to

tide them over until work in the gas fields picks up again. I'd like to

suggest that the source of that revenue could be from the oil and gas

industry, even though the lease sales are down. For instance, this year

the April sale of leases was only $11.3 million. It was only $5 million

and $6 million respectively in the first two sales, and perhaps we

could convince Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) that the sale in April could just as easily have been $9

million instead of $11 million. Two million dollars would do a great

deal to boost work in the area

[ Page 5754 ]

and

help these people over this period of time until the industry picks up

again. A lot of that could be in road work. I'd like to suggest that as

a possible source of revenue we pretend that there's a million or two

less in each sale each year. It would do a great deal to help that part

of the country. I know it has implications for the rest of province.

Does that mean that every industry kick back into each region? I

appreciate that perhaps that would be precedent-setting, but when we

have the lowest portion of improved roads in the province and a great

deal of activity in the area, I think some consideration has to be

given even if it is of a special nature.

The one other thing

I'd like to ask the minister to consider is that up along the Alaska

Highway, which is federally maintained and funded north of about mile

83, there are virtually no proper signing facilities along that

highway. The motels and tourist facilities there do pay provincial

taxes, but they do not get provincial road work, simply because it is

still, a federal highway. I would like to ask the minister if some

funding could be set aside to give these people some proper signs to

help the tourists plan where they're going to stop. I think the

minister is familiar with the eating places, accommodation places and

so on. If we could just get some money to put up proper signs along

that highway at various intervals, that would be a great help.

With those two suggestions, I ask if the minister might have something to respond.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I appreciate the remarks of the member for North Peace River. It is

correct, I guess, that that riding has got the largest inventory of

gravel roads by electoral district in the province. Only 14 percent of

the roads in the riding are paved and 86 percent are gravel. My

experience is that that would be fine if they were just gravel, but an

awful lot of them are straight gumbo. The member has pointed out that

even gravel is a problem. There is gravel available, but it might be 50

miles away from where you need it, and this is costly. I'll do all I

can to get a catchup going, Mr. Member, but I don't hold out a lot of

hopes. But this year we're going to get 50 more kilometres of your road

paved. One large contract will be called in June 1981, and that

contract will carry over into 1982 to complete it, but under that

contract what the engineers call a first lift should be on there before

freeze-up '81.

For the information of the committee and the

member, we spent $20 million pushing the Laird Highway from Fort Nelson

north, and hopefully we can get it connected in a year or so from now.

The distance of the Laird Highway in British Columbia is 85 miles and

in the Northwest Territories it's 158 miles, connecting Fort Simpson

on their 158 miles. They're moving down from Fort Simpson, and, of

course, we're moving up, and hopefully we can get joined in 1982 — if

not in 1982, then by 1983. Public Works Canada expect to have their

road passable by the fall of 1982, and I think we will as well.

The

signing that you've asked for, yes, I don't see why we can't assist.

For the benefit of the committee, the Alaska Highway is roughly 300

miles, if I recall, from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson. From Mile 0 at

Dawson Creek to Mile 83, we have taken over that road from the

Canada, but we'll be pleased to cooperate with federal Public Works to

build pull-offs and erect posts and framework for area identification

signs, like we do in other parts of British Columbia. I might say, Mr.

Chairman, that we get excellent cooperation from federal Public Works

on the Alaska Highway as it runs through British Columbia. The deal the

that once they get it upgraded and paved, we assume that portion of the

Alaska Highway. Eighty miles have been done, with about 400 or 500

job; they've moved steadily every year, rebuilding the Alaska Highway

and getting it paved, and eventually it will all be under the

jurisdiction of British Columbia for maintenance purposes, building and

so on.

We gladly cooperate with federal Public Works; in

fact, we'll get hold of them, Mr. Member, and see what we can do to

help them in arranging pull-offs and erecting posts and framework like

we see in other parts of the province. I've made the trip a couple of

times, and you're quite correct in that observation: you're not so sure

after you've driven 100 miles whether you're ever going to arrive in

another place where you can eat or refuel your vehicle, and I think

that needs upgrading.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I

have a variety of subjects I wish to raise with the minister, most of

which are related to my own constituency. But there are a couple of a

more general nature, and I'll start with them. Last year in committee,

I believe it was, I raised with the minister the problem of

transporting hazardous cargo. At that time the minister assured me that

the federal ministry was coming out with some guidelines that were

going to resolve some of my concerns. It's my understanding that those

guidelines have been delayed — partially by the request of some of the

rail transport people, who felt they couldn't comply with those

guidelines — and I'm wondering what, if anything, this minister is

doing to ensure the'it we do get something in place that will protect

British Columbians as far as transportation of hazardous cargo goes. I

would like to have the minister's comments on that sort of general item.

The

other general item I wanted to raise with the minister is the question

of the actual manufacture of licence plates. It's my understanding that

this used to be done provincially — in fact, in some of our

correctional institutes — but I understand that's no longer the case

and that, in fact, licence plates are now being manufactured outside

the province. This seems to me to be a rather strange direction for a

minister of the Crown to be going, when we have in the manufacture of

licence plates the kind of activity that would provide work for

unskilled people. I would suggest that in this Year of the Disabled it

might be very wise for the minister to review his procedures in the

making of licence plates and attempt to have that returned to the

province. I'm particularly concerned — as well as just the general

thing and the whole labour situation in sending that job out of the

province, away from the provincial economy, having it done elsewhere —

with the time delays that are evidenced, particularly in those cases

where people want a personalized licence plate. Some of the waiting

periods have been up to three and four months for those personalized

licence plates. When this first came to my attention, in fact, it was

through a constituent who had ordered a personalized licence plate as a

birthday present. It didn't arrive for months after the birthday,

because it had to be made outside the province — at least, that was the

reason given her by ministry officials. So I think that the minister

should really review his policy on the production of licence plates,

and I would commend to him the idea of combining

[ Page 5755 ]

that

effort with the Year of the Disabled and seeing if we couldn't ensure

that a workshop for making licence plates would reopen in British

Columbia and, perhaps, provide some employment incentives for people

who have greater than average difficulty getting jobs.

This

minister is always very affable on the floor of the committee, but I

think the minister has some difficulties in getting his correspondence

answered. I have a letter from the Chemainus-Crofton chamber of

commerce dated July 4, 1980. On July 22 I wrote to the minister

enclosing a copy of this letter and asking him for some comments or

some action. What the letter was requesting was that a night ferry

service be placed between Crofton and Saltspring Island. I've had no

response at all from the minister on this. I'm a bit remiss in not

having followed it up sooner, but it got buried in my files and it only

came to light when I was preparing for these estimates. I think that

was a legitimate request. If the minister has responded, then certainly

he didn't let me know. The chamber did address their letter to me on

July 4, 1980, expressing their disappointment with the ferry service

between Crofton and Saltspring. They go on to say: "It's not possible

for people on Vancouver Island to visit Saltspring or attend events

there without constantly having to be aware of the time early in the

afternoon as the ferry does not run after 6 p.m. One must either stay

overnight or not go at all."

If there's been a change in

that, I would be very happy if the minister would advise me. But if

that's not been changed and that's still the case, then I think the

minister at least owes an answer to me and to the Crofton-Chemainus

chamber of commerce to a very legitimate request that was raised back

in July of last year.

Another point that I raised last year

— the minister assured me that it would be corrected — was the

allocation of costs to Cowichan-Malahat. This report is the 1979-1980

report, which I assume runs from April 1, 1979, to April 1, 1980. As my

memory goes, the boundaries of my constituency were changed very

shortly after April 1, when the writs were dropped for the last

provincial election. So you might have one or two weeks work in here on

some of these areas, Mr. Minister, but I find the West Coast road, for

example, being charged to Cowichan-Malahat in the amount of $30,000;

the Island Highway from Chemainus to Ladysmith, which certainly isn't

in Cowichan-Malahat any more, being charged to the tune of nearly

$40,000; and modifications to the Haslam Creek Bridge, which is no

longer in the riding. Even worse is the allocation of costs for the

Powell River Bridge in Cowichan-Malahat, the French Creek Bridge north

of Parksville and something called the Moyie Bridge at Yahk. I really

get a little concerned. Mind you, the dollars aren't very much there,

but it certainly doesn't speak very well for the accuracy in

calculating the costs in any given constituency.

If there

are some $70,000 around, then I am inclined for once to agree with the

member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet). I'm not asking for

beautification, but I sure am asking for some four-laning of the Island

Highway south of Duncan. Every time I phone the ministry they tell me

it's just going to start. That road has been a disaster area for nearly

two years. There has been work done there — true. They've raised the

manholes along the side of the highway. But when are you going to get

on with raising that road bed, if it must be raised? Obviously your

design engineers have indicated that that's the way you're going to go.

You're going to raise that up on a level with the railway crossings, I

guess, for safety's sake. If you're going to do it, then why can't we

get on with it? I can tell you that the local merchants, particularly

those that deal in the tourist industry, are very concerned that we're

going to have a repeat performance of what happened when the Silver

Bridge was moved and the second bridge put in. There was a practical

blockade of access to local commercial concerns as a result of that

highway construction. If that takes place during the summer months when

the tourist traffic is on that road.... I assume that's what's going to

happen, because it hasn't started yet.

It's a real disaster

to those whose interests depend on that short tourist season for the

major portion of their income — the motels, the hotels, all those kinds

of industries; little stores and so on. They'll all find it very

difficult when traffic is blocked off, and when there's construction

building up a road bed, as you plan to do there, there will be a lot of

dust. It's of great concern to those local people. I know they have

contacted you. They've been in touch with you many times, as they have

been in touch with me.

It's just not happening. I was over

that road this morning, and you're still playing around with the two

bridges. We seem to have a constant problem with the old bridge there.

I don't know if it's the moving of it or whether it's just sort of

coincidental that we find there's always some damage to that bridge

which was moved over. Almost half the time the traffic is being

rerouted to the new bridge. So there's still a problem there, but

nothing is happening on that four-laning

section from the twin bridges

at the Silver Bridge over the Cowichan River down to the overpass.

While

I have assurance that that will be done, it doesn't happen. You'll

remember last year I raised the problem of the crosswalk, the overpass

for the school children. At that time you assured me that you would get

on with it. I now have a letter from you to say that it's like a

chicken-and-egg situation. You have given assurance to the local

parents that you won't four-lane the highway until the overpass is in.

Then you say you can't put the overpass in until the highway is

four-laned. This has been going on for so long, I'm beginning to

believe that that's the situation. You can't seem to do one until you

do the other, and vice versa.

There's really no reason for

that, Mr. Minister. I would suggest that you should get on with the job

of four-laning that highway and getting that overpass built so we can

get that terribly congested area cleared up south of Duncan. If and

when you're able to resolve the railway overpass, which was the thing

that delayed it for so long, then we can get that cleared up. But at

least you just have one small restriction in there, rather than

continuing it over such a long distance. So I would like some assurance

as to where you're proposing to go with that.

I'd like to

mention again the situation up at Honeymoon Bay with the Gordon Bay

Park and Walton Road. I've had a number of discussions with both you

and the Minister of Parks (Hon. Mr. Chabot) relative to that particular

access to the park. It always seems that it's going to cost too much

money to reroute that road. But I would suggest, if this minister were

to work with the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, there is a

definite need to have an access to that park that doesn't use a

residential road. The route is there, and it will cost a little bit,

sure, to reroute and get into the park in a slightly different

direction. But it's well worth the money when you consider the fact

that now, in order to alleviate the situation, the Minister of Highways

is proposing to upgrade the existing access, Walton Road. That will

simply aggravate

[ Page 5756 ]

the situation because those campers and trailers will probably travel faster once that road is upgraded.

When

you take a road that is in effect a playground for small children,

which is what a lot of residential roads are, particularly in an

isolated area like Honeymoon Bay, you're really asking for trouble.

Surely the life of a child is worth more than the extra cost involved

in putting that access in. It's going to have to come eventually

because that park is going to have to be enlarged eventually. It's long

overdue for it, as a matter of fact. You have to be in there at least

on a Thursday if you expect to even get a spot in that park. But that's

another question. The fact remains that the traffic load is very heavy,

and to simply upgrade that existing small residential road to

accommodate those campers and trailers is going to aggravate the

problem, not improve it. I would ask the minister to take a second look

at that.

A long-standing problem that I've discussed with

this minister is the question of the Crofton road. There have been a

lot of problems with that road, granted, but we did get around to

actually getting some plans drawn up, I understand. But still nothing

is happening. That's the road that accommodates the chip trucks that go

into the Crofton mill. It's the road that accommodates the workers who

work at the Crofton mill around the clock — three shifts. And it's the

road accommodating the people who live in Crofton village as well as

the ferry traffic from Crofton to Vesuvius. It's a terrible road — I'm

sure you have been over it, Mr. Minister — narrow, winding and

hazardous.

I want to read to you a note given to me by a

member of a school class that visited the Legislature, a class of grade

6 or 7 students, I think, from Alexander School. Their teacher had

obviously done some preparatory work with them before they came, and

they had written out questions they wanted to ask me as their

representative about what goes on in the Legislature. This little note

is from a girl named Jennifer Coles. This is her question: "What can we

do to get the government to build a safer road to the Crofton pulpmill?

My dad and Angela Crosson's dad were both practically killed going to

work on that road." Now, Mr. Chairman, when you get children coming to

the Legislature with those kinds of questions, I suggest to the

minister that it's high time he took the bull by the horns and got

something done about that road. We've had a lot of fatalities on that

road. It's one of the most heavily used roads on Vancouver Island, I

think, let alone in Cowichan-Malahat, and it is one of the most winding

and hazardous. Something has to be done. Just to keep on studying and

reviewing is not the answer; it's not going to resolve the problem.

The

final question — I'm sure the minister has been waiting for this one —

relates to the Lake Cowichan road. I note in the last report that the

original cost of the work done so unsatisfactorily there in the first

instance, as recorded to date, is something like $60,000.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, the Lake Cowichan road was in great shape until this minister came along and tore up the surface and left it....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE:

Yes, it was a real disaster. You know, it's not just me saying this,

Mr. Chairman, because he has admitted it. He came into Lake Cowichan

and said: "It's all our fault; not the fault of the contractor, not the

fault of anybody else." He was going to redo it. But in the meantime we

have all these people who have suffered a great deal of damage to their

cars as a result of this.

I know the minister sat in the

House during discussions of the minister responsible for ICBC, and I

hope that I've finally got through to that minister and that that

minister has now talked to this minister and that some resolution of

the problem is being made. This minister and I both thought that when

you had an accident and there was a deductible, that was it. But the

minister responsible for ICBC apparently took the stand that that

wasn't it, and that if you broke your glass, that was one accident and

if you had pock-mark paint damage on your left-hand side, that was

another accident, and on the right-hand side, that was another

accident, and on the front, that was another accident, and if anything

happened to the back of the car, that was another accident. So you

could wind up with four or five or six deductibles just as a result of

one accident. I know of one instance where a person was pulling out to

pass a chip truck going up the hill on the three-lane part, was caught

between two chip trucks and was simply barraged by flying gravel and

had five deductibles.

Now the minister has agreed to pick up

the deductible for glass, and I appreciate that and so do my

constituents. But the delays have been drastic, because when you sign

that waiver for damage to have your glass repaired, then automatically

you are also signing away any rights to any further damage. If paint

damage occurred at the same time, you are automatically excluded from

ever claiming for paint damage. So the people who have suffered

multiple damage have just delayed signing.

At first this

minister said no, he wasn't going to do anything about paint damage.

One thing I will say about this minister, Mr. Chairman, is that he

listens. As a result of pressure from me, from the village council and

from various citizens he decided that he would change his stance

slightly. On February 27 he indicated: "If those individuals who are

alleging that the finish of their vehicles has been damaged because of

Highway 18 seal coating wish to write to the insurance and claim

officer and submit copies of estimates or invoices, he" — that is, Mr.

Cavin, the insurance officer — "will send these on to the insurers.

Whether or not satisfaction is made to the claimants will be the

prerogative of the insurers."

When I got that letter I

immediately took an ad in the local papers re vehicle paint damage, and

quoted the minister's letter — and I will say I've had some expenses

taking ads in the local papers to advise constituents of what's going

on. I have copies of several letters that went in immediately following

that. This particular ad came out on March 26. In March and April those

claims went in, and no one has heard anything since then. We've had no

response. Not only are all those in abeyance, but the glass claims that

happened concurrently with the paint damage are also sitting there.

People are beginning to get concerned that if they leave it too long

they may lose even their glass claim. I hope the minister will get up

on the floor and assure me he's going to get this thing resolved and

how he's going to do it, and that this dreadful dragging of the feet is

going to be completed.

Just one other thing about the Lake

Cowichan road. I would thank the minister very much for opening up the

alternate route, which again was pressured by local people and me.

Whether or not he had to build such an extensive type

[ Page 5757 ]

joining together as he's doing.... I think a couple of farm tractors

could have almost pushed that through there. The $200,000 or so that

you're going to spend on that could have well gone into doing something

like the overpass for the Koksilah school children, getting on with the

upgrading of the four-laning of the highway or even putting in an

access road to Gordon Bay Park. I do certainly question the priorities

in making that such a very extravagant and elaborate kind of

section of

the old road, which is winding in other areas. In my opinion it really

didn't need that degree of upgrading. I do question the priorities of

spending the kind of money that's going on that opening when we can't

get these other things done. I would urge the minister to have a good

look at his bookkeeping and take some of those things like the Yahk

Bridge and all those things that aren't in my constituency out of our

accounts. Maybe then there'll be enough dollars to do some of these

things I'm asking for.

MR. LORIMER: I have one

question for the minister. I'm not going to criticize him for what he

has done today, but I'm going to speak about what he has failed to do.

Last

year in his estimates I brought up the question of the highways work

yard at Canada Way and Willingdon, requesting that beautification work

be done on it, because it's strictly an eyesore in the centre of the

municipality. At that time he told me they didn't want to go to the

expense of beautification, because in the very near future the yard was

going to be removed and relocated in another area. It's a year later,

and there's been no action. It's not the centre of activity in Burnaby

these days. Maybe the minister could now tell me when he intends to

relocate this particular yard. I don't expect it tomorrow; June or July

will be soon enough, but I certainly would like to have the matter

cleared up before next year.

HON. MR. FRASER: I understand the member is on his way to the hospital, and I haven't got a reply. I'll get one and it'll be on the record.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) had several things, and at this time I believe it would be in order to adjourn.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I move that we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 12, Mr. Speaker.

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

The House in committee on Bill 12; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, our Finance critic would like to have had just an instant to get here, and I'd like to have an instant...

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: What's the "ha, ha, ha" about? Go buy another suit in Calgary.

...

just long enough to reach into my own drawer and find the bill. This is

the bill which increases the social security tax in the province by 50

percent. Now that our critic is here, I'm sure that he'll be deciding

what he likes and what he doesn't like about some sections of the bill.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, in this

section we're proposing to increase tax rates.

MR. KEMPF: Are you a little disorganized?

MR. NICOLSON:

Not as disorganized as you. If I were chairman of a committee and

getting $4,000 a year for it, I could call meetings of that committee,

my friend. Four thousand dollars a year works out to about $1,000 a

meeting that he's called in the last two or three years.

Mr.

Chairman, this particular

section sets the percentage increases in

social services tax. There are different rates for different items. I

would just like the minister to seriously consider the problem of

living next to the province of Alberta, where there's no social

services tax, and trying to attract tourists to this province from an

area which is fairly wealthy and affluent, particularly in parts of the

province that are almost directly contiguous to the province of

Alberta. In the Kootenays — east and west — and, I'm sure, in the

Shuswap, and no doubt in other portions of the province where we

attract people into the province.... I'd just like to point out this

one situation, where we have somebody come into the Kootenays and they

come into the small community of Kaslo. There is a potential for them

to leave behind them, almost on impulse, $10,000 and $20,000 in the

purchase of a boat.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The Jones Boys.

MR. NICOLSON:

Yes, Jones Boys Marine. The hull was probably imported from Arizona,

Nevada or from some manufacturer in the States. But the rest of that

and the majority of the labour component in the boat, in terms of the

canopy being manufactured and sewn in Kaslo, putting all the hardware

onto the boat and customizing the boat to the potential owner's

specifications and a whole range of things.... That little industry is

important to the community of Kaslo. If it were to shut down and

relocate to a place such as Calgary, where a good deal of its market

is, and shut down some of these small manufacturing things and the many

ancillary types of things that go on about it, it would be as serious a

blow to the village of Kaslo as the central offices of the public

service being removed from the capital region. Other than that, there

is a little bit of government employment in Kaslo and a small sawmill.

It is a very important thing.

It isn't just Jones Boys

Marine; it is this whole problem of people. We're not going to

condition the people of Alberta to accept the idea of sales tax. If we

lose a large sale, the provincial government loses 4 percent, 6

percent, 8 percent, or whatever the taxes are at that particular time,

but we lose

[ Page

5758 ]

jobs and an industry. We lose a considerable amount

if we don't consider the impact of social service tax. As the Minister

of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) well knows, it has driven

some of his constituents to go to Calgary to buy a suit.

Mr.

Minister, in looking at variable rates, I would like to ask the

minister what his ministry has done to try to come to grips not just

with Jones Boys Marine but with people in the tourist industry on

Windermere Lake, Columbia River, Fernie, Kimberley, Radium and various

other places. It isn't enough simply to attract tourists into our area.

We want to turn them upside down and jingle a bit of change out of

their pockets. We don't want to discourage that. If they want to enjoy

boating, we would like to see them invest in a boat from British

Columbia. If they want to stay overnight, we don't want to discourage

them. We would like to sell them some things — more than just little

trinkets of British Columbia. I think that is how tourism can really

serve us.

We sell $10,000 and $20,000 investments to people

who come out to British Columbia looking for a little bit of a holiday.

They have that disposable income and they make the decision to make

that investment when they're in British Columbia and see the boating,

fishing and those things. It is very important to our part of the

country. I guess the minister does have some comments.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, if the Finance critic of the NDP wishes to speak at this point, I'll defer and deal with both points later.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I did say earlier that I intended to save most of my

remarks until we get to the Finance minister's estimates. We're opposed

to this particular section. I'm sure it comes as no surprise.

Reading

from the budget speech of 1976, on page 29 it says: "The previous

administration left the provincial financial cupboard bare." Several

members opposite have been saying for some time that when the NDP

arrived in office in 1972 there was $500 million in surplus. If I think

of it, I intend to ask just where that figure came from when we get to

the Finance minister's estimates.

Leaving that aside and

reading further in the 1976 budget, it says: "Based on existing tax

rates, licences and fees, and the expectation of a 14 percent growth in

the economy, provincial government revenues are forecast to be $3.319

billion in the fiscal year 1976-77, an increase of 13.7 percent.

However, this level of revenue falls short of balancing the budget by

$295.5 million." So in 1976, after three years of NDP administration

that was supposed to have left the financial cupboard bare, it was

necessary for the Minister of Finance to find an extra $295.5 million.

Now

we have a measure before us which follows over five years of Social

Credit administration, and we find they're not short by $295.5 million.

Reading from the budget today: "May I restate our problem. In 1981-82,

operating revenue is forecast to be $6.011 billion in the absence of

additional revenue measures. This compares with expenditures totalling

$6.636 billion, for a shortfall" — not of $295.5 million — "of $625

million." After five years of Social Credit administration it is

necessary to bring in new taxes or tax increases for a total of $625

million. It's based on the argument that "deficits are not necessary

nor are they acceptable to this government."

On another page

of the budget speech, he tells us the extent to which deficits are

acceptable to this government. It says: "In the next fiscal year

long-term borrowing...." Borrowing is not deficit, because it's Crown

corporations. It's not us, it's them who are doing it. "Borrowing by

Crown corporations is estimated at: $925 million for B.C. Hydro; $120

million for B.C. Rail; $162 million for hospitals" — that used to be

included in accounts; "$70 million for schools; $111 million for

universities and colleges" — that used to be in public accounts in

budgetary expenditures; "$74 million for BCDC; $51 million for the

Urban Transit Authority" — that expense, to the extent that it was

spent, used to be in budgetary expenditures; "and $76 million for BCBC"

— that, as well, used to be in budgetary expenditures, so don't call it

borrowing anymore.

That kind of deficit is acceptable to

this government. Now they're increasing revenues by $625 million in a

period when we still believe that it isn't necessary for the purpose

announced — that is, covering budgetary expenditure. We still argue

that the minister in bringing in these repressive tax increases,

adjustments, indexing of taxes, is simply trying to pile up a surplus.

You'll

remember that the last time we talked about the sales tax increase, Mr.

Chairman, was when this government announced a permanent reduction in

the sales tax. That permanent reduction was announced the day before

the election was called. Now the increase is coming into effect, and

we, suspect that the day we hear there is another permanent reduction

of the sales tax, that will be the day before the election is announced

again. It's election gimmickry; it's not to satisfy the need to finance

government services. It's simply to finance the need in the mind of

this government to win the next election. We'll see what happens when

that time does come.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to refresh our memories. I'm quoting now from Hansard

for April 2, 1979. The member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, the then

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), said the sales tax rate of 4

percent is lower than the rate in effect at any time in the last 25

years. He said British Columbia is the only province that has ever

lowered the general tax rate permanently — I emphasize permanently —

and now has the lowest sales tax rate of any province in Canada that

charges the tax.

That was marvellous rhetoric — marvellous

talk. "Permanently." Who else said it was permanent? The Premier. Old

Honest Bill. This is from a newspaper clipping dated April 11, 1978:

"Bennett said the provincial government had known for some time that

the federal government and its budget would make provision for picking

up a 2 percent cut in the B.C. sales tax. He said that the B.C. sales

tax cut is permanent and he added later that he cannot bind future

governments."

Now we understand what he meant. He couldn't

even bind his own government if it was re-elected. Most unfair. They

were unkind to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) because, after

hearing all this marvellous talk from his colleagues — I'm sure that,

as a result, he'll at least vote against this

section — he said: "Our

government and our Premier have made a commitment to the citizens of

British Columbia that the reduction in the sales tax is here to stay."

Then

he went on to say: "There's a long-term commitment." Straightforward

honesty — that's a very descriptive adjective that's required when

you're dealing with honesty,

[ Page 5759 ]

particularly

on that side of the House. Straightforward honesty and planning for the

citizens in this province. He went on to say the opposition is

frustrated. Who's frustrated, I ask that member today, and will he vote

the way he talks? Will he vote with a government that has let him down

and embarrassed him beyond words? How can he? How can he possibly go

back to Omineca having voted with this government after this dastardly

move? I wonder whether he's going to give an honest account of himself

today. He thought he was giving an honest account of himself back

there. Will he do so today? We all wait, holding our breath, to see the

outcome of this vote.

MR. SKELLY: The maverick.

MR. COCKE: I hope the marshmallow maverick will do his thing.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, how good is the minister's word?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, we might be becoming quite unparliamentary here. We cannot

question the motives of any hon. member of the House. All members are

honourable, and I'm sure the hon. Leader of the Opposition is aware of

the parliamentary procedure.

MR. BARRETT: Mr.

Chairman, I asked one simple question and I get this whole answer. I

just want to ask the minister before I go any further in the debate: is

he playing politics, a little game, a wink and a nudge, or what is it?

I want to know how good is your word in this debate so I can save some

time. The reason I ask the question is that the Premier gave his word

that the reduction of sales tax was permanent. The Premier's word is no

good.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are transgressing.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I'm just establishing the parameters of political debate.

The Premier of the province said the B.C. sales tax was permanent,

although, he added, he could not bind future governments. Now the only

future government was his own. So he said that he'd never increase the

sales tax again. Is that a correct conclusion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Correct.

MR. BARRETT: Correct, thank you very much. So his word is no good on the sales tax issue. Is that a correct assessment?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, parliamentary tradition does not allow us to impute improper motives to another hon. member.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I tell you clearly I am not imputing any motive. I'm just

reading the record. The record is that the Premier said that the sales

tax cut would be permanent. Now we're getting an increase. Ergo the

conclusion that the Premier's word is no good. If you can't make a

statement of fact in this place, what's left for us? The Premier

promised that the sales tax would never be increased, and here we are:

it's going up again.

I believe the Minister of Finance has

deliberately set out to embarrass the Premier, because he wants to be

Premier. Why else would the Minister of Finance bring in an increase to

make a liar out of the Premier? I don't think it's nice for the'

Minister of Finance to go around making a liar out of the Premier. I

didn't say he was a liar. Not me. I'm just reading the record. The

record is that he said it would never go up again. And there's the man,

Mr. Chairman, who stands condemned as making a liar out of the Premier

of British Columbia. Shame on him!

The other member has been driven out of the House by my colleague.

MS. BROWN: Oh, did he leave?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, he left. My colleague got up and read Hansard , and

what did my colleague read from Hansard on this particular item? Why, he read

what Mr. Kempf said: "The...Premier...made a commitment to the citizens

of British Columbia that the reduction in sales tax is here to stay." That's

what he said in Hansard .

He goes on to say: "There is a long-term commitment, straightforward

honesty.... "What we're getting today is either disconnected dishonesty

or straightforward honesty. What is it going to be? Two members of the

government have been made liars by the Minister of Finance. Is this a

plot by the Minister of Finance to discredit the Premier and to take

over the leadership? I want to know that.

want to know if the Minister of Finance made up his own mind separately

by himself and decided that he was going to increase sales tax to

embarrass the Premier. I want someone over there to stand up and defend

the Premier of British Columbia. I want one of those backbenchers to

get up there and condemn the Minister of Finance for making a liar of

the Premier of British Columbia. Who is going to be the first to stand

up and defend the Premier from this vicious attack by the Minister of

Finance? Who is it going to be? We know there's a fight over there over

leadership. We know that there's discord over there. Who is going to be

the first Social Crediter to stand up and attack the Minister of

Finance for making a liar out of the Premier?

The press are

going to note this. They are going to write that when this debate took

place, not one Social Credit member got up to defend the Premier of

British Columbia from this vicious attack by the Minister of Finance.

What about that, Mr. Minister of Finance? Maybe we could clear this up.

Maybe I'm wrong. Could the Minister of Finance tell me that he agreed

with the Premier when the Premier said that this was a permanent cut?

Maybe that's it. Maybe the Minister of Finance is fibbing too.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, once again we are transgressing. The House at times has to

accept many opinions, but we cannot impugn the motive of another hon.

member. I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition is aware of parliamentary

language and what can and what cannot be said in this chamber.

MR. BARRETT:

Then I put it to you, Mr. Chairman, for your advice. Here we have a

commitment from the Premier of this province that the sales tax would

never be increased again. Here we have a Minister of Finance who is

increasing the sales tax. We have two conflicting statements; how do I

deal with them? If we go ahead and increase the sales tax we

[ Page 5760 ]

make

a liar out of the Premier. I don't want to do that, Mr. Chairman. I

don't want to make a liar out of the Premier, and I don't want anybody

else making a liar out of the Premier, because the Premier gave his

solemn word that he would never see the increase of sales tax in

British Columbia. That minister is making a liar of the Premier by

pushing this amendment. How do we deal with it? Do we say it didn't

happen? Do we say it's not a matter of record? Or do we get the

Minister of Finance to get up and say: "I've made a mistake and

withdraw this

section of the bill because I don't want to make the

Premier of the province a liar"?

Mr. Chairman, who is the

captain of his own destiny? The Minister of Finance is. If the Minister

of Finance gets up and pushes this

section today, he is publicly making

a liar out of the Premier, and I don't want to be part of that. I'm

going to vote against this

section because I don't want to be a part of

making a liar out of the Premier.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

That's right. But somebody over there is going to vote for this

section. Everybody who votes for this

section is going to make a liar

of the Premier; and the author of this section, if it passes, makes a

liar of the Premier. Why I wouldn't even be a bit surprised if, when

the bell rang, the Premier voted for it to make a liar of himself. What

do we do, Mr. Chairman? That's against the rules of this House. No

member has the right to make a liar out of himself. What are we going

to do about it? What are the rules to deal with somebody who gets up

and makes a liar of himself? Mr. Chairman, we need a ruling on this.

How can a member come into this House and vote on something and make a

liar out of himself? It's going to be confusing in the annals of

keeping order in this chamber. I can't think of another time when a

member came in and voted to make a liar out of himself. We've got a

real problem here with the rules. If the Premier comes in and votes for

this, somebody will say he's made a liar of himself, and if he said

that in the House, he'd be thrown out of here.

So we've got

a problem. What is the problem? It's not the problem of someone telling

a lie, Mr. Chairman. I'll tell you what it is and how we've got to

handle it. We've got a problem of someone not telling the truth, and

now we've got to find out who it is that's not telling the truth,

because we can't talk about who's telling a lie. The minister says that

he wants to increase the sales tax by two points, is that right? That's

right. That's what we're debating — a 50 percent increase. Is that

correct? That's correct. But the Minister of Finance is subservient to

the Premier. Mr. Chairman, I want to know if the Minister of Finance

asked the Premier if it was okay with him that he increase the sales

tax. Did you ask him that?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'll respond when you sit down.

MR. BARRETT:

Well, just the one question first, so we get.... Okay. Did you ask the

Premier if it was okay with him to increase the sales tax?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, the border problem was identified by one of the earlier

speakers for the official opposition, and it is a problem. I don't

think he used the term "border problem," but it is clearly a problem.

It has been brought to my attention — as I assume it has been brought

to the attention of previous Ministers of Finance — by members whose

constituencies lie along the eastern side of the province. Certainly

since I became Minister of Finance at the end of 1979, those members on

this side of the House — the government members — have clearly

articulated the problem as they see it and have stood up well for their

constituencies in identifying the problem. There are similar

difficulties in other parts of Canada, as the committee well knows,

particularly when you have a sales tax rate which varies from province

to province. It might assist the committee just to reflect for a moment

on the rates which are now in place across the country. We all know

that Alberta has no sales tax, no general-rate tax. British Columbia is

now 6 percent and Saskatchewan is 5 percent, so there is a considerable

border problem between Saskatchewan and Alberta, and that has been

identified by elected representatives from both provinces. Manitoba is

5 percent; Ontario is 7 percent with increases in other taxation

activities but not in sales tax; Quebec, 8 percent; New Brunswick, 8

percent; Nova Scotia, 8 percent; Prince Edward Island, 10 percent; and

Newfoundland, 11 percent.

Mr. Chairman, as I have done previously, through the course of this year I

will meet with various groups and individuals with my colleagues from the government

side of the House in those constituencies in which the problem has been identified.

Within a very few weeks I will be in the Peace River area to meet with a small

group to hear the problem and to explain the difficulties which the province

finds in this regard. We cannot exempt a particular area of the province, because

then the argument could be advanced with some validity: "Well, if you exempt

a particular portion of the province from the sales tax, what's so magic

about the line which you have now drawn?" Should it be here? Should it

be 50 kilometres to the west, 100 kilometres to the west, or whatever? As long

as we have this discrepancy both to the east and to the west of the province

of Alberta, and to a similar extent in some other jurisdictions in central and

eastern Canada, that kind of problem is going to continue to be with us.

The

finance critic for the NDP, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich),

alluded in his remarks with respect to this

section as to the apparent

surplus which is being created — and I underline and emphasize the word

"apparent" as the adjective with respect to the surplus. We went

through this in the budget debate. If my forecasts and the situation

which we saw in the preparation of the 1981-82 budget are proven

incorrect, then I will be extremely happy, because if they are

incorrect it means the picture for government revenues and expenditure

pressures is not as bleak as we saw it and as we still see it.

won't be necessary for the members of this committee or this House to

wait until the budget of 1982-83 in late winter or early spring next

year, because there is quarterly reporting. The quarterly reporting

mechanism for the first three months of this year will show our problem

or lack of problem, and subsequent reports every three months — about

four weeks after the conclusion of each quarter, give or take a few

days — will show how accurate we are with respect to forecasting. I

think I should not stray too far within this section, lest the Chair

point out that the

section is quite specific and that we are in

committee debate. But this is part of the difficulty we saw and the

difficulty for government revenues and expenditures we foresaw, which

has proven to be the case thus far in this fiscal year. Admittedly we

are just some seven to eight weeks into it.

[ Page 5761 ]

The

Leader of the Opposition has today indulged in what I would like to

call good theatre, but I don't even think it rates that, because we

dealt with this in second reading debate, where the decrease in the

sales tax undertaken by another minister, a predecessor minister in

this government, was dealt with. I responded at the close of second

reading just a few days ago, pointing out that — the members opposite

may not accept the word "temporary" — the temporary sales tax

reductions.... Using Ontario as an example, when the federal government

took the specific measure with respect to sales tax reduction

assistance, Ontario reduced its sales tax for a stated six months. In

fact, we did it....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I listened quietly, Mr. Chairman. We have a problem with the chattering across the way.

MR. BARRETT: Who's been thrown out this year for chattering?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister continues uninterrupted.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

In any event, some provinces did in fact reduce the sales tax as a

result of federal measures for a very specific and relatively

short-lived time. I think the Leader of the Opposition will want to run

through this again, for what reason I know not, except to say that if

there is a leader of a political party in this House who's in trouble

right now, he's on that side of the House, not on this side of the

House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before

recognizing the next speaker let me just quote from Sir Erskine May,

where he says to us "...that good temper and moderation are the

characteristics of parliamentary language, and parliamentary language

is never more desirable than when a member is canvassing the opinions

and conduct of his opponents in debate." I would commend that citation

to all hon. members, and remind them that parliamentary language is a

feature of this House. We should not stray from using words that are

parliamentary.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the House

is always well-advised to pay attention to the Chair; but perhaps, on

occasion, the Chair may be ill-advised as to the timing of advice,

particularly in this instance. The only minister of the Crown to have

ever been thrown out of the House is that minister, and it was this

session. Considering the sensitivities of that minister, I would think

it might be better to counsel him in the corridor rather than the

chamber, because the minister has been placed in a very awkward

situation not of his own making. He makes it worse by trying to explain

it away. For example, he just said.... And he didn't answer my question.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Do you want to answer that now?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I will. The Leader of the Opposition is quite right in this respect. I

did not answer the question he posed just before he took his place in

the previous debate. No, I did not.... Was the term "consult" or "ask"?

As Minister of Finance, that decision was taken in my office with my

deputy. The Premier received the information with respect to the budget

at about the same time the Leader of the Opposition did on budget day.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I appreciate that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who was

briefly a minister in another government, would find that difficult to

believe; but that is precisely the way in which the process occurred,

as far as I'm concerned.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. BARRETT:

The minister has said that the Premier was notified about the same time

I was. It was a couple of hours or 24 hours. Once he was notified,

through you, Mr. Chairman, did he come to you and say: "Hey, Mr.

Minister of Finance, I made a promise not to increase that tax"? Did he

come to you and say that? It's a simple question. I want to abide by

the Chair. I don't want all these flowery explanations. You just told

me that the Premier found out about the same time I did. When he found

out — whatever that time was — did he come to you as Minister of

Finance and say: "Mr. Minister of Finance, do you know that I made a

promise not to head a government that would ever increase this again?"

Did he come to you and say that to you?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, this Premier — unlike the Premier in the New Democratic

Party government between 1972 and 1975 — was very much aware of the

difficulties in which this government was finding itself with respect

to the expenditure-revenue squeeze. I'm sure that he was no happier

about the increase in a variety of taxes — again we are dealing with a

section of one particular tax measure in committee — than I was or than

any other member of government would be. I indicated that as well at

the close of second reading debate.

MR. BARRETT: I

know how awkward this is for the minister. Yes, because I can tell by

your answers. You're not dealing with the specific question. Let's go

through it tortuously to the point that we're at. I asked you: was the

Premier aware that this tax was going to be increased, knowing very

well that he had made a promise that this tax would never be increased?

Now you've told me that he wasn't aware any sooner than I was.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Approximately.

MR. BARRETT:

Okay. It could be approximately six months, three months, six hours or

whatever. It's necessary for us politicians to give us some room to

manoeuvre. Mr. Chairman, who am I to dispute the minister's right to

have some room to manoeuvre? It was approximately a little time before

me. When he learned of it, did he say to the minister: "Mr. Minister, I

have made a solemn promise that this tax was permanently reduced. How

do I now handle it with the public and some perhaps intemperate people

in the opposition?" I try to keep my group in control. But they do get

a little intemperate on occasion, and they quote the Premier's old

promises back. The Premier has said that....

[ Page 5762 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Please apologize

— thank you — because it's intemperate for you to read the Premier's

promises back. The Premier promised that this tax would be reduced

permanently. Some of my intemperate members come in here as politicians

and want to hold another politician to his word. Sometimes that's not

kind.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dave told us not to mention it.

MR. BARRETT:

I told them not to mention it. That's right. I only told them a few

moments before the Premier found out what was happening. But you've had

a lot of time to forget it, you fellows, and then you've raised it to

embarrass the minister. I'm just trying to help the minister get out of

this embarrassing situation. Here we have the amazing revelation that

the Minister of Finance made this decision to increase the tax by

himself. And that's good. Is that right? Because the Premier didn't

know that it was going to be raised until a little while before I knew.

So we have to assume that you made the decision arbitrarily that that's

the one that's going to be raised. Is that correct?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Go ahead.

MR. BARRETT:

Well, I'd like to ask that question. Is it correct that you made the

decision arbitrarily to raise this tax? Did you? I ask you that, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Through the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, through the Chair: did you make you make the decision to raise this by yourself?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I would simply refer the Leader of the Opposition to the remarks which

I made a few minutes ago when I indicated that yes, indeed, that

decision was made. The member knows that. If he feels that it's

embarrassing to pursue the point, it isn't embarrassing, Mr. Chairman.

It's a little bit dull.

MR. BARRETT: I would never call that a cheap shot.

have the minister telling us that he made the decision to increase the

sales tax, and just before I knew about the Premier was told. So we all

know that the Premier was told at the last possible minute that this

sales tax was going to be increased. Did the Premier know before the

public knew? I knew before the public knew. So the Premier must have

known before the public knew. We can assume that. Did the Premier say

to the Minister of Finance: "Mr. Minister of Finance, I have promised

that this would never be increased, and now you are breaking a promise

that I've given to the people of British Columbia?" Did the Premier say

that to you? I ask the minister to tell me if the Premier said that to

him.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I refer the

member — who is striving not so valiantly in this debate — to the

remarks I gave him just a few minutes ago.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, the minister didn't answer my question, and I repeat it.

Did the Premier say to you: "If you go through with this increase in

the sales tax you'll be breaking a promise I made to the people of

British Columbia?" Did the Premier say that to you? When we get down

and strip away everything, we don't get an answer from the Minister of

Finance, because the Premier has been made a fool of by the Minister of

Finance. The Premier said that he would never increase the sales tax,

that his government made a permanent cut. It says so right here.

Well,

I'd be a little embarrassed too, Bill, because you've been caught a

little bit badly on this one. I'd be a little embarrassed too. This is

what you said: "Premier Bill Bennett admitted today that Ottawa will

pick up half the cost of the 2-cent cut in the B.C. sales tax. But

Bennett said he has no qualms about accepting the money, saying it's

not a gift. It comes from the B.C. taxpayers anyway, he told the news

conference in Victoria, and he said that B.C.'s sales tax cut is

permanent, though he added later that he cannot bind future

governments."

Well, there he is. It's the same Premier, the

same government. There was a confession from the Minister of Finance

today that the Premier only knew about the cut a little bit before I

found out about it. All I've asked the Minister of Finance to tell me

is whether or not the minister was told by the Premier that if he went

through with this increase he'd be making a liar of him. Now I ask the

Minister of Finance: did the Premier come to you and say that if you

went ahead with this increase you were going to be making a liar of him?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. members. I'm sure there are other ways to phrase

remarks in the House. All members are familiar with the rules that

guide us in debate, and I would ask the member speaking to adhere to

those rules.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, if you

believe that by posing the question that way I am infringing on the

rules, then let me rephrase it. I ask the Minister of Finance: did the

Premier come to you and say to you that if you went ahead with this

sales tax increase you would put his earlier statement in contradiction

with what was taking place? Did he do that? Did he remind you that he

had made a promise not to increase the sales tax and that your action

would be putting him in contradiction to his promise? Did he say that

to you? That's all I want to know. Does the minister wish the floor to

answer that specific question?

AN HON. MEMBER: Carry on.

MR. BARRETT:

I don't need to carry on — it's a very simple question. We've taken

about 15 minutes to hone it down to this. The background is this: the

Premier promised that the sales tax would never be increased, that the

cut was permanent. The Minister of Finance has brought in an increase

in the sales tax and then has told the House the Premier didn't know

about it until "a little while" before I did.

Having learned

all of that, I ask the Minister of Finance: when he first learned that

this sales tax was going to be increased, did the Premier say to you

that the increase would be a contradiction of his earlier statements

promising that it would not be increased? Did he say that to you?

Far

be it from me to embarrass the Premier. He does it well on his own. But

we have a solemn promise from the Premier of British Columbia that this

tax would never be increased. We have the Minister of Finance bringing

in the tax that would never be increased. I ask the Minister of

[ Page 5763 ]

Finance if the Premier said to him that he was contradicting his position.

Interjecti