[ Page 2161 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Insert with Mincome cheques. Mr Levi –– 2161

Ferry layoffs. Mr. Wallace –– 2162

Northeast coal development. Mr. Gibson –– 2163

Point of order

Clarification of question period procedure. Mr. Lea –– 2164

Mr. Speaker –– 2164

Mr. Lea –– 2164

Mr. King –– 2164

Motion

Adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of public importance.

Mr. Wallace –– 2164

Mr. Speaker –– 2165

Routine proceedings

British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act (Bill 23) Second reading.

Mr. Barnes –– 2165

Mr. Gibson –– 2168

Mr. Bawlf –– 2170

Mr. Lauk –– 2173

Mr. Barber –– 2177

Mrs. Jordan –– 2180

Mr. Cocke –– 2184

Mr. Stupich –– 2185

Mr. Lea –– 2187

Mr. Wallace –– 2190

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 2193

Division of second reading –– 2194

Constitution Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 15) Second reading.

Mr. King –– 2194

Speaker's ruling

Adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of public importance.

Mr. Speaker –– 2195

Mr. King –– 2196

Mr. Speaker –– 2196

MONDAY, MAY 31, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have a group of students from Woodlands Junior Secondary of Nanaimo, with their teacher, Mrs. Lynn. In asking the House to join me in welcoming them, I think the House should be reminded that there hasn't been a school bus moving in Nanaimo for about two months now, so it's a real accomplishment for them to get here. I ask you to welcome them.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, with us in the gallery this afternoon is a Mr. Gordon Berdan, clerk administrator of the village of Granisle from that great constituency of Omineca, and I would like to ask the House to welcome them.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today is an old friend, a Social Credit supporter and well-known Canadian yachtsman. I would like to have the members of the assembly greet Mr. Dick Duggan of North Vancouver.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are Mayor and Mrs. Birmingham from Ruskin, Florida. They are here in a fine gesture of friendship to one of our local municipalities. The mayor and his wife came up to take part in Ruskin Days. Ruskin is part of the municipality of Maple Ridge. They came here very kindly at their own expense and have been participating the whole past week in celebrating a community event. I think it is a splendid effort and I would like you to recognize Mayor Birmingham and Mrs. Birmingham who are seated in the gallery. Perhaps they will stand.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that there are this afternoon in the gallery, as there have been for several afternoons, three members of the Pacific Life Community. I would like the House to welcome them.

Oral questions.

INSERT WITH MINCOME CHEQUES

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): A question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker: did the Premier approve an insert that went into the cheques for Mincome people that were sent out on May 19? The insert stated as follows:

"My dear friend,

"We are pleased to announce GAIN — the Guaranteed Available Income For Need Act — an Act which includes all the benefits of the old Mincome programme but extends them to more people who need help.

"We very much care about the aging, the handicapped, deserted mothers with children. That's why we have taken the best of Mincome — added to it and made it better. For instance, the same policies and benefits for those now in receipt of Mincome will continue — no one will lose their present Mincome benefits, but more people will enjoy them.

"We hope that this letter will answer deliberate attempts to represent the GAIN programme as the abolition of Mincome. This is not the case."

Signed by the Minister of Human Resources, William Vander Zalm.

Did the Premier approve that insert?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in response, as the member knows, there was a misleading headline in the Victoria Times that said: "Mincome Cancelled" and there were various stories surrounding the introduction of the GAIN programme. It was discussed because of the phone calls where people thought the whole programme was being abandoned. It was authorized that an explanation would be sent out to the recipients of government benefits.

MR. LEVI: The statement, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Premier, states: "For instance, the same policies and benefits for those now in receipt of Mincome will continue."

Does the Premier know that the same benefits do not exist? There are benefits for people over the age of 65. I ask you if you approved this. This is a misleading statement. There are different benefits for different people. Mincome has, in fact, been wiped out, Mr. Premier. There are two separate....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Would you state your question and not in the form of a statement?

MR. LEVI: The question is: is the Premier aware that there are now at least two categories of people receiving what used to be called Mincome? Those over 65 had the quarterly cost of living passed on. Those aged 60 to 64 and the handicapped do not. It says in the statement here, "For instance, the same policies and benefits for those now receiving Mincome will continue."

Interjections.

[ Page 2162 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LEVI: Now is that the Premier's version of things continuing?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a matter for the hon. member to rise in his place and make statements which are argumentative, particularly when they're made to the Premier and not the minister who is in charge of that particular department.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd just respond by saying that the government felt it was necessary. The minister (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) asked me if such an explanation of the GAIN programme should not go out, because it appeared that there was a lot of concern. I authorized the minister, as a responsible minister, to reassure all of the people who are in receipt of government assistance that such assistance wasn't being arbitrarily cut off for all British Columbians, and that was done.

I might also point out, Mr. Speaker, that this question is subject to a bill that is presently before the Legislature in the form of the GAIN legislation, which is a very progressive reform with greater benefits for the people of B.C.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Premier. I might point out it's my error. I didn't recall a bill before the Legislature but, in fact, there is a bill before the Legislature which would make the question out of order.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, we're dealing with the accuracy of a piece of material sent out under the Minister of Human Resources. It has nothing to do with GAIN legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: It is a matter of opinion, I would think, Mr. Member.

MR. LEVI: Is the Premier divorcing himself from the lack of accuracy in this statement? Because that's what you're doing. You're telling the people out there one thing and you've done something else to them.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'll defer to the member.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): To the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Does the Premier condone the expenditure of public funds to put out what is substantially political propaganda to Mincome recipients as exemplified by the...?

MR. SPEAKER: There again, that is not a question you're asking.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, it is a legitimate question and in order, and I expect an answer from the hon. Premier. Does he condone the expenditure of public funds for Social Credit political propaganda?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, before the Premier answers, I would point out that the question is argumentative, that it does not require a reply.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this statement is false, that it was political propaganda....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Now you are becoming more argumentative, Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker can interpret it as he will. I contend that the question is in order. Does the Premier condone the expenditure of public funds for Social Credit propaganda?

MR. SPEAKER: I contend it is argumentative.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Speaker, I assure the member that the type of propaganda that was going out with hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on Land magazine and others by the former government has been stopped.

I would tell the hon. member that where there is on the part of anyone...either willingly or unwillingly, to make the recipients of government aid pawns in a political game, the government feels it's important to reassure these people that they're not being denied benefits. Those who would make these people a pawn in their political game are doing no service for the people of the province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The first member for Vancouver Centre on a supplemental question.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, it is clear and undenied by the Premier — I put this as a prefix to the question — that a false statement has been made in this statement to the public. Does the Premier condone the expenditure of public funds to tell the people false statements?

FERRY LAYOFFS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): To the Minister

[ Page 2163 ]

of Transport and Communications, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the serious labour-management dispute on the B.C. Ferries system and the fact that the recent layoff notices for 400 employees have further inflamed the situation: can the minister confirm that 190 of the 400 original layoff notices have already been rescinded?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): No, I cannot, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Oak Bay on a supplementary question.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have documentation which....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Allow the hon. member to state his supplementary question.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question would be that I have documentation — names, addresses and telephone numbers — of those persons whose layoff notices have been rescinded. I can table these with the House.

I wonder if the minister is aware of the fact that despite assurances by management that seniority would be recognized, senior personnel with up to 16 years of service are being offered positions even lower than those at which they joined the service. For example, a senior steward is now being offered a job as a male cleaner. Is the minister aware that these are the circumstances under which ferry employees are being offered re-employment?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, specifically I am not aware of those special circumstances which the hon. member mentions. There is a very large number of individuals who are affected by these changes. I would ask him if he would kindly table the information he has. The primary issue is overtime and the allocation, hopefully, of that overtime to others so that they can be re-employed or their employment continued. Until that issue is resolved, it would be very unwise of me to make any comment relative to who will be laid off and who will not.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, very much related to the urgency of the situation. Is the minister then aware that the ferry employees have made it very plain that they are indeed willing to renegotiate and rediscuss the whole question of overtime and that all they have asked for is a moratorium while a third party could intervene in the dispute to look at the renegotiation of overtime, which they are willing to consider?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the management position as I understand it is that they are willing and indeed anxious to discuss this question of overtime.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Mackenzie on a supplementary on the same issue.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Can the minister confirm that in the original 420 payoffs, 40 out of the 65 oilers were included and that management subsequently had to rescind 30 of those layoffs in order to operate the fleet properly, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, at this point I am neither able to confirm or deny that statement. I doubt very much whether those figures are correct.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: One further short supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In the light of this chaos, then, will the minister accept a moratorium regarding layoffs until the end of tourist season, as suggested?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the answer, very simply put, is no. We have three new vessels coming on which, as the hon. member knows, have no dining rooms. I doubt if he is suggesting that we should continue to employ those who have been employed in dining rooms in that service on those respective vessels that don't have the facilities.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): A supplementary to the Minister of Transport and Communications. As I understood the minister, he gave an indication that if the overtime problem, which is contained in the collective agreement, I understand, was resolved, very many of those who are proposed to be laid off would be re-employed. Is that a correct statement of the intent of the minister?

HON. MR. DAVIS: It has been stated on a number of occasions that were the overtime issue to be resolved and straight time worked by all employees there would be more jobs to go around and hence fewer layoffs.

NORTHEAST COAL DEVELOPMENT

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Economic Development, who made a very major announcement over the weekend in stating that the provincial government would probably provide the infrastructure for northeast coal development. In view of the hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds required for this, will the minister be doing a cost-benefit study before a decision to go ahead is

[ Page 2164 ]

made on that project?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): In answer to the member's question: the whole purpose of our studies is to determine the cost-benefit ratio.

MR. GIBSON: Supplementary then, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister undertake to make these studies public in due course?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, as I've stated, it will be some time before the studies are complete. We hope to have the studies completed sometime this fall, and when the studies are complete, it will be public knowledge. I'm not saying all the details of the study, but we'll certainly advise you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Supplementary to the same minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that Bermuda Resources has shown a lack of faith in the current government of British Columbia and has pulled out of the Sukunka coal development, is the minister indicating by his announcement over the weekend that the public sector will develop this coal resource at Sukunka?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, as I have stated publicly, I have no doubt that the Sukunka project will go ahead. It was delayed some three and a half years and probably would have gone ahead had it not been for the delaying tactics of the past administration.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order that I've raised a number of times before after question period. Again, a question by a member of the opposition was ruled out of order because it was the Chair's opinion that the question was argumentative. In other words, you are saying that opposition cannot be argumentative towards the Crown. I would like to have something straight, Mr. Speaker. Do you see your job as that of protecting the Crown from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition? Do you see that as your authority, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: In order to make it once and for all understandable to the member for Prince Rupert, who seems to be having a great deal of trouble understanding anything that surrounds the question period, I'll make it abundantly clear, Hon. Member.

First of all, when putting a question a member must confine himself to the narrowest limits. In making a question, observations which might lead to debate cannot be regarded in coming within the proper limits of a question. The purpose of a question is to obtain information, not to supply it to the House.

Then there's a whole list of criteria that I continually look at in trying to determine if a question is in order, out of order or improper. "And in conclusion," it says, "the Speaker, in common with his duties of supervision over the proceedings of the House, may rule out any question which violates the privileges of parliament in the same way as he deals with irregularities in motions and amendments. He may make an alteration to the question or refer it back to the member for correction."

So there are a number of alternatives which can be involved, including ruling a question out because it's irregular or improper within the rules that we have in Beauchesne, 4th edition. Or it may be that I'll request the member to rephrase the question so it does become a question. This is the rule that I go by and this is the duty and the obligation of the Chair, Mr. Member.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that there is a very onerous duty upon yourself and your office, and that is that you must not only be fair, but appear to be fair. And quite honestly, you do not appear to be fair to me.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, on this problem of the Chair giving rulings, I would draw the Speaker's attention to standing order 9, which reads: "Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide questions of order, subject to an appeal to the House without debate. In explaining a point of order or practice, he shall state the standing order or authority applicable to the case."

I just wanted to suggest to the Chair that it might be helpful in terms of making judgments if the Speaker would so refer to the applicable rule at the time the judgment is made.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 35, I ask leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the imminent strike on the B.C. ferry system. And according to standing rule 35, I'll state the matter briefly.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member. Proceed.

[ Page 2165 ]

MR. WALLACE: Negotiations for a new contract between the employees of B.C. Ferries and management have proceeded for many months and an impasse situation has been reached in which the union has taken a strike vote and given 72-hours notice of the strike, as announced on Saturday last.

Efforts late last week to have an industrial inquiry commission or a special mediator appointed were not productive, and hence within 24 hours all British Columbia ferry service between Vancouver Island and the mainland will be discontinued or, at the least, seriously disrupted. This will have a very serious economic impact on Vancouver Island, particularly since the tourist season has already begun. Since there is no evidence of last-minute settlement of the dispute through the usual channels, it would be incumbent upon the Legislature to hold a special debate and seek initiatives to prevent the serious breakdown in transportation services from occurring.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. — member forward the statement and the motion to the desk, please?

Hon. Member, the matter which you raise under standing order 35 is one on which I do not wish to give an immediate decision or make a decision lightly. It would be a matter of grave concern, I'm sure, to all of British Columbia if the ferry service were to shut down. However, there is procedure also involved within our present statutes which reserves to the Minister of Labour certain corrective measures which he in turn can take if he so desires, but rather than reflect on that, or to in any way prejudice your right to proceed with such a motion, if it is in fact found to be in order, I'm going to reserve decision until I've had time to study the matter a little more thoroughly.

There's ample precedent within our own House by previous Speakers that this has been done on matters which must be looked at very closely. On occasion it's a clear decision which the Chair can make quickly and immediately on the basis of the evidence that's presented. Other times it is not that clear or definable immediately, and for that reason I defer the decision. I'll look into the matter and report back to the House just as soon as possible.

Orders of the day.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move that we proceed to public bills and orders, with leave.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on Bill 23.

BRITISH COLUMBIA
BUILDINGS CORPORATION ACT

(continued)

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): I would like to congratulate the government on recognizing some of the socialists' approaches to better services to the community and exercising the option of creating a Crown corporation to provide a more equitable and practical approach to the use of facilities, offices and other public works. They have seen fit to do this in this bill. However, I think that it's certainly a matter of curiosity when you consider their arguments in the past respecting Crown corporations and their role, particularly by the hon. Premier, who on occasion has indicated a distrust for too much power in the hands of the public, feeling that Crown corporations should be used only under very, very dire circumstances and that the best way to handle the public's business and affairs is by allowing the public to carry on as many of these activities as possible.

Here we have a proposal that the Department of Public Works ultimately be dissolved and that we have a Crown corporation to carry on those activities. That, I think, is in effect what you're saying in part, Mr. Minister. You're suggesting that perhaps this corporation should have the ability to administer through its own funding programme a programme of acquiring land and buildings and other necessary facilities, really by hook or crook in order to carry on the people's business.

It's a very far-reaching approach, really — Bill 23. It's one that encompasses many of the things that the previous administration attempted to do. Now, of course, I suppose it's not seen as a socialist measure at all, but one of good management and fiscal responsibility by the free-enterprisers. They are going to demonstrate to the people of British Columbia that the best way, really, to handle their affairs is through a new Crown corporation — one of the last things that this government likes to do is bring in m ore public control. It's a very interesting proposition.

While I'm certainly in favour of good socialist programmes — and I think this one certainly in part is socialist, although it has some very sneaky clauses in it — I can tell you right now that I am pleased that the government is at least thinking in the right direction. They are at least thinking that perhaps there is some merit in putting such essential services, essential requirements as office space and certain public utilities and works that are required under a separate operation in order that better cost accounting can be achieved and perhaps more efficiently be accounted for at the end of each fiscal year, and also to give a true reflection of actual costs for such services.

The points I think we're going to have to be

[ Page 2166 ]

cautious of are the ways in which the Crown corporation will be established. First of all, I will say that I recall sitting on this side of the House when I was in the opposition, and the opposition of the day was accusing the prior government of stacking the boards of such Crown corporations with politicians, and actually having a political control over what should be an independent Crown corporation operating on sound management and free of political influence. This corporation will have the same options open to it, being permitted to exercise the use of public servants or political representatives members of the cabinet.

I was hoping that the government would want to demonstrate its good intentions and its confidence in the private sector as much as possible by removing itself entirely from this Crown corporation, having no influences in the policies and really demonstrating its sincerity that it would be able to manage on its own, pretty much along the idea it has indicated as wanting to do with ICBC.

I don't think that will be the case. I'm also afraid that the new manager of the Crown corporation will perhaps be selected not by an open competition with all interested aspirants having an opportunity to apply for this important public function, but quite likely we'll find that someone who has demonstrated their support for the government in power today will have first crack and perhaps the only crack at that most important position.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Say it isn't so!

MR. BARNES: I'm hoping, however, that when the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) stands to discuss this bill, he will dissolve any trepidation and fears that I have about this bill as being nothing more than a smokescreen for the government to perhaps destroy some of the benefits that the public servants may, in fact, be enjoying.

Let me ask also, when the minister stands on this bill, that he assures the House there will be some protection for the new staff that will be hired to work within the new corporation, that these people will not lose their benefits, that the Labour Code will apply and that the succession rights they enjoy presently as employees will not in any way be curtailed. These are just the kinds of assurances that I hope will exist, and I hope that there will be no attempt on the part of the government to downgrade any staff.

You know, when one considers some of the moves that have been made by the government of late, there is cause to be a little bit frightened about any moves that this government may make and any kind of legislation that may come in, because it has proven itself to be pretty tricky in the past. Of course, the most recent situation is this smokescreen that it used with the B.C. Ferries people who have been told that on the seniority basis those remaining would be permitted to move into other jobs.

Of course, they make it quite clear that they will have to be jobs of equal standard and that they will not be able to be promoted. Of course, there aren't enough jobs to take care of anywhere near the number of people whose jobs are at stake, so, in effect, they are going to be fired. But it looks good on the surface.

We are just concerned that this new Crown corporation is not really set out as an attempt to improve public services and to become more efficient. I am personally wondering if, when the minister stands, he will assure us that this is not just one more way of going into a deficit-financing situation to avoid having to deal with the real costs of providing the spaces for the various departments at the end of the next fiscal year.

While they argued profusely when we were discussing the budget about the situation in which the previous administration left the financial affairs of the province — by certain expenditures that they claim should have been paid off and which they proceeded to pay off for us by cleaning up the number of Crown corporation debts, et cetera — I am hoping that now they will be prepared to exercise the same approach in clearing up the debts of the new B.C. Buildings Corp. Instead of allowing it to float some $200 million deficit in order to hide their final picture come the end of the next fiscal year.

I am sure that you have nothing ulterior in mind be creating this deficit-financing operation. But we'll be watching to ensure that you carry on the same practices that you suggested we should have been carrying on, and which you have demonstrated by balancing your books at the end of the last fiscal year by paying off a number of debts with Crown corporations. Really, I suppose I am wrong in suggesting that you are interested in deficit financing in order to take advantage of any latitude you may need from time to time respecting financial cost.

You know, a bill such as this raises a lot of interesting possibilities, Mr. Speaker. One of the parts of it is: why is there such a need for the government to spell out in this bill the expropriation powers? It indicates that by one means or the other it can expropriate land as required in order to carry on its activities, when in fact those powers apparently already exist under other provincial legislation. We can recall having been criticized for having such powers in the past in legislation we attempted to bring in as government. I would agree that you want to be very careful about any kind of expropriation, and I would like the minister to give us an example of where such need would be necessary — some examples of why it would be necessary to expropriate

[ Page 2167 ]

in order to provide buildings, office space or any other kind of accommodating facilities for the new corporation.

Speaking to the principle of the bill primarily, and not getting into some of the details which I am sure the minister will want to elucidate on respecting succession of employee rights and protection under this Act, I would like the minister to assure us what their policy will be on the problems of construction: if there will be any major plans for what you might call in-house construction, and if this new corporation will attempt to do most of its own construction of new buildings, et cetera, or whether it is merely going to open all job opportunities and all construction projects to the public sector.

I would like to know how it intends to deal with the question of employee representation and tenure under the terms of employment. I am also curious to hear the minister comment on why it elected to specifically include the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Public Services Medical Plan Act and the Public Service Group Insurance Act under the terms of employment, but specifically eliminated the Public Service Act itself.

Could it be that this is part of your policy to maintain the idea that there should be an increase in the public service because of your plan of attrition to eliminate the public servants and to create new categories? If so, I would hope that the minister would remark on this and indicate that it is not his desire to unemploy people, and that what the government has done in the past in not necessarily the philosophy of the Department of Public Works.

We know what the philosophy has been in other departments such as Communications and the Department of Human Resources and, I think to a lesser degree, some of the other departments in contributing heavily to unemployment rather than maintaining any kind of continuity in job security. So I would just like for the minister to assure the House that this new Crown corporation is going to be an instrument to facilitate good public work, to facilitate the proper administration of all facilities and to ensure that costs will be more properly placed upon the users. Of course, as I said before, the previous administration recognized the importance of this. Had it, perhaps, been able to have more time, it would have certainly been taking the lead in this similar kind of approach to dealing with the facilities that are being considered in this bill.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to conclude at this time and save most of my remarks for the committee stage of this bill, in which we will be asking some rather pointed questions about the powers of the board and the powers of the manager of the corporation, because there are a number of things that are not spelled out. We don't know too much about how the personnel section will work — the full complement of staff that will be involved and so forth — and what kind of power the board will be exercising. Because it seems to have exclusive powers on appointments.

You speak a lot about appointments in the bill and not about competitions. I'm not sure if this means that the only people who will be permitted to participate at any level of influence will be friends of the government. So I would want some assurance when you stand that you will point out that this will be a truly independent corporation, one that will not have to suffer from political interference.

While I will leave most of these remarks for the committee stage, I am really at a loss to ascertain just what the government's position is respecting Crown corporations because of some of your very staunch stands on the creation of Crown corporations and the dangers of having the government participate in too much of the public sector. You've been very adamant about Crown corporations being in danger of proliferating in the province. You wanted to get rid of as many as you could, to put it back into the hands of the public. Yet on the other hand, when it serves your political purposes, you seem to be all in favour of Crown corporations.

I'm just wondering what your motive is. I don't believe that you are doing anybody a favour — knowing your past. I think you have some political ambitions in mind in bringing in this corporation. I would like for you to stand before the House and come clean and tell us exactly why you're interested at this particular time in a Crown corporation when we know that you haven't been all that enthusiastic in the past, and certainly never enthusiastic when we were involved in creating the things like Ocean Falls or the Princess Marguerite programmes. You were saying: "Oh no, no, no. Those things are no good. We've got to get rid of them. They're dangerous." Then you turn around and create one yourselves. And so I'm saying, well now, philosophically, we know they're in disagreement. Yet at the same time, you're creating one. So I think that we have cause to want to know a little more about what your motives are.

I'm sure that you will be pleased to come and justify your position and your reasoning, and you'll want to dispel any fears that we have that the boards and the manager — the general manager of the Crown corporation — and the cabinet appointees to that board will not be in any way trying to influence the good operations of this new Crown corporation.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

All I would like to suggest is that you convince us that you are recognizing that there is some merit in the public being in charge of certain of its facilities and services and that this in no way would weaken the value to the community, and that maybe you are

[ Page 2168 ]

beginning to soften a little bit on your stand that everything has to be set out to public competition, and that you're recognizing there are certain essential things that the public should assume some responsibility for, and that you also are recognizing that it is no disgrace, really, for people to work for the government in the public service, and that you are not going to be in opposition to people having gainful employment within these legitimate areas of community service, despite some of your rather reactionary responses to people being taken care of within their own government facility. I would just like for you to be honest, Mr. Minister, when you stand and assure us that you recognize that as time goes on we will have to become more and more responsible as a government for more and more facilities.

To use the expressions of capitalists all over the world, it's quite normal that large numbers of people will not be able to compete successfully, and in time governments will not be able to compete successfully. Perhaps this is why you have recognized the need for an expropriation section within your Act, knowing that there comes a time when competition no longer is valid and we just simply have to take it. This is what you're really saying when you suggest that by one means or the other we will have to have the land to carry on the people's business, and we all recognize that.

We recognize that perhaps you would want to extend this a bit further and, in fact, acquire all of the land in the province for the people. I know that this is a little way down the road, but at least you are interested and considering the idea of expropriation. I hope it's for the good of the people. You know, it's a rather far-fetched thing for free enterprisers to be talking about expropriating anything, but anyway you've got it in this section, and I think you're going to want to explain that to the House when you get an opportunity to stand.

I would just conclude then by congratulating you, Mr. Minister, and the government on recognizing, in a very small way, the value of the public participating and, in fact, managing more and more its own programmes in order to facilitate good services to its people. With that, I hope that you will be inspired to indicate your good intentions when you take the floor.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): This bill has two obvious aspects of this Crown corporation. One, I think, is as an accounting device. One is as a management device. There's perhaps a third aspect: as a political device. It's a little early to tell, but I think the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) was being very kind to the government in expressing the hope that the corporation would be free of politics, because I don't think that's very likely, Mr. Speaker. I've been looking through the legislation and I see that there's no provision as to how hiring and firing are to be implemented; indeed, it's specifically removed from the purview of the Public Service Act. So that naturally leaves the door pretty wide open for patronage right there.

I see no provision in the bill as to how materials and bids and tenders of all kinds are to be handled. That, too, would seem to give a great deal of latitude for circumvention of the safeguards for the expenditure of public funds that have been built up over the years.

If the government's really sincere about keeping politics out of this corporation, there's an easy way for them to prove it, Mr. Speaker. All they have to do is put a member of the opposition on the board. I would strongly commend that to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want the job?

MR. GIBSON: No, I assure you, I don't want the job, Hon. Member. I don't want the job.

But a member of the opposition on the board, I think, could do a great job for the government in making it abundantly transparent that there were good checks and balances and that politics really was being kept away from this corporation that should manage the buildings in the public interest.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): The minister's transparent, isn't that enough?

MR. GIBSON: He's a little thin sometimes. I don't know that he's transparent.

Now getting on to the accounting aspects of this device, as I call it, this corporation, it certainly shows, Mr. Speaker, where the government really stands on deficit financing. The government, in spite of all their protestations throughout the budget debate, when they criticized the opposition for saying, "Why don't you do a little bit of borrowing on capital expenditures so we don't need to have this utterly unnecessary 2 per cent increase in the sales tax?" — the government said, "Oh, no, that would be deficit financing, and we don't agree with deficit financing."

The real title of this bill, Mr. Speaker, should be "An Act to Authorize Deficit Financing for Capital Expenditures," because that's exactly what it is. There's $200 million to start with, and, of course, we're going to see year after year an escalation in the borrowing limits of this Crown corporation. Then the government will be able to pretend a little bit more, as it did this year, that they aren't really spending that much, that they aren't taking that much more out of the economy. But, Mr. Speaker, here's an extra $200 million that ought to be added to the expenditures of this government under the budget

[ Page 2169 ]

that they claim was only 5.4 per cent increase but we all know is really 16 per cent increase, and now here's another couple of hundred million dollars that we weren't told about at budget time.

Now what happens....

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): You don't really believe that.

MR. GIBSON: I really believe that, Mr. Member. You know that too. In your heart of hearts, when you go to bed at night...

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: ...and just before you go to sleep....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: That member may, from time to time, just before he says his prayers, Mr. Speaker...

AN HON. MEMBER: And pulls the coffin lid over himself. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: ...may, from time to time, be tormented about the things the government did during the day. He knows in his heart of hearts that this is a bill to authorize deficit financing.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as a management device...I'm a little worried about the minister. I'm concerned as to his stature in cabinet. After so many years of working to enter the executive council, and I congratulate him on being there now they're taking his department away, Mr. Speaker — just like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not a Liberal.

MR. GIBSON: Is DPW going to be wound up, Mr. Speaker...

MR. LAUK: receivership.

MR. GIBSON: ...the noble Department of Public Works that for so many years has served as a focus for such marvellous debates, particularly in the evening, in this chamber? (Laughter.) Is that to disappear?

I am seriously worried about the minister. (Laughter.) Is this department going to be wound up, because as you know, Mr. Speaker, there is a provision in this bill...?

MR. LAUK: Is the minister going to be wound up?

MR. GIBSON: Or the minister is going to be wound down?

There is a provision in this bill that the interest of the Crown in any land or building can be transferred to this new corporation. You should be concerned, Mr. Speaker, personally, as should every member in this chamber. Will the minister guarantee that the title to the legislative buildings, at least, won't be transferred to this Crown corporation?

MR. LAUK: Can he give that undertaking?

MR. GIBSON: Can he give that undertaking when he speaks in second reading — and, of course, well beyond that? Because we want to know exactly how this new child of the government is going to grow.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: The real concern, Mr. Speaker, is to the magnitude of the corporation we are being asked to create today. Is it simply something that is going to spend $200 million of our money over the next two or three years and have some buildings and rent them out, or is it going to subsume under its wing the entire functions of the Department of Public Works? Because I submit that this legislation allows exactly that to happen. If that does happen, what happens to legislative control of the expenditures that are now going on in the Department of Public Works?

The public accounts committee, presumably, will still have access, but over a year after the fact of the expenditures. The whole intent of the estimates debate in this House has been so that we can discuss expenditures before the fact rather than after the fact. Is the government not, by this bill, in effect removing the estimates of the Department of Public Works — removing them from the purview of this Legislature and therefore the right of any kind of timely comment?

Will the minister undertake to table in the Legislature the precise spending plans of this corporation for the year to come, or will we be limited to simply looking at the annual report, and therefore giving up our function of offering some advice on how the future should unfold?

I spoke about the potential of patronage in employment. While, of course, we will study this in detail at committee stage, in section 6 it mentions specifically that the Public Service Act does not apply to officers and employees of the corporation. I would very much like the minister, when he closes second reading, Mr. Speaker, to tell us why it was necessary to insert that provision. I do not believe it to have been necessary. These people will be public servants in every meaning of the word; they will- be performing the same kind of work as employees of the Department of Public Works are currently engaged in.

What is going to happen to the existing Public Works employees? Will the minister tell us about

[ Page 2170 ]

that? As buildings are transferred, will the public servants working within those buildings be laid off or will they be transferred to the new corporation? If they are transferred to the new corporation, will their duties be substantially the same? Will their protection in terms of security and in terms of freedom from arbitrary dismissal be continued? Will the minister give us a guarantee of that? I just think it is terribly important.

The hon. second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), in his excellent canvass of this situation, raised the question of expropriation. I'd like the minister to tell us a little about that too.

The provisions of the Department of Highways and Public Works Act — as it says in the bill here; but as far as I read them they are two separate Acts — respecting expropriation apply. Now I'd like some explanation as to exactly how they apply. I have read through those Acts, and it refers there to either the minister or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council doing things with respect to expropriations. Is this expropriation power still to be reserved to the minister, or can it now be exercised simply by the corporation? If simply by the corporation, may the general manager of the corporation, whatever his title is, exercise expropriation on his own hook, or must it be subject to a resolution of the board of directors? Even if it were the second, a resolution of the board of directors? I would say that that is insufficient.

It seems to me that expropriation is a matter of such import and such potential infringement on the liberties of citizens that it should be restricted to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or even this House as to the exercise of that very considerable authority. The wording is far too vague to give me any comfort in that regard. I would ask the minister to clarify it before he sits down.

I will have other things to say at committee stage, but before deciding on how things are going at second reading, I would very much like the minister's answers to those questions of principle.

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): I rise to speak in support of this very excellent bill. I may say that I find it excellent in all respects. However, I wish to dwell on several key points in the bill. First, it enables separate funding for the space which is required to allow government programmes to be carried out adequately.

The significance of this in a broad, economic sense in this province is very considerable. Through its former processes of building, government through the Department of Public Works has been dependent exclusively upon revenues current in the government general fund. As a result, the province, at times of an economic downturn when construction and related employment is faltering, finds itself short of funds in some instances. As a consequence it is unable to proceed with the level of building programme which would reflect the requirements of government, perhaps, over the long run, and as a result is unable to provide some continuity in terms of economic stimulus in the construction industry. I think that by providing separate funding, by providing funding through borrowing if necessary, this corporation....

Interjection.

MR. BAWLF: I'll come to that. Mr. Speaker, I'll come to that in a moment.

We find that the former director of ICBC, Mr. Speaker, is about to tell us about debt. He seems to be an expert on setting up corporations to incur debts. I'm sure he'll be able to stand up and tell us a great deal on that score. Perhaps he can enlighten us as to the $181 million that he and his colleagues ran the ICBC into debt.

Mr. Speaker, returning to this. So the importance to the economy as a whole of this bill is very considerable: the ability to borrow and maintain a continuous programme of building as a stimulus for the construction economy, for employment in this province, without reference to the cyclical problems of economic stability and the related revenues to government through its general funds.

The second point, Mr. Speaker, that is very significant here is that this programme, this corporation, will essentially require responsibility on the part of the departments who are using space made available through this corporation in that they will be required to budget for their needs to, in effect, rent space from the corporation.

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano, said that the thing that concerned him was that perhaps this programme, this corporation, would mean that expenditures related to building accommodation would not be dealt with before this House. This was of concern to him.

I suggest to you that the accountability that will result from this bill will, in fact, be considerably superior for the simple reason that instead of a catch-all building programme in a catch-all department, as we have had historically through the Department of Public Works, we will have a programme which is related directly to individual departments. Individual departments will be required to account for the expenditures they incur on behalf of government for building accommodation.

To give you an example of how significant this could be, I recall that in my former occupation as a recycler of old buildings....

MR. LAUK: Land developer.

MR. BAWLF: Not as a land developer, Mr. Speaker, as a recycler of old buildings, because I've

[ Page 2171 ]

never developed a piece of land in my life.

In any event, I recall working on one building known as the Belmont Building and receiving a commitment from the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hartley) at the time in writing, a letter saying — and this is out of the blue, I might say — to my company: "Well, we're prepared to lease all the space in your building. Consider this a commitment."

There was no reference to rental, no reference to rental rate, no reference to occupancy dates — anything. It was a commitment without any details being tied down.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Produce the letter.

MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, the point of this is simply that the question of administration of rentals, because the pressure has been placed on that department — and that department has had to act under a great deal of pressure at times, particularly in the last three years — has not been well disciplined. By forcing each department to account directly for its needs we can surely improve on the accountability.

I might say also that the department on whose behalf the minister of the time was acting was the Department of Human Resources. That department when they moved into that building had previously occupied approximately one-third of the floor space, and within six months of moving into that building, which had tripled their floor space, they had managed to triple their employment, their employees, in that building.

It was an interesting progression to observe and I think one that suggests, again, that we would be better off in government here, and better off as a province, to have a department in a situation like that account directly for the cost of such expansion rather than kicking them into that catch-all building fund.

Mr. Speaker, then we go on. The corporation is established outside of consolidated revenue funds and, as such, is required to account for the revenues that are held and utilized by it. Again it's accountability, which is the question raised by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson). As he himself admits, the corporation would then come under the purview of the public accounts committee. As we have been in recent days questioning the senior executives of various Crown corporations, and will continue to do so, so it would be the case with this corporation. There's no doubt that its accountability would be dealt with in a normal manner.

The overall objective of this corporation is to give flexibility in buying and selling land and buildings, with the primary objective of obtaining the best and most satisfactory space arrangements for the public service, and with that I include the question of cost. To this end, the Act allows the corporation to enter into joint undertakings with others, which will simplify the process of working with the regional boards and municipalities and with other persons in joint developments which are considered in the best interests of the public.

It's at this point, Mr. Speaker, that the second member — I believe it was the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) — is way off base. He's talking about this corporation and congratulating the government on this bill in terms of taking over more from the private sector, taking a more direct interest in provision of services by removing some of those responsibilities from the private sector. But the way I read this bill, Mr. Speaker, is somewhat different from that. I see this bill as providing the opportunity for government to harness competitive enterprise in producing the least costly accommodation for government.

It's particularly important at this point in time to realize that the best and most satisfactory space arrangements for departments of government don't necessarily become available through government building directly. We've seen the record of government building, Mr. Speaker. I just would take us through a couple of examples there to illustrate my point. I would say also that there will continue to be a number of instances in which the best accommodation can only be provided directly through government building.

One of those would be an instance such as the Vancouver court house, which contains many amenities which would not otherwise be provided. But I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it nevertheless provides a good example with the Vancouver courthouse, where the cost of providing adequate accommodation has got completely out of line. I've related to this House in some detail the experience under the former government when a programme for the development of a Vancouver courthouse was interfered with by the then Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) and by the then Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Mr. R.A. Williams) .

Interjection.

MR. BAWLF: Well, Mr. Speaker, the former Attorney-General takes exception to my remarks, but it's a fact of record before the public accounts committee of this provincial government, stated by the Deputy Minister of Public Works, that he and his office and the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources interfered with that project and that the result of this kind of tampering, Mr. Speaker, was that the cost escalated very considerably...

MR. LAUK: That's not correct. He didn't say that

[ Page 2172 ]

in public accounts.

MR. BAWLF: ...the result being some $15 million in increased costs for a reduction in space. I'm not speaking of the amenities; I'm talking about the direct building space which was to be used directly by the government. This, Mr. Speaker, has resulted in a cost for that building — I'm speaking of floor space directly used by the government — of $120 a square foot. Now $120 a square foot is by any reasonable measure more than double the cost of a building produced by the private sector.

MR. LAUK: Oh, that's simplistic nonsense.

MR. BAWLF: That is one example where the private sector on a proposal-call basis might perhaps have done better. The courthouse programme and especially the kind with the amenities involved as proposed for Vancouver may indeed be best provided by government. But there are many other examples.

In Victoria we have several buildings under construction which were undertaken by the previous government where the costs per square foot are running $60, $70 and more per square foot, which is well in excess of what the private sector could produce comparable space for. In those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that this bill provides a very reasonable alternative. This bill provides that a corporation can enter into extensive negotiations and programmes to harness the private sector to produce space more economically.

The average rental per square foot of space leased by the provincial government in the city of Victoria today is under $4.50 a square foot. Yet the buildings which they're building, if they were to be amortized at a reasonable rate reflecting the cost, would have to rent well in excess of $10 a square foot, Mr. Speaker. Now that suggests to me that the private sector — and I think this is born out by the federal policy in this regard — can produce space a great deal cheaper than governments can. The federal policy that I mentioned is precisely this: that they do not attempt to build any but the most key buildings in the delivery of government services themselves; they prepare a proposal call and they put that out to the private sector; they create the same number of jobs; they provide the same stimulus...

MR. LAUK: Are you discussing the federal government?

MR. BAWLF: ....and the result is a great saving to the taxpayers.

MR. LAUK: Are you saying the federal government does this?

MR. BAWLF: I am indeed.

Mr. Speaker, just moving on to another point, the question of payment of property taxes. In the city of Victoria in the last three years we have seen holdings by the provincial government expanded by, roughly double, by the value of land and improvements. Now I am not going to attempt at this point to criticize or analyse with regard to that situation. It is apparent to me that a great deal of this space is sitting vacant and apparently with no plans for improvement or for utilization by the government. In that regard, I think the situation speaks for itself.

What concerns me is that in that time that the government expanded its holdings in this city, there was no adjustment made to the payment of property taxes, and the property taxes are paid as a grant in lieu of taxes equal to 15 mills. Now this is an arrangement that goes back years and years when the mill rate, relatively speaking, was much lower and the 15 mill granted in lieu of taxes was not unreasonable, particularly in light of the fact that in 20 years in this city, prior to the NDP government, there was very little expansion in property holdings in the city. In fact, it could be counted as a fractional situation. Now what has happened since, under the NDP government, is that the government of the day used that tax saving as a lever to help them speculate in the acquisition of land for some vague future purpose.

That grant in lieu of taxes has now fallen to less than one-third of the basic levy in the city. In effect, that previous government passed on to the property taxpayers of this city, my constituency, Victoria, a tremendous burden in the delivery of provincial government services throughout the province. The taxpayers of this constituency, and some others in the province, I might say, which have had a disproportionate share of the provincial government presence, have had to subsidize the rest of the taxpayers of the province inordinately — a burden which is all the more significant, again as I related to this House before, in the fact that a very high proportion of our property taxpayers in this community are senior citizens on fixed incomes who watched their taxes rise tremendously. As a matter of fact, last year if the provincial government of the day, in recognizing the burden they were imposing, had chosen to pay full property taxes, Mr. Speaker, it would have saved the taxpayers of the city of Victoria between 4 and 5 mills. Now this bill provides that the corporation may pay full property taxes, and I look forward to the implementation of that as a reality, and I feel confident that it will be a reality under this bill. It is a very long overdue adjustment.

This bill also provides that the corporation may receive a transfer from the Crown of control of any land or buildings which are deemed appropriate. It's obvious to me that in order to pursue these objectives to their

[ Page 2173 ]

logical conclusion, we really must see most of the provincial accommodation, particularly the buildings and perhaps much of the land, transferred to this corporation so the total resource can be managed in an integrated way. In this city this is particularly evident as a need because we have, as I have already said, a tremendous number of holdings of provincial ownership, and I might say that perhaps this concept should extend to leasing as well. Buildings and property which are leased by the provincial government — provincial Crown at the moment — should be transferred to that corporation — again, so the corporation can manage in the most effective and efficient possible way these resources.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on to a number of other points which are certainly most encouraging to me, having witnessed the functioning of the Public Works department in recent years. But I simply say that there's no question that this bill will greatly improve the delivery of provincial accommodation. It will greatly improve the accountability of departments for their spending in this regard and for their commitment of government spending in this regard, and it will certainly provide a useful stimulus in the construction economy of the province as we witness the effects of a downturn in the economy, and in particular — as always — construction is the whipping-boy. Construction economy takes the biggest beating in any downturn.

So I feel that on all counts, Mr. Speaker, this is a most progressive bill, and I'd be most pleased to support it.

MR. G.V. LAUK: In all fairness, it's interesting to listen to the first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) whose speeches are becoming famous now as being a veritable cornucopia of misinformation and contradictory statements.

AN HON. MEMBER: Corny what?

MR. LAUK: It's the horn of plenty. A horn of plenty, Mr. Speaker.

He gives as an example the federal government and how their procedures enable them to only build public buildings that are absolutely necessary. Where was he when the Bryce report came down? Where was he when the condemnation of the federal government for the massive expenditures which are done through this system have brought us to our knees federally? Brought us to our knees! Where whole buildings have been established for almost fictitious departments, an elaborate exponential growth of civil servants — and he raises that as an example. Very interesting.

He says on the one hand that the public sector is too costly a mechanism to use to build public edifices. On the other hand he says that the private sector is at a lower cost. We do better by contracting with the private sector. Yet he says that this bill, which is a threat to the private sector being involved to the construction of public edifices, is the way we can reduce costs.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's time you read the bill.

MR. LAUK: What a fuzzy thinker, Mr. Speaker. I think because of his conduct, because of his speeches being contradictory, misinformed, because of his fuzzy thinking he's a prime candidate for the front benches. He's a prime candidate for the cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that what you'd like?

MR. LAUK: To be consistent with this Chicken Little parade, going through the province with misinformation...

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: ...such as the use of public funds with Social Credit right-wing coalition propaganda in making false statements about Mincome to the public...and, oh, this is appropriate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And now to the principle of the bill, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: We need a responsible opposition.

MR. LAUK: You know, Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted indeed that there is at least a slight stirring of the sleepy minister over there, with respect to Public Works. It's been nigh unto five months now that our minister over in the corner — the minister from the Cariboo — has been dozing off from time to time.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've been asleep for three and a half years.

MR. LAUK: In the spirit of good sportsmanship that has characterized this government since it's taken office, he commissioned an investigation of the Block 51-61-71 complex in the city of Vancouver of one Dr. Gordon Shrum in the spirit of cooperation and so on which has characterized this government, one of vindictiveness and revenge. He commissioned Dr. Shrum to report back on the tremendous bollocks that was represented by this complex that originated so many years ago.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The report came down, and what did Dr. Gordon Shrum, one of the most distinguished

[ Page 2174 ]

British Columbians, say about the design of the NDP administration, about this fantastic new complex which will bring amenities to the downtown centre of the city of Vancouver?

AN HON. MEMBER: "Sell that one."

MR. LAUK: He said "The concept and design is magnificent" — $275 a day to Dr. Shrum to tell us the concept and the design is "magnificent."

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Highways remind me of the coyote and the roadrunner...

AN HON. MEMBER: That's "coyote."

MR. LAUK: ...the coyote, or as they would say in Quebec, "monsieur le coyote."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. LAUK: It seems the Minister of Public Works designed a great attack on the previous administration and it backfired. It backfired in his face, just like the coyote and the roadrunner.

The only thing that Dr. Shrum said about the complex that may even be interpreted as a criticism — and I suggest that he had to justify his existence some way, so he threw in a comment — was: "Well, cost control is a little out of hand and we need a project manager."

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Well, the NDP administration used the same cost project manager as the previous administration used for the same project — Concordia. The Concordia people. They told us prior to the election in 1972 that the so-called Bennett Tower, the monument to a man's ego, rather than costing, as was announced, $55 million, would cost in excess of $120 million. They told us that before they even moved dirt on the site, before they even moved materials on the site and did their demolition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like the Columbia River.

MR. LAUK: We knew that. Concordia was in place. The Shrum report, Mr. Speaker, is a complete vindication of the NDP's approach with respect to that tremendous project in the centre of the city of Vancouver — not a 55-storey white elephant, a tribute to the ego of a previous premier, but an open complex, a complex that will serve government services' needs — amenities for the people of the city and open space that will serve the people of the city of Vancouver, not the ego of a Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: No concern for public funds.

MR. LAUK: Now we can see, Mr. Speaker, that this bill.... I'm not going to go so far as to say it's a good bill. I'm going to go so far only as to say that it will probably be a good bill if it's employed properly and worked properly by the people in power. But what is the evidence of that? Is this a bill — as many people suspect it is — that is designed to hoodwink the public? Is it a bill designed merely to get in the back door what this government is too afraid to get in through the front door? Is it a bill that will enable this government, on massive capital expenditures, to create a deficit such as the one they created with the Columbia River Treaty...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on now!

MR. LAUK: ...and yet not have it add up as a public debt? Is this the kind of hoodwinking that is going on, Mr. Speaker? A lot of people more uncharitable than myself are suggesting so. They're suggesting just that: a back-door method of deficit financing in this province of hundreds of millions of dollars.

When the minister introduced the bill in the House, the press asked him: "Why don't you borrow or use consolidated revenue funds and go into deficit more honestly?" The minister did not have a proper answer. He said: "Oh well, the bill will take care of this on the one hand, and on the other hand, six of one and half a dozen," and so on. But he never answered the question directly, which raises a cloud over this bill. This bill has been taken to be a hoodwinking of the public insofar as deficit financing is concerned.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Are you against this bill, Gary?

MR. LAUK: I'm against the use of this bill for that purpose.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: All the moneys, if you read the bill carefully.... Obviously the ministers of the Crown, particularly those with legal backgrounds, such as the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Hair), the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), haven't read the bill. You know why, Mr. Speaker? Because there are sections of the bill that are so sloppily and shabbily drafted that they are illegal.

[ Page 2175 ]

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Wash your mouth out with soap!

MR. LAUK: They're totally illegal on the face of them, and maybe the Consumer Services minister who is notoriously, constantly and continuously underemployed, can look at page 2, section 4 (3), and it will occupy his time while I'm speaking. When he's finished that assignment I'll have another one — as soon as he's completed it.

Do you know that if this government were honest with the public, it would say that this is a way of deficit financing public projects and that's all it's for? Because if they suggest anything else it leaves the opposition to look for other reasons and motivations for this bill, and they are even more shocking, Mr. Speaker. If the reason is not deficit financing, what are the real reasons? Could it be that the provisions for expropriation in section 4(3) are a wholesale attack on private property in this province? What on earth do they need those expropriation provisions for except to make a Crown corporation much more competitive than private industry — or I should say less competitive, giving them a monopolistic situation?

It's fine for the first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) to say what a fine bill it is. I'm sure he's envious. Consider if Fort Victoria Holdings had the same powers of expropriation as are given to this new corporation. Consider how non-competitive he would be and how uncompetitive his competitors would be with him. It would be a tremendous advantage, indeed, Mr. Speaker.

If this bill is not for deficit purposes — deficit financing — is it a way to attack private land throughout this province? Is it a way not to pay a fair and reasonable price for land to be used for public works? Is that what this bill is designed for, bringing in expropriation powers that are not needed in normal circumstances? If the government says it's not for deficit financing, it must be for that. What are we to believe now, after a year or so of this right-wing coalition campaigning on the right to private property throughout this province?

They are bringing in Bill 16, with powers of search and seizure that have not been seen in this province in its history, and are now bringing in this bill with expropriation powers that will leave private ownership of property under a cloud. If deficit financing isn't the real reason, is that the real reason?

What about the public service? In this bill we see that the public service could easily be supplanted. He is the Minister of both Highways and Public Works, both maximum hirers of employees, both with a large number in their establishment. Is this bill a sinister way to supplant the public service, if it's not a bill that is for deficit financing of public works?

A corporation, Mr. Speaker, is only a structure; it's only a shell; it's a tool. The questions that the opposition must ask, and I hope the back bench asks of this government, are: why do they need the tool? Why do they need the structure? They say it's not for deficit financing, for which we would say, "Well, fine." They say no. If it's not for deficit financing, is it to expropriate private land without proper compensation? Is it to supplant the public service, to avoid the difficulties with the public service? Am I being too cynical with a government that would bring in the powers of search and seizure like it has under Bill 16, that has shown a remarkable disrespect for private civil liberties and private ownership of land? Are we going to suggest those reasons? I would think that if it's not a deficit financing bill, those must be the reasons. There can't be any others; a tool is a tool.

If a man is going out into his back yard with a shovel and he says he's not going to do any gardening, you begin to draw some other conclusions about his motivations for going out in the back yard with a shovel. I don't like to draw an analogy. What is the purpose of this tool, this Crown corporation, if it's not for deficit financing? I say again: with the powers given to it for expropriation, it raises very serious doubts about the integrity of the private ownership of land.

Secondly, it attacks the public service in both the Highways department and in the Public Works department. That could be rendered under the control of this Crown corporation which would render the government total control over the construction industry in this province. It is a deliberate and concerted attack, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, without further explanation, on the construction industry in this province, on the trade union movement within that construction industry and on the public service sector itself.

Again, it's an excessive, vindictive, revengeful reaction by a right-wing coalition that is becoming more and more apparent as the days and nights roll on — and as the people become more and more regretful about having voted for them on December 11.

AN HON. MEMBER: Regretful for what?

MR. LAUK: What is their history with respect to the public service? They promised arm's-length relationships with the Crown corporations in this province, and in five months they have not only not had arm's-length relationships but they seized further political control over the BCR, the BCDC and Hydro, where they appointed a former cabinet minister of their former party....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will relate this to Bill 23?

[ Page 2176 ]

MR. LAUK: I'm asking, Mr. Speaker, how this Crown corporation is to be staffed. What is its board of directors going to be? Is it going to be another series of political appointments and hacks? Is the minister (Hon. Mr. Fraser) going to be chairman of the board? Is he going to be the tsar of construction within the province — this minister from the Cariboo who has had dreams of power for some years? Is he going to be the tsar of construction in this province? Has our sleepy little dormouse come out of his teapot to become the real threat to private industry?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: What are the answers to these questions? You don't just table a bill in the House and say: "Oh well, it's a handy little mechanism." A mechanism for what? We say deficit financing; they say no. We say: "Is it an attack on the public service?" They are silent. We say: "Is it to more easily obtain private land from private people?" They're silent.

It's very worrisome, Mr. Speaker — very worrisome indeed that this government which spoke.... It reminds me of Machiavelli's "The Prince." He said: "When you're going to win, talk of peace." That's what happened during the campaign. They talked of peace: protect private property; protect the public sector. There was an advertisement by the new Premier — leader of the opposition then — saying: "There are ugly rumours about getting rid of the civil service. Don't believe them. We believe in helping you. We love you. We want you to be secure in your positions and your jobs. We're not going to bring out the hatchet and the guillotine."

When you want war, Mr. Speaker, talk peace. Am I too cynical?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. LAUK: Am I thinking that this Premier, when he was campaigning for office, did not mean what he said? Did he want war while he was talking peace? Is this an attack on private property? Is this an attack on the public service?

MR. KERSTER: When were you so concerned about private property?

MR. LAUK: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that both of those propositions must be true. They denied the only possible one that could have any validity, and that is deficit financing for public works. They denied that. They have seen this bill as a tool to attack private property and the public service — a sinister Act, a most cynical Act on their part. And it's one that is deceptive, because at the first stage we thought that they were the protectors of those rights, and they have turned out to be the reverse.

What better advantage could there be for a government so cynical as to use political patronage to keep themselves in the power as the use of this kind of a corporation? We have seen the dangerous control over the BCDC taken by the Minister of revolting development — rather, Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . He is now the chairman of the board of the development corporation of British Columbia. What a pork barrel that can be for him! I am not suggesting he will take undue advantage of his position, but the public must see that there is not undue advantage being taken, that there is no political patronage, that there be an arm's-length relationship between Crown corporations and the government.

What is going to happen with this even larger pork barrel of the British Columbia Buildings Corp., a pork barrel that has never been seen before in this province or anywhere in Canada — lining the pockets of the friends of government; patronage in contracts; patronage in hiring; no protections afforded to the Legislature, or to the public, that fairness and standards of fairness will be applied? What about the park barrel, Mr. Speaker?

Is that the third possibility for the use of this harmless little mechanism, this tool, this corporation? If it is not to be used for deficit financing, is it to be used for expropriation of private property? Is it to be used to attack the public service, to get rid of the public service in Highways and Public Works, or is it to be used as a pork barrel to pay off political friends and campaign donors? These possibilities arise; they arise because of the strange silence and the fuzzy explanation given by the minister. Or does he know? Let's have a fifth possibility.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Does he know why the bill is being introduced? Has anyone explained it to him yet? That is another possibility that we can't disregard out of hand.

We have expropriation of private property, attack on the public service, a pork barrel or the fact that the minister may not know why he has introduced the bill. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if he doesn't know why, I betcha his colleagues do! And I'll betcha that the other reason, not deficit financing, is the real reason behind this bill. I'll betcha it's an attack on the public service. I'll betcha it's the way to cover up how they are going to go back on election promises to protect the private rights and property rights of people, to protect the integrity and security of the Public Service Commission, the employees of the public service and their sacred promise — or is it Socred promise? — that they would not have Crown corporations used as political pork barrels and

[ Page 2177 ]

give-away to the friends of government.

All of these questions arise; they are very disturbing. How can we say we can trust you? How can we answer their question that by implication is: trust us, we're honest folk — when they said they wouldn't raise taxes, that they wouldn't do a hatchet job on the civil service, that they couldn't kill Mincome? How can we trust them now when they bring in this innocent Crown corporation when its obvious powers will be to expropriate private property without proper compensation, attack the public service in their integrity and security and be used as a pork barrel? How can we trust them, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't even believe that yourself.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): I'll tell you, whatever they've got in mind, they wouldn't tell you.

MR. LAUK: How can we trust them?

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't even believe that yourself.

MR. LAUK: What makes me think it is a possibility the minister may not know why the bill is introduced is that subsection (4)3 states that the provisions of the Department of Highways and Public Works Act will apply with respect to expropriation. I looked that up and there is no such Act. There is no such Act! What sloppy drafting indeed, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON: Intentional.

MR. LAUK: Intentional? I'm not so sure. I think it's sloppy drafting. They couldn't help themselves in their eagerness to get this corporation on the table in this Legislature, get it passed and carry out their real motivations, their real goals.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I will be most interested in hearing the currency of debate on this question. I am sure that the opposition will have something to say in committee stage.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, there are seven principal problems with this bill. I would propose, if I may, to review each of them briefly. As my colleague from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) has just pointed out, section 4(3) refers in italics, as a single title, to the "Department of Highways and Public Works Act." I repeat: there is no such Act. Who drafted this one, Mr. Speaker? Who drafted it so badly that they referred to a piece of legislation that doesn't even exist? In case anyone should be anticipating it, we note that nowhere on the orders of the day has a Department of Highways and Public

Works Act made its appearance. There is no apparent proposal by the government at this moment, Mr. Speaker, to introduce such an Act.

So the first of the seven major problems with this bill is that they refer to a piece of legislation which doesn't even exist. This is a highly unparliamentary practice, to say the least, Mr. Speaker.

The second major problem with this is the problem that the people of British Columbia have generally in understanding the coalition government. I think it's been amply demonstrated that the coalition has no consistent economic policy, as has been determined and verified by the course of Bill 16. This bill is, of course, the so-called Anti-Inflation Measures Act. We've pointed out repeatedly how provisions in that bill contradict arguments that they themselves made during their campaign. We have pointed out that the facts of life surrounding the Anti-inflation Board contradict the promises they've made of performance for the Anti-Inflation Measures Act if and when it's enacted in the province of British Columbia.

The worst problem about this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that the bill makes a liar out of the Premier. The bill makes a liar out of the Minister of Finance. This is a deficit-finance bill. There are no two ways about it; there is no other way to interpret it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! May I just question you for a moment, please? You're not suggesting for one moment that any member of the cabinet is a liar.

MR. BARBER: No, the bill itself, Mr. Speaker, makes a liar of the Premier and of the Minister of Finance, and if you'll give me a moment....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You're treading desperately close. I would suggest that you perhaps select a better phraseology.

MR. BARBER: Well, just as accurately, Mr. Speaker, if I may put it, this bill contradicts fundamentally the political argument made by the Premier and the Minister of Finance against deficit financing. As my colleague for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) will shortly demonstrate, the Minister of Finance in his own budget speech made a fundamental commitment that the province shall pay its own way and that there shall be no deficit financing. This bill, the British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act, clearly provides for deficit-finance construction of major public buildings in the province of British Columbia. In that sense, Mr. Speaker, to use the more careful of the two frames of language, this bill does in fact contradict completely the political position of this coalition government.

It is a deficit-finance bill. This year it will be $200 million, next year $300 million or $400 million

[ Page 2178 ]

perhaps. This is a deficit-finance bill; you are putting us into debt. You know it and we know it. You are not proposing to finance public buildings out of consolidated or current revenue, Mr. Speaker. The government is not proposing to do that. The government is saying we shall take $200 million this year from consolidated revenue and we shall, on the basis of that, capitalize various projects. Sections 10 and 11 provide for that capitalization, they provide for loans, they provide for bonds.

This is a deficit-finance bill, Mr. Speaker, and it contradicts basically, fundamentally and embarrassingly the political position of that coalition. The coalition said during the campaign and has said since that they do not believe in deficit financing. The coalition has said that they believe we should pay our own way in every enterprise and then they turn around and have the nerve — and are not even ashamed of it — to introduce a bill which will send us this year $200 million into debt. This year $200 million worth of indebtedness, in the name of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act, will be created by this coalition government, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. MAIR: Is that the left-wing coalition or the right-wing coalition?

MR. BARBER: I should hope that they're just a little bit embarrassed. I should hope that the people of British Columbia are more than just a little bit shocked to see how this coalition has once again gone back on one of its own campaign promises. We are being put into debt, Mr. Speaker. This is a deficit-finance bill and no one who has read it can conclude anything else.

There is a third problem with this. It has also been raised earlier and I wish to state my personal concern about it. This bill is a threat to private property. In section 4(3), we do see a reference to powers of expropriation. This is, Mr. Speaker, to say the least, bizarre. What on earth is a British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act doing claiming the power of expropriation? If this is just an ordinary little company set out to secure certain advantages in the construction of public buildings, what on earth do they need the powers of expropriation for? Whose land do they intend to expropriate?

This bill is potentially one of the most dangerous assaults on private property we've seen yet from this coalition government. I believe personally, Mr. Speaker, that a person's home is a safeguard of liberty. I believe that and I support it. I want to know why this bill gives that coalition the power to take those persons' individual homes. Who needs that power? Who has asked for it? Who has demanded it? Who shall use it?

Why does a British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act require the power of expropriate? It is already provided for in other legislation. It is available, if required in emergencies, through other legislation. Mr. Speaker, this is a mysterious and potentially dangerous piece of legislation. Why do they need a power of expropriation? Again, it may be another of the fundamental ailments of any coalition that we should see such a piece of contradiction plainly and clearly within a bill like this. That's the third major problem with this bill, Mr. Speaker. It gives the corporation a power of expropriation that an ordinary corporation should not require, and that a responsible government should use, if it uses it at all, most carefully and most delicately.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Fourthly, Mr. Speaker, there is a very serious political problem in that the coalition has once again contradicted itself. This coalition, when in opposition, fought a campaign for three and a half years on the position that politicians should not serve on the boards of corporations or Crown agencies.

Mr. Speaker, let it be noted in Hansard that the government and the back bench of the government did not oppose that statement. Let me repeat it if they didn't hear it. This coalition for three and a half years in opposition and during an election campaign made repeatedly the statement that they believed that elected officials should not control the works and the enterprises of public agencies, bodies and corporations.

Hansard may record a silence. There was no opposition to that.

Mr. Speaker, examine section 2. Here they are appointing politicians to the board of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. BARBER: They are doing it in section 2(1). I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that this may be slightly out of order. We are supposed to speak to the principle and not to the sections of the bill. "There is hereby established a corporation to be known as the 'British Columbia Buildings Corporation' consisting of five directors appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in Council, who must be either (a) members of the executive council or (b) members of the public service." They have paved the way to appoint politicians to the board of the B.C. Buildings Corporation Act.

The coalition is contradicting itself again. For three and a half years they told us that they didn't want politicians appointed to the board of any corporation and now, in the first new corporation they've introduced in this House, they are appointing members of the executive council. They are appointing politicians. This is a hopeless

[ Page 2179 ]

inconsistency; it is a contradiction.

What is the coalition up to, Mr. Speaker? Did they just say those things in opposition in order to get into power? Now that they are in power, have they forgotten everything they said in opposition? What is the position of the coalition, Mr. Speaker? Do they intend to support the principle that politicians should be on these boards, or do they not support that principle? When they were in opposition they did not. Now that they are in government, they do. Section 2(1)(a) permits them to do precisely that.

I have another concern. It is the fifth one I wish to raise today. I am concerned about the job security of the public servants presently employed in that half of the minister's estimates responsible for public works. There are, by my count, Mr. Speaker, 655 employees in the public works part of the minister's department involved in maintenance activities and another 96 involved in administrative activities, for a total of 751 personnel. This is my count from the estimates. It may be wrong by one or two, but I expect that it is basically correct. Mr. Speaker, section 4(2)(b) allows the corporation to "construct and maintain buildings." It is fairly clear, I believe, that this bill jeopardizes the job security of some 750 public servants, 655 of whom are presently involved in maintaining public buildings in British Columbia and another 96 of whom are responsible for the administration thereof. There are 751 jobs at stake, because, as has been pointed out earlier by my colleague for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) and by the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson), section 6(4) says: "The Public Service Act does not apply to the officers and employees of the corporation." There is no guarantee of security. There is no guarantee of tenure. There is no guarantee anywhere in this bill that anything but the wholesale firing of 750 civil servants might just occur, that you'll wipe them all out, that you'll get rid of every one of them, that you'll attack every one of them personally. This bill makes no provision whatever for the job security of 750 civil servants.

I want to hear, Mr. Speaker, from the minister that he guarantees the civil servants of British Columbia and, in particular, those in my own riding in Victoria, that their jobs are not at stake. I want to hear from the minister that once again, this bill has not made a speaker of falsehoods out of the Premier. The Premier, during the election, campaigned on the fact that civil servants' jobs were not in jeopardy. He said that false and malicious rumours would have it that Social Credit would endanger the jobs of civil servants. Sure enough, we see in this bill that there is no guarantee, no provision and no security whatever for the continuance in employment of some 750 civil servants. I want to hear, Mr. Speaker, about those 750. I want a guarantee from that minister that those jobs are secure, that this is not an attack on the public service and that I am not going to be hearing from 750 of my constituents and their families telling us that they are now out of work because the coalition has created a corporation that chose not to employ them.

The evidence for this position is serious and it is secure, Mr. Speaker. This bill clearly states that the Public Service Act does not apply. We also want to know why that Act doesn't apply. It, too, is one of the guarantees that patronage in the public service shall not occur. It is one of the fundamental guarantees that no politician on either side of the House can tamper with appointments to the civil service. I want to know, Mr. Speaker, why specifically this Act says that the Public Service Act shall not apply — and because it doesn't apply, I want to know why. To those benefit does it not apply? Whose interests are served when that guarantee of impartiality is abolished? Whose interests are served when 7 5 0 jobs are threatened by a bill like this?

I want to speak about another matter that concerns me very seriously in this bill, Mr. Speaker. Once again we see, by omission, that the coalition government has made no arrangement whatever for tenders for contracts or for other legal devices that allow a fair and free opportunity on the open market for private enterprise to compete when buildings go for tender. I want to understand why this bill contains no provisions at all for adequate, for proper, for accountable, or even for legal arrangements to go to tender. It doesn't appear in the bill; it is nowhere there. Not a word. What are their plans? What do they intend? And whose interests are being served by the fact that this bill fails to make any provision whatever for public tender, for public bids and for publicly secured contracts? Whose interests are being served there, Mr. Speaker?

This bill has the potential for some of the worst patronage and the worst pork-barrel politics this province has ever seen. If they don't intend to operate it that way, Mr. Speaker, I urge them to bring in an amendment, and let it ensure that bids and tenders on their contracts shall be advertised, shall be handled, and shall be accountable publicly. At the moment there is no such provision. The omission of it is one of the most dangerous facets of this bill.

Finally, I wish, if I may, to report on section 13. My colleague and friend, the first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf), has quite properly and repeatedly made the argument that the Government of British Columbia doesn't pay its fair share of property taxes in Victoria. I was pleased to see the reference, during his address, to section 13 — until I read it more closely. section 13 does not compel this corporation to spend a penny on municipal taxes. It does not compel or obligate this corporation to spend a nickel on property taxes. It compels them to do nothing. section 13 reads: "Subject to the approval

[ Page 2180 ]

of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" — and that's the first hesitation — "the corporation may in any year pay to a municipality in which it has property a grant not exceeding...." et cetera, et cetera.

First of all, it is subject to political approval, Mr. Speaker. It is not an ironclad guarantee in this legislation that the B.C. Buildings Corp. will pay its way. In fact, it's only a guarantee that they can find a way out if they want to take it. It is no guarantee at all.

Secondly, they hedge it again. Not once but twice in this clause they find a way out. They tell us that the corporation may pay its own way. It doesn't say "will"; it doesn't say "shall"; it doesn't say "shall be obligated to." It merely says the corporation may pay in any year.

These are two very large loopholes, Mr. Speaker, any number of clever politicians could sneak their way through. So I join in the call of my colleague from Victoria for an amendment — I'm sure he will agree; perhaps he will second it — to alter section 13 to remove the arbitrary and exclusionary powers of the political body, that of the executive council, and to ensure that the law itself, and not the politicians, guarantees payment. If this coalition supports that principle, they must amend that section. If they do not, they're going to be most embarrassed in the Victoria riding next time round.

I wish that section amended, Mr. Speaker, to remove the right or the privilege of politicians to make discretionary decisions from year to year, and instead build into the law itself the guarantee of payment.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I want a guarantee that the corporation will in any year — and not "may" in any year, as we see in the legislation at hand....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, could I interrupt you for just a moment, please? I've allowed a fair amount of latitude in the debate on principle in which you've repeatedly referred to sections of the bill specifically. The type of debate you are engaging in should be reserved for the discussion of the bill which takes place in committee stage when we discuss in detail the provisions of all of the respective sections of any piece of legislation. While I don't intend to curb your debate as long as you refer to the principle of the bill in general terms, you must reserve the specific matters under consideration by section for that debate.

MR. BARBER: I appreciate your observation, Mr. Speaker. There does come a point, though, and I say this with respect, that fundamental flaws in the legislation itself imperil the success of the principle.

I am concerned about the principle. It does seem, on the surface of it, a worthwhile, a proper, an accountable instrument for the creation and construction of public buildings in British Columbia. That principle interests me, and unless debate could persuade me otherwise, I expect I will vote for it. What I am concerned about, though, Mr. Speaker, is the way in which the legislation itself imperils and endangers the principle which the bill introduces. This is a very serious problem, and I expect that many members of the Legislature on both sides will have to — perforce by the nature of the bill itself — refer to various of its parts. I expect as well that further on we will be able to get a little more detail about each of them.

So I will conclude now, Mr. Speaker, if I may, by repeating briefly and succinctly the seven principal flaws that I find in this legislation.

It first of all refers to a Highways and Public Works Act which exists nowhere in the annals of this Legislature.

It secondly is clearly a deficit-finance bill, and that contradicts one of the promises of the coalition.

Thirdly, it offers powers of expropriation that one would not ordinarily need, and we must only ask: in whose interest are those powers of expropriation being served?

Fourthly, there is no guarantee whatever of job security for the 750 civil servants who are going to be affected by this bill.

Fifthly, it is open to the worst kind of patronage because there is no provision whatever for public bills, tenders and other concerns.

Sixthly, it makes no reference whatever to an obligation on the part of the corporation to pay its fair share of property taxes in the city of Victoria and in other jurisdictions where the province has holdings.

Finally, and seventhly, we see appointed to the board of the corporation itself, politicians — another promise that's fallen apart in the first six months of office, Mr. Speaker.

Those are some fairly substantial objections, and I hope very much to hear from the Minister of Public Works about them.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, that's a hard act to follow — in fact, I am convinced in my own mind that I don't want to follow it. I find, as a member of this Legislature, that it's a tragedy that one so young, so new and so fresh should be so indoctrinated by the cynicism of his colleagues as to be so suspicious, vindictive and cynical.

This member talks about his embarrassment of politicians making discretionary decisions, his embarrassment that civil servants might have to change their positions...his embarrassment, his embarrassment. He's so embarrassed it's a wonder he can stand up and talk about being embarrassed. Where was his embarrassment over the last three years? Where was his embarrassment when deputy

[ Page 2181 ]

minister after deputy minister, professional civil servants who had served this province for years on a non-partisan basis, were side-shifted?

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Name two!

MRS. JORDAN: I don't need to name them; we all know them.

Where was his embarrassment and his concern for the small insurance operators of this province who were put out of business by his own government creation, ICBC?

He talks about accountability. Did that government ever put ICBC under Consumer Services legislation, as they put every other company in this province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: No way, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member please return to the principle of the bill?

MRS. JORDAN: I'm right there, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The bill is the British Columbia Building Corporation Act.

MRS. JORDAN: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, and that member need not be embarrassed any more, because the British Columbia Building Corp. will be subject to the scrutiny of the auditor-general, a subject that I won't go into discussion about right now because it is a bill on the order paper. There was no auditor-general under the NDP.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for North Okanagan has the floor.

MRS. JORDAN: Has there been a time that this party has even suggested that politicians don't have a role to play in terms of government activity? The member said how inconsistent. I would ask the second member for Victoria where his consistency is in relation to a former member of his party who just spoke. One wants an NDP member on the board of directors; the second member for Victoria doesn't want any politicians on the board of directors. His former colleague spoke — he wants not only politicians on the board, but he wants one of his own party on the board. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, in relating this to the development of this corporation: where is the consistency on the part of the NDP?

Mr. Speaker, what we do see consistently from that side of the House is suspicion — suspicion and suspicion. The former member who spoke, the former Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lauk), the second member for Vancouver Centre, talks consistently, and with a paranoid nature, of suspicion of this company and suspicion of this bill, although he supported it. We can only conclude that that member doesn't trust himself because he doesn't trust other people, and he doesn't trust other people because he doesn't trust himself. That's why he has to steal his own files, and then lets that sort of an attitude reflect itself in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, this is an imaginative and innovative bill. It's been examined by other governments before it's even passed this Legislature. While we heard many comments on the federal government approach to public hearings, it should be of interest to this Legislature to know that the federal government itself is very interested in this legislation and is studying it very carefully with a view to adopting it.

Mr. Speaker, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) obviously doesn't know his history, because the history of the Public Works department in this province is one of which we should all be proud, and those same people will be incorporated in this new department.

One just has to go around the province of British Columbia to see some of the most imaginative as well as cost-responsible buildings in the public sector, designed frequently by our own architects within the Public Works department, that you can find anywhere in the world and certainly in Canada.

Our Public Works department has been a leader in Canada and has been a model because they have had a philosophy which will carry through and be expanded in this new corporation. The government has a responsibility not only to be innovative, not only to be responsible in terms of cost, but it has a responsibility to try and set an example within a community, and this is what many of our Public Works buildings have done in the past.

One just has to look at the Duncan courthouse to know what the establishment of that building did for the community of Duncan. It set an example for the private sector as to what could be done on a responsible basis, and it encouraged the people of Duncan to reassess the objectives of their community. This government feels that that is a responsibility of government, and there's ample provision because of the flexibility that is built into this bill, as well as the accountability for this new corporation to, in fact, look at the province as a whole, to take areas where there may well be the need for two public buildings, but one area might be a boom area and another area might be very much in need of stimulation to its economy, of stimulation in terms of thinking of the character and development of its own community and the stimulation in terms of providing jobs. There

[ Page 2182 ]

will be the flexibility of this corporation under this legislation to do that which isn't now available to the Public Works department.

Mr. Speaker, this bill allows for much greater co-ordination between all departments of government in relation to space requirements, long-term planning for space requirements and in terms of budgeting in the long term for their own space requirements.

MR. LEA: That's deficit financing.

MRS. JORDAN: We've seen examples here....

Well, the member for Prince Rupert says.... We've seen deficit financing. Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, we have seen thousands and thousands of taxpayers' dollars being churned into pockets over the last three years because the NDP government was so incompetent in its planning that it went out and leased hundreds of square feet of office space that was never used — office space for which they had no plan, office space for which the department had no plan and office space for which there was no budgeting. The taxpayers...

MR. KEMPF: That's $125,000 worth.

MRS. JORDAN: ...of this province have had to pick this up, and this, Mr. Speaker, in itself would be enough justification for this bill, and this will allow the departments to co-ordinate their planning through the British Columbia Building Corp.

Mr. Speaker, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) runs around with scare tactics, undermining the confidence of individuals, talking about the loss of 750 civil service jobs because of this bill, and I have only one comment to make: balderdash! Mr. Speaker, we have highly competent people in the Public Works department and it's very clear in this bill that these people will be utilized by the Crown corporation, but there will be from time to time situations where a highly specialized individual would be required. This bill merely makes provision for that person to be hired in a capacity which does not necessarily put that individual under the civil service.

Really, wouldn't it be foolish to go to the time consumption and the cost of bringing an individual who's highly specialized in his own field under the civil service for a short period of time? Surely the thinking of the NDP isn't so rigid that they could preclude this type of unnecessary situation and that they would shoot down a very strong and innovative bill with that type of narrow and rigid thinking.

Mr. Speaker, there obviously is going to be development in this corporation of its own specialized staff, and much of that staff will come from other departments. There will be an opportunity for much greater co-ordination and communication between departments. How often we've seen in other provinces and even in British Columbia a situation where you have one department building that side of town and another department building this side of town, because each had their bailiwick, each had their interests, and while they might not have done it deliberately, there was no vehicle through which they could co-ordinate this type of planning. This, Mr. Speaker, is provided for in this bill. This again reflects the policy of this government and its commitments in the election to accountability and to responsible government, to allow for greater planning.

Mr. Speaker, it does allow for greater flexibility in financing; and again we see the rigid thinking of the NDP, when they're not being inconsistent with each other...complete incapability to accept any new ideas, any breadth of thinking.

Mr. Speaker, they call us the coalition party. How that reflects the narrowness of this NDP view that doesn't even know whether it's the CCF Party or the Labour Party; they don't know whether they're socialists, labourites, liberalites. We know in this party that rigidity to a specific philosophy is destructive to the people of the province and to the government. To make a corporation like the British Columbia Building Corp. be what it is in terms of imagination and innovation, there has to be input from ideas of all sides, and this government will listen to good ideas from the NDP and the opposition as well, and so they should.

Mr. Speaker, life is for the living. Life is based on reality, and you can't sit in the corner and say: "I'm a Conservative" or "I'm a Liberal" or "I'm a socialist." You've got to take the very best ideas and the very best minds from all if we are ever going to meet our problems and our commitments to this province. We're proud to sit together, whatever area of the spectrum we represent.

MR. LEA: Down there or up there?

MRS. JORDAN: And knowing that I'm the middle of the road?

MR. LEA: But the Liberals are in the cabinet, though.

MRS. JORDAN: If to think realistically, to be flexible and to be responsible is coalition, then I'm proud to be a coalitionist, because, Mr. Speaker, we have a job to do and the people of this province charged us with this job and we intend to do it.

MR. LEA: You're sure charging them.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, another point of flexibility which is built into the British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act is an opportunity for the

[ Page 2183 ]

private sector, local governments — whether it's municipal or regional — and the government to enter in concert to meet the needs of that community. It would allow the government to plan their buildings in cooperation with the municipality and some of theirs, and, yes, it could allow the introduction of the private sector. If one level of government owns the land, then is it not reasonable to be flexible enough and have the authority to enter into lease arrangements, rental arrangements, whatever is appropriate in terms of meeting the needs of that community and the departments that it is to serve?

A threat to the private enterprise? A threat to other levels of government? A threat to the people of this province? I'm sure that member looks under the bed at night, he's so threatened. This is an opportunity for strength for each level of government.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: It can do nothing but benefit the areas.

Already, again, if the members of the NDP would do their homework, they would know that in this province at this time I can name three — without even looking into a book — communities where this type of legislation will allow the flexibility and the concert of action and planning that is so badly needed and which is not now available under the departmental structure and which was rejected by the former NDP government.

Prince George, Williams Lake, Kamloops — I'd like to say Vernon, but I don't think we're that far along on the drawing board. But the hon. member knows that in Kamloops they are waiting to proceed, and it was rejected by the former government. Does the hon. member for Victoria reject that? Would the hon. member go up to Williams Lake or Prince George or Kamloops and say, "there are bugs under the bed; don't trust them, " when they're sitting there waiting to go?

MR. KEMPF: He wouldn't dare!

MRS. JORDAN: It's funny; they're the people involved. They're the people with the knowledge, Mr. Member. They're the people who have worked in their lives, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, and they're the people who welcome this legislation because they know we can make it work. And there will be mistakes.

MR. KEMPF: You wouldn't dare come up there.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, another portion of flexibility that this legislation allows is in the area of charging, and appropriate charging. As it is now with the structure of government, it's almost, if not illegal, inappropriate for government to charge for specific public services. We feel very strongly about the museum, for example, and I am sure no one in this....

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the former Social Credit government built the museum. I'm glad you like it, Mr. Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke).

Your own area of New Westminster, Mr. Member, could benefit greatly from this corporation. You should be standing up championing their causes. I'm sure the people of New Westminster are saying: "Why is he knocking it? Why isn't he saying that we're ready to put together a package, that we can develop in New Westminster a unique and pace-setting and cost-conscious complex which can do nothing but benefit this province?"

Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted, I was trying to point out another area of flexibility, and that's in charging. I want to make it very clear that I'm sure there's not a member in this Legislature who ever wants to see a fee on the British Columbia museum. But there are areas where the inability of government to charge for a service that is installed creates very inequitable situations around the province, and disparities.

I would take, for example, one that's coming up, because we know about it, in the B.C. Building: the ice rink. It is not appropriate that every other community in this province should be raising money at the community level to build and operate their ice arenas and yet have a centre down in one part of the province where it would be free. It would be extremely difficult under the present legislation for this facility — a recreational facility for the people of the province — to be charged for. If it seemed necessary in order to help to pay for the operation of that ice rink and in keeping with creating as much equal opportunity as possible around the province, under this legislation they could charge. Mr. Speaker, this government is dedicated as much as possible to try and create equitable situations within the province.

The whole matter of property taxation — under this corporation it would be much easier for government buildings to, in fact, enter into a budgeting system which did allow for property tax contributions to the community. But I would hope if this does take place that there would be an equalizing formula in terms of that taxation. It is not unreasonable to see or expect development of situations where a very, very small community could, in fact, reap millions of dollars from taxation of a Crown asset within their area when, in fact, that money would be excessive in terms of the needs of

[ Page 2184 ]

the people. It certainly would be most unequal in terms of the distribution of responsibility around the province. So if this is part of the proposal — I certainly hope it is — then I would hope that the minister would give serious consideration to an equalizing formula.

Mr. Speaker, there are many other facets of this building that we all support and which I personally support, but I don't want to go into all of them. I would like to close by just saying that I believe that within this corporation there is an opportunity to greatly influence and stimulate the character development of this province. Through this corporation we can help communities that are not yet aware or not yet confident enough of their own capability to recognize that the character of British Columbia in relation to its geographic setting, whatever part of the province it's in, should be a motivating force.

If you want to talk in terms of dollars in the bank, then that will be dollars in the bank in years to come. Nobody in 10 or 15 or 20 years from now wants to travel to Seattle to Portland to Vancouver to Williams Lake to meet one shopping centre after another, to see the same type of building construction, the same facings and the same character. We have to, in British Columbia, recognize — not only for creating an environment for ourselves which is most pleasing to our way of life and for our children — that we have to capitalize on the uniqueness of each area of this province.

If it is the Kamloops area, then we should be using natural materials from that area. They should reflect the dry-belt character, which is very pleasing, of that area. They shouldn't be using glass and materials that are foreign to that area. In the Okanagan area we are a green area. We are a fruit area. We are a wood area. That's what our development should reflect.

If you are in the Peace River and the land of the big sky, then the character of the buildings there should be reflecting that country. That's what our people will benefit from in terms of future generations and a sensitivity to the area in which they live and a privilege which we should be leaving to them as our legacy. It also, if you want to take the chamber of commerce point of view and the economic point of view, as we have to, means dollars in the bank because this is where people will want to travel. This is the variety they will want to see.

Through this bill this is how government — it will be our government — can show its sensitivity to this yet-really-undiscovered thought and practice in this province. I hope that by establishing an independent corporation the people of British Columbia will be made more aware of not only what has already gone on under both governments in terms of public development, but what is going on and can go on in the future.

No, Mr. Speaker, those that wallow in suspicion should but look to themselves to find their guidance. The rest of us believe that this is an innovative bill. It is a strong bill. With the help of the professional civil servant who will be involved the other people will...and, we hope, a strong and responsible management and the scrutiny of the auditor-general, two years from now we will be speaking from great pride regardless of the position that was taken in this debate.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I had planned to say very little this afternoon, particularly about this bill, but the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) encouraged me to say a few words. Those few words, Mr. Speaker, are directed at those of the ilk of the member for North Okanagan, who can bafflegab probably better than most in this House.

That member, Mr. Speaker, was criticizing the member for Victoria for indicating some reservations about this bill — not particularly about the bill itself, but about the whole question of who brought it in — because that member for Victoria knows, had that bill been brought in, and would have been brought in very likely, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, almost word for word....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are you for it or against it?

MR. COCKE: Of course we'll be voting for it because this is a bill that permits you to amortize your buildings over a period of time. Mr. Speaker, it's just purely deficit financing, getting away from the old-time Socred system of paying immediately for something you are going to be using in the future.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Then don't be so cynical about it then.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the reason I have a feeling of cynicism about the bill is because of the fact that had this bill been brought in a year ago, I would have expected to see the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) jumping up and down in this House, debating by the hour, screaming her head off about people's rights, about property rights and all the other bafflegab she used to use when she was on the other side of the House. Now the shoe is on the other foot. The member for Victoria quite rightly got up and said how interesting it is that this group, this instant coalition, has suddenly changed, has seen the light, has walked the road to Damascus.

Mr. Speaker, we understand the need, and we are not all that terribly sympathetic to the private-enterprise system. Some rumour has been around the province that that's the case, and let me tell you some of the reasons why. For instance, I

[ Page 2185 ]

can't give you the exact statistics for Canada, but I can tell you exactly what they were in the United States in 1974 — and we all worry about protecting the interests of private enterprise. In 1974 there were 500 companies in the United States, out of 1.7 million industrial companies in total, that did 65 per cent of all the sales, did 79 per cent of all the profits and also had 76 per cent of all of the employees. That's in the industrial sector, and it was pretty much the same thing in banking; pretty well the same thing in the other sectors of the U.S. economy.

So, Mr. Speaker, we're not particularly worried or concerned about the big guy. We are concerned, however, about the little guy in business. I would hope that this corporation will be able to give some kind of assistance to the small businessman in our province.

But it really wasn't all that necessary. Most of the things that the member for North Okanagan spoke about, most of the areas in which she said this new corporation would provide better co-ordination.... She said that it would provide all sorts of imaginative know-how and so on. Mr. Speaker, really, what rubbish! The present Department of Public Works has all that capacity and all that ability now.

But I still support the bill because it gives the Department of Public Works the right to go out on the market and borrow money, and rightly so, and to do the kinds of things that the member for North Okanagan was talking about for New Westminster. Don't ever think that this wasn't discussed — New Westminster that has been denied a court house, for heaven's sake, for so long that it's embarrassing to everybody. It really is. Yes, there are a couple of areas that really should be looked at very quickly by virtue of the fact: how can justice be done in an environment like that? So I certainly subscribe to it and I hope that this enables the government to do their job effectively and quickly.

Mr. Speaker, it gives the government a couple of hundred million dollars. I want them to remember that when they're talking about their budgeting system, when they're talking about what a careful group they are, because they'll be able to do something that we weren't able to do: they will be able to take $200 million right out of their budget, put it aside and say that it's a contingent liability that's guaranteed by the government, but not direct debt. Fair enough, and I don't mind that either. But don't give us the holy grail stuff over there. Don't stand up and tell us what great business people you are. The fact is, you've moved the whole section of budgeting over to another area where it's at arm's length.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that a lot of those phony arguments of the past, arguments that were discussed briefly by the second member for Victoria, were quite right. He was talking in terms of the phony arguments that have been raised. We know why the bill was brought forward. We know, Mr. Speaker, that the bill was brought forward so we could do maybe a little better than what we did when we were dealing with the first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf), who isn't in his place at this point, a few years ago, renting the Belmont Building, which should have been owned by a Crown corporation — and deal with the government directly. Much, much better, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, we are not at all concerned about the possibility of large interests in this province being burnt at all, we aren't concerned that the Department of Public Works can proceed with its work, and on that basis we'll support it. But I sure would like to remind this House that had this bill been brought in when we were government, there would have been hell raised, Mr. Speaker. There would have been chaos in this place! As you know, Mr. Speaker, we sat through hours and hours and hours of incessant debate over freedoms, and we listened to seagull talk and all the rest of it, Mr. Speaker, over bills much less overwhelming than this.

AN HON. MEMBER: And on the hotline programmes.

MR. COCKE: That's right, Mr. Speaker, and the power to expropriate wasn't even in the land bill, Bill 42, a few years ago. The power to expropriate is in this one. Fair enough!

I admonish the new corporation never to use the powers the way Hydro used them, Mr. Speaker, because Hydro, traditionally, has been absolutely inhuman in their utilization of their powers Somehow or other when that Crown corporation was picked up from the private sector, what was vested in them by the old Socred government was the following: they were left with all the powers of a large corporation, and were vested, further, with all the powers of the Crown. Mr. Speaker, I tell you true that they have usurped those powers. They have used those powers viciously from time to time on citizens of our province. If we see any evidence of this new corporation utilizing its powers to expropriate in an unjust manner, then, Mr. Speaker, we'll be standing up in this House and we'll be requiring answers and we won't be sitting down very easily until such time as we have answers.

So, Mr. Speaker, there it is. The member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) notwithstanding, we'll still support this bill.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Purpose of this bill, as explained very well in the explanatory note, we are certainly only too happy to support this legislation.

I think, perhaps, I should congratulate the Deputy

[ Page 2186 ]

Minister of Public Works. He has been trying for some time to have this particular bill go forward.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. STUPICH: Obviously someone didn't clean out their files, because the legislation before us now, as I recall it, is very similar to a bill that was in an advanced stage of preparation by December 11, 1975. So I do congratulate the deputy on having succeeded in 1976 where he wasn't quite able to in 1975.

The purpose is quite reasonable and the way the bill describes the purpose is quite reasonable. When we get to the powers, I don't have any concern. However, I think I do have some concerns about the way in which the present administration will use these powers. I sort of wish that the hon. member for North Okanagan were in her seat now, but there are 12 members, as I count them, of the present coalition caucus who were members of the Social Credit caucus at the time Bill 42, the Land Commission Act, was going through the House, and I recall every one of those speaking interminably against the provisions of Bill 42, which had much less authority in it than does the bill before us right now.

I am tempted to call the remarks of the hon. member for North Okanagan hypocritical, but to do so would be unparliamentary and I would have to withdraw. Certainly I can't think of any other apt description of the speech that she gave this afternoon. I can just hear that same member and the other 11 members of the coalition caucus who were in the Social Credit caucus at the time Bill 42 was going through. I can hear them all talking about the "heavy hand of state socialism" that was in Bill 42. I can hear them all talking about the "absolute powers" that were in Bill 42 and yet, as I say, it rather pales into some measure of insignificance compared to the powers that are in the British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act.

The part that really gets us is the part about expropriation. Expropriation, handled properly, is in the interests of the community and it is something that the government has to have, from time to time, the authority to deal with. All governments have used expropriation powers in the interests of the community, but some governments use them differently from other governments. Some administrations use them differently from other administrations.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you can recall several instances of expropriation that were put through under the previous Social Credit administration that are still being fought. There is one case in the Roberts Bank area where someone, a farmer, had his land taken away from him by expropriation, an expropriation that totalled several thousand acres. There is one farmer who is still fighting the expropriation that went through prior to the election in 1972. There are a number in the interior of the province who are still fighting the awards they were granted when their property was expropriated in connection with the Columbia River project.

Mr. Speaker, I challenge anyone to recall a single instance of expropriation under the NDP administration — a much more recent administration — a single instance that is still under question. The NDP administration was prepared to deal with people as human beings, to deal with them as individuals, to deal with them fairly. Because of that, there's not a single case of expropriation still being challenged. But with respect to the old Social Credit administration, there are still a number being challenged. My concern is that this new Social Credit administration will not be any better, if as good as, the previous one. That is our concern about the powers of this legislation when it comes to expropriation, Mr. Speaker.

There's another question about this. We are concerned about the attitude of this present administration because in this bill they are breaking just one more of their own promises. If they are going to treat their own promises lightly, how can we trust them to deal properly with people when they are proceeding with expropriation? Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of those who have forgotten — not for your benefit because I'm sure you remember — I'd like to quote from a speech delivered in this Legislature. This was handed to me by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), and I believe the date was March 26. It's by the Hon. Evan Wolfe, Minister of Finance:

To borrow is the easy way out, but against that is the burden it creates for future generations. We leave our children and their children a large enough legacy of problems without this additional one of paying for government deficits when, with determination and minimum sacrifice, we can overcome our problem now.

We don't quarrel with using this kind of financing to provide for assets that will be used for a longer period of time; we think that's reasonable. But I'm going to go on now and quote further from this speech delivered in this Legislature by an irresponsible minister of the Crown:

The government believes the economy is capable of affording a pay-as-you-go policy for provincial government financing. Therefore it has rejected borrowing either for budgetary deficits or government capital expenditures...

The government promises us, in this budget speech, that they have rejected the idea of using this method of financing capital expenditures. To go on with the quotation:

...except for those capital projects I have already referred to as being removed from the province's budget.

[ Page 2187 ]

And that exception, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will recall, is the one to do with respect to B.C. Ferries. So in the budget speech, as recently as March 26, the government promised they would not do exactly what they are doing in this legislation. Yet we're asked to trust that government to deal properly with people when it's dealing with expropriation, to deal fairly with people when they are going out and buying or seizing private property and renting it to private individuals. We are asked to trust them.

I can recall members on this side of the House, when we were on that side, challenging us and raising questions as to whether or not we should be trusted. I've already said, Mr. Speaker, that there's not one example in the community where an individual is still fighting against an arbitration case that was put through by the NDP administration. There are still examples that are four years old, and older, where people are still fighting arbitrations that were conducted under the previous Social Credit administration. How can anyone trust that kind of an administration?

We support the legislation; it's good legislation. But in view of their record and in view of the promise they made on March 26 in the budget speech, we question whether or not the people of British Columbia really can have faith and trust in that particular administration to do the right thing by the people of British Columbia.

MR. KEMPF: He's going to vote for it also.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, as I take my place, a member from across the floor said: "He's going to vote for it also." But something has happened today that makes me wonder whether I should vote for anything that government would bring in, whether it's policy, legislation or administration. We are talking about public works and an attitude towards public works, and right at this very moment in the city of Prince Rupert the courthouse building is being completely ruined — the grounds of that courthouse building — because they've cut back on staff to the point where they are cutting trees, where they are pulling up the annual flowerbeds and getting rid of them in the name of economy.

MR. KEMPF: Who's doing all this cutback?

MR. LEA: The Department of Public Works is doing it. It's one of the only areas in the city of Prince Rupert where people can go in, stroll around on green lawns among flowers and trees. It's one of the only areas. The only other area where it was possible to do that was taken out of a public park by the city of Prince Rupert, handed to the developer and is now a department store. This is the last one left in the downtown core of Prince Rupert, and the attitude of that coalition government is destroying a very beautiful area in the city of Prince Rupert.

And they say: "Give us this bill" — remove the decision-making even further from the Legislature than it is now, where we will not have the opportunity as members of the Legislature to question closely and immediately the policy and the administration of that group. How can they ask us to do that when your attitude is so foreign to the attitude of most British Columbians? How can they do that and expect us to trust them?

MR. KERSTER: Garbage!

MR. LEA: It's not garbage! If you want to find out, call out the government agent in the courthouse in Prince Rupert. Don't be so stupid! You don't even know what I'm talking about, and you're yapping.

MR. KERSTER: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the member for Prince Rupert to withdraw the word "stupid."

MR. LAUK: He said: "Don't be stupid." He never said you were.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, did the hon. member for Prince Rupert, in using that word, in any way apply it to the member for Coquitlam?

MR. LEA: Of course not, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: In that case, proceed.

MR. LEA: It just seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that they're bringing in, by this legislation, a public corporation removed a step further from the watchful eye of not only the official opposition but the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. What they are trying to do here is just remove from scrutiny, or at least close scrutiny, the operation of a Crown corporation. We have to ask why. Could not these same things have been achieved through the Department of Public Works? Could they not have been achieved? Why is it they feel they have to go to a Crown corporation?

Well, there are many speculations we can make, Mr. Speaker.

No. 1 — and I don't think they're fooling anybody — this is a form of deficit financing. As the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) has pointed out, this bill represents exactly what the government said they would not do on March 26 in the budget speech to this House. They can't have it both ways; either the document they brought into this House on March 26, the first edition, is a lie or this legislation is a lie. One or the other, Mr. Speaker. Which document

[ Page 2188 ]

brought into this House is the truthful document? Is it the March 26 speech from the Legislature on the budget? Is that the one or is it this piece of legislation?

The history of this short government, this short coalition party, is a history of saying one thing and doing another. They said they would freeze taxes; they raised taxes. They said they wouldn't destroy Mincome; they have destroyed Mincome.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): That is false.

MR. LEA: They have said that they would not go into deficit financing; this bill is deficit financing, pure and simple.

As the hon. member for Nanaimo has pointed out, we are not against amortizing the cost of public buildings over the life of those buildings; it makes good sound economic sense. But we've always said that that's our position. We don't change our position from day to day and week to week. We will change our position only when there are facts provided in a meaningful way, in a rational way, to show us that there is some objection in changing our position. We don't do it out of political....

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Dogmatism.

MR. LEA: Dogmatism. That is the word, because that group over there is so tied in with a very right-wing political ideological belief that they cannot, as someone has pointed out, see the forest for the trees.

There is nothing wrong with deficit financing, but do it upfront. Do it so the people of this province can take a look at what you are doing. Don't say, "we're going to balance the books at any cost," and then go into deficit financing by a ruse such as this bill. That's all it's about. Are you going to meet the budget and balance the books, and lose trees, lawns, shrubbery and greenery around a very fine building in the city of Prince Rupert?

AN HON. MEMBER: But they can build the Premier a shower.

MR. LEA: What are you willing to do? What are you willing to do as a government and as a group to balance the books? Are you willing to cut down on the income of older people in this province? Are you willing to lose greenery in smaller cities in this province? Just what length will you not go to to balance the books and at the same time bring in legislation that makes a lie to everything you've done so far while you've been in office?

That's what this legislation does, Mr. Speaker. It makes an absolute lie out of that government for the five or six months they have been in power. But it is not new to them, Mr. Speaker, because the immediate actions they took as government made a lie out of the party to which they belong and the campaign promises they made during the last election campaign. They will say anything and do anything to attain power for themselves and for their friends.

This bill should be looked upon with suspicion because it removes from this Legislature the close scrutiny that an operation such as Public Works should be under.

Now it would be different. We would even be in favour of going the Crown corporation route, Mr. Speaker, as long as we had the apparatus within government to make that scrutiny of that Crown corporation.

I have heard much comment across from the other side of the House about the fact that it is all right for us to announce and appoint politicians to Crown corporations, because when you were government you did it. You know something, Mr. Speaker? I was also against us doing it but it took the experience of three years in government for us to find out that there should be more of an arm's length approach from those Crown corporations. We were well on the route to that, as was announced by the former Premier in this House during the last session of the Legislature when we were government. What have they done? What have they done? They have said: "We're against it. We're against it." When they have gotten into power, they have even gone further than they said they were against. They have appointed political hacks to the board of every Crown corporation in this province — every one.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Garbage? Name one that you haven't.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Name one that we have.

MR. LEA: I would name B.C. Hydro — the former Attorney-General of this province. I would name the British Columbia Development Corp. and the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) on that board. I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that it is absolutely, at this point in time, for the benefit of this province, wrong to have politicians serve on the boards of Crown corporations, because when you're....

MR. KEMPF: Why didn't you say that last year?

MR. LEA: I am saying it now. I say that we were wrong, Mr. Member. We were wrong. I am telling you that this party can stand up in this Legislature any time and collectively take that position, which I believe is a position of integrity, and say: "We were wrong." But at the time we were doing it your

[ Page 2189 ]

people, when you were in opposition, told us that we were wrong. I am saying that when you were in opposition we were wrong, you were right. Now do the right thing. Don't say one thing and do another. That's what your story is; that's what your short history is all about since you have been in government. You have systematically done everything exactly opposite to what you have said. This bill is the biggest he that has been perpetrated on the people of this province so far — deficit financing through the back door.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong.

MR. LEA: It is putting this province into debt for the next coming fiscal year in a way that they hope it won't show. That is the dishonesty of this bill. The bill in itself is not dishonest, except that it is designed in such a way that the people of British Columbia won't really know what the government is up to. That's what it is all about.

What kind of powers do they have? What kind of powers do they have? Well, some of them have been mentioned. I won't go through it again except to say that I think there is one part that hasn't been mentioned. That's section 4(2)(h): "subject to and in accordance with the Purchasing Commission Act, acquire by purchase, rental, or otherwise, equipment, fixtures and other property, real or personal and movable or immovable, required for the land and buildings...."

Why would you want personal property? Whose personal property do you want? Do you want to go out and negotiate and purchase that property?

Interjections.

MR. LEA: What's next — wedding rings?

AN HON. MEMBER: Family heirlooms.

MR. LEA: What are you after? Because I'll tell you the kind of people that you represent politically — not the people in this province but the kind of people you represent politically — have a history in this world of taking gold.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: That's right.

Now the powers in this bill are far too wide ranging for the kind of work that this corporation is going to do.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I am not going to repeat the silly words that you said when you were in opposition, Mr. Member. They are just too wide ranging. The kinds of powers that are here are not needed. They just are not needed to carry out the administration of this bill. So why put them in? Someone said: "Don't you trust us?" Well, I'll tell you something. I trust no government. I trust no government when there is not a proper mechanism for the people of this province and the opposition in this province to take a good, close look at what government is doing. That is what democracy is all about, but they do not seem to understand that over there, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KERSTER: Are you speaking as a social democrat?

MR. LEA: I am speaking as a citizen of this province who believes in democracy, which is a far cry from what you people believe in.

So what do we have here? We have deficit financing, which they said they would not do. They have powers in this bill that are more wide ranging than the powers needed, powers that are more wide ranging than any piece of legislation that this party ever brought in when we were government. They condemned that when they were in opposition. I remember the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) during those debates standing in her place in this Legislature and criticizing us in this manner. She would say: "You say 'trust us, trust us'." She said: "As an official opposition we can't afford to trust you." Now she stands in her place today and says: "What are you people? Are you paranoid, cynical that you don't trust this government over there?"

The only way any government in a free society can be trusted is if the proper checks and balances of a democratic system are in place so the system will work, because any government, given free rein over a long period of time, will commit acts that are not desirable for society. That is what it's all about, this British parliamentary system that you people only use when you feel like using it and discard when it suits the purposes of yourselves or your friends.

This bill is a perfect tool to help the many friends that you have in this province as a government — people who supported you during the campaign. This bill is a sinister bit of evidence that you're going to help those developers in this province to get their own way, no matter what, over the wishes of the people of this province, over the wishes of any clear-thinking, progressive person who wants to maintain farmland in this province and to have a healthy, co-ordinated planned kind of growth instead of the helter-skelter, profit-at-any-price kind of development we had in this province for 20 years under the previous Social Credit government. Now it looks like we are going back to that under this coalition government, which doesn't even have the philosophical base of a Social Credit government. It

[ Page 2190 ]

doesn't even have that. When they get into a time of crisis, what philosophic base does that group have to fall back on?

AN HON. MEMBER: None!

MR. LEA: Where do they go? What do they draw on for strength, except opportunism? That's the only kind of strength they had in an election campaign — the strength of opportunism to defeat the New Democratic Party. But the strength of opportunism will not serve you in government. It will not serve you, because you have the fate of this province as your charge now, and the people of this province will not put up with the kind of opportunism that you displayed previous to the last election, because it is going to be all out there for all to see.

This bill, brought in by that administration, is a complete farce because it belies what you have said is your policy all along, which is the history of your coalition party and the history of your government.

Mr. Speaker, it stinks!

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): My position on Bill 23 is very simple in terms of the reasons for my opposing the bill, in two respects. First of all, this contradicts one of our election promises. Although the government may laugh at a small party having election promises, we do try to keep them. This bill, however you look at it, creates a bigger arm of big government. The government that now faces us across the floor, Mr. Speaker, and the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party stressed at great length in the last election that we were opposed to big government and we would make every effort to reduce the size of government.

It is quite fair to give the Social Credit government recognition for the fact that it is reducing the size of the civil service, but to do that on one hand but at the same time create this kind of new Crown corporation, with very extensive powers, really is a contradiction of one of the very fundamental themes that the Social Credit Party won power with in the election last December.

There can be no doubt that mistakes have occurred in the past in the management of the Department of Public Works in relation to the rental of properties, and certainly this government, through the now-Premier, who was then the Leader of the Official Opposition, focused a great deal of attention on mistakes that were made during the reign of the NDP government in the leasing of properties which apparently were not needed at that time.

I might interject in passing, Mr. Speaker, that one of the most incredible sentences in the section giving powers under the bill asks for the power "to provide more accommodation than is required for its purposes at the time." I'm quoting from section 4(2)(e)(i) . I know that in the principle of the bill we are not specifically going into great detail by sections, but it must be mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that that's an incredible sentence in a bill by this government that just a few months ago stood on this side of the House and absolutely berated the government of the day for....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I don't wish to go into specific details; we'll deal with that in committee. But I am saying that this bill refutes the unanimity that was expressed by the three non-socialist parties in the last election. One of the themes of the last election was that we — I'm talking about the three free-enterprise parties — will restrict and limit the power of government and the size of government and the size of the civil service.

This bill creates a new Crown corporation. Now I thought that one of the fundamentals of the three non-socialist parties was, if at all possible, to get rid of Crown corporations, to reduce the number of arms and agencies and commissions and all the various ways in which government exercises authority, sometimes without the arm of government being directly accountable to this House. Yet this kind of legislation, in my view, is a complete contradiction of the commitment that the Social Credit Party made on the election platform on this issue of big government. If, for no other reason, I was to oppose this bill, it would be based on that very fundamental principle of this bill: that it does, in fact, increase the size and power of government through the creation of a new Crown corporation.

Mr. Speaker, there may have been mistakes made in the past through the agency of the Department of Public Works but, in my view, if a new policy is required whereby the Department of Public Works should construct buildings rather than lease them or rent them from other agencies, then, again, I just have to ask: does it need a whole new Crown corporation to bring about that change of policy?

What emerged in debates that I referred to a moment ago was that the government, the NDP government, went ahead and rented a large number of office buildings in various locations which did not appear to be necessary, either at that time or perhaps even at some time in the future. The NDP government showed its conscious policy decision to own more buildings rather than lease them by the very buildings that are presently under construction.

I might say that I'm pleased that the minister is in his place because, in respect to these four buildings, I've had a question on the order paper since April 28 which relates in a very clear way to acquiring public information about these large buildings that are under construction in Victoria. I've gently and politely, Mr.

[ Page 2191 ]

Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker.... We'd hope we could have the answer to these questions because the construction of these buildings does represent a clear direction of policy that the government should own buildings rather than lease them from other agencies.

But surely just to change direction and policy in this way doesn't involve the setting up of a whole new Crown corporation, particularly with some of the powers that are listed. In particular for this bill to suggest that it's important that the Crown corporation have the power to acquire buildings not necessary for their accommodation at the present time just seems to be such a total contradiction of the position they took in this House only a few months ago.

The other aspect of the bill.... I oppose the Crown corporation concept and the necessity for it in the first place, but even if we put that fundamental objection aside, I have to wonder how the board will function when all members of the board are either ministers in the cabinet or public service employees. It would seem strange to me that a government which has stated that it wishes to be a very businesslike government, both aware of financial factors and influences in the marketplace and willing to be guided by experts in that same area of business, would expect that there could be objective, neutral, well-considered, non-partisan decisions made when the five members of the board will all be either cabinet ministers or public service employees. It would seem to me that if this kind of corporation were to succeed, then there should be some element of input into the board outside of the strictly political partisan nature.

I think that the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) surely didn't mean exactly what she said towards the end of her remarks when she talked about an independent board. I'm sure that was not what she intended, because this could not be an independent....

Well, I just wish to make the point, Mr. Speaker, that it would be very difficult, in my view — it's obviously a matter of opinion between the two sides of the House.... But I do feel that in an area where potentially the board can borrow up to $200 million, it would be very difficult, when all members of the board are either ministers or public servants, to consider that these decisions would be based on a purely independent and objective approach, simply because of the composition of the board.

My other objection to the bill has already been spelled out. It relates to the rather surprising change of direction which this bill represents in relation to that terrible word "deficit." I was one of the members in this opposition during the budget debate who was almost scolded by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) — perhaps more so by the latter — when he became very exercised about the suggestion that the local homeowner would be taxed for education costs because of debts which this government had to meet, and that the current budget had to be balanced at all costs and if that meant cutbacks in schools and education and highways, then this was the penalty that the people of British Columbia had to pay for having previously elected a socialist government.

Yet after all that pious claim that black ink is indeed so important that budgets have to be balanced at all costs, now we do have a bill that suggests that cabinet ministers and public service employees, appointed by cabinet to this Crown corporation board, can, in fact, borrow up to $200 million. How different, Mr. Speaker, is this from the $35 million that was taken out of this budget to shore up the B.C. Hydro Crown corporation? When I asked that question before, I didn't receive an answer. I don't expect to receive one in this debate either, but I'd be delighted if the minister would point out for me this 180-degree turn of government policy in this bill compared to the answers I've received from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) when he made the point over and over again that there was just no way that this government was prepared to borrow or to get into a deficit position, because that was just one of the worst sins that a government could commit in our present economic situation.

Some harsh words have been used in debate this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, in relation to this ambivalent position that the government's got itself into through this bill. I just want to repeat that I think it is misleading, to say the least, for this government to preach the balanced budget theory with great fervour and tremendous emphasis right throughout the budget debate, to refuse to face the fact that operating money, operating income, is taken out of the budget for capital expenditures by other Crown corporations, whether it's to pay for buses or whatever, and all this done under the claim that it is just not this government's policy to borrow, to incur deficits.... Before the budget ink is hardly dry, here we are debating a bill which gives the government, through a Crown corporation whose board is composed of ministers and public service employees, the power to borrow $200 million.

We hear a lot these days. Mr. Speaker, about how people are cynical about politics, and really there are so many examples today that give particularly our young people every reason to be absolutely cynical about politics and politicians.

The other example that I've tried to hammer away at in this House recently is that we accuse young and not-so-young people of not wanting to work...to

[ Page 2192 ]

pick up the shovel and get to work. Yet here we have massive student unemployment in this province when we should be building public buildings to provide employment, both temporary and permanent, and on the one hand we have our young people being lambasted publicly by politicians, that they're always looking for welfare or unemployment insurance. The fact is they can't get jobs, and when the government has an opportunity at least to create summer jobs, they won't borrow money to pay the students to work in summer employment. But apparently down the road, through this bill, it's all right to borrow $200 million.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are just so many examples where the government — not just this government, governments in many jurisdictions — makes policy statements and claims that imply one thing, and days or weeks or months later they turn around and do the opposite. I've got to the point where I no longer feel that it's at all easy to reason with young people these days when they come up with this cynical criticism that politics is just a great big farce and that politicians are the most unreliable people that they're likely to deal with.

When I see this kind of bill contradicting some basic election promises and even contradicting financial policy outlined in this House by nobody less than the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) just a few weeks ago, I just have to ask: how could citizens be anything else but cynical and non-trusting in the light of the government's actions compared to its words?

The last point I want to make is a smaller one than the three that are so crucial to this bill, but I do feel that particularly the first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf), long before he ever became a member in this House, quite rightly publicized the fact that the city of Victoria was losing in excess of a million dollars in municipal tax revenue by receiving 15-mill grants in lieu of taxes from the provincial government for those buildings owned by the government in the city of Victoria...

MR. LAUK: What did he say about that?

MR. WALLACE: ...and the first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) said he would fight to have that change made. I listened to his remarks this afternoon and he expressed a confidence that this bill would provide that much-desired change. But I notice that in the appropriate section of the bill the old escape hatch, so popularly used by governments, is employed in this bill. The word is that the Crown corporation may pay the municipality not in excess of the amount of money that would accrue through taxation rather than a grant in lieu of taxation. Again, Mr. Speaker, the observer, the young person, the cynic, entering into, say, a private agreement with another party, and if the other party told the individual, "Yes, we shall pay you; we guarantee that you will get the tax amount of money and not a grant," the individual would surely, in good faith, make it mandatory in the language used in the bill. It's not a question of "may pay" the appropriate amount of tax that would apply to any other owner but "shall pay" or "will pay." But here again we have a section in the bill which appears to correct an unfair tax situation which applies to the city of Victoria and to some other municipalities, but, in appearing to solve the difficulty, the government still leaves itself the little escape hatch through the use of one word, and that little word being "may" rather than "shall."

So right through this bill, and in many respects, I can see why management of public buildings is becoming of increasing importance — simply because government is becoming larger. We have, in the last two or three years, new departments of government — Consumer Services and Housing — and there is no doubt that a very important responsibility of government is its management of government buildings and the space, leased or owned, in which government employees will be working. I am not disputing for a moment the importance of that responsibility.

What I am saying is that there is no need whatever, in my view, for one more Crown corporation. On that basis alone, I just don't buy this bill at all. There is no need for another Crown corporation by this government. Secondly, it is such a contradiction of the concept of reducing big government when in fact it goes ahead and enlarges big government.

Thirdly, I personally think the people of British Columbia are insulted by this kind of bill after all the harangue we have had from this government about what a terrible sin it is to borrow money and probably get into a deficit position. These positions have been very clearly defined as being government policy during our budget debate.

It seems to me that if the government has changed its mind, as it is entitled to do, and now believes that maybe sometimes a deficit is not such a terrible thing, and that if many people on lower moderate incomes are about to be seriously penalized by the implementation of the government budget, and that maybe budgeting for a deficit to save some of that or prevent some of that hardship is a good thing, let's have it out in the open. Why come in the back door with a bill like this that can get a deficit of $200 million? Let's get the money spent out in the open for the services which will incur the deficit. These services might be in the hospital or education or other social services field.

But it is a very shortsighted person, Mr. Speaker, who would fail to see that this is doing through the back door what the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) so utterly condemned as being reasonable and

[ Page 2193 ]

advisable through the front door. For these various reasons, Mr. Speaker, I find it very clear cut, in the light of my personal views and the position of our party, in trying to reduce the size of government and reduce the power of government and to have financing of all government affairs related to the way in which the money is raised and spent and not having some rather subtle and devious capacity to borrow a lot of money through a bill dealing with public works.... I just think that is misleading and unfair and a contradiction of all that this government says it stands for. For these various reasons I strongly oppose this bill.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): We have had about three hours of a good debate on Bill 23 and I will now try and summarize some of the things that were said.

I did have something to say about this bill the other night, and obviously nobody was listening. I know that the official opposition... I don't think they were even in the House on the introduction. First of all, this bill provides for up to $200 million, if required. It's been asked in the debate if this is all going to be spent. I think the Liberal leader said that this provides for $200 million to be spent this year. That is not the case at all; this is for over a period of time, and certainly not all in the year 1976, as he referred to.

MR. WALLACE: But it could be, though.

HON. MR. FRASER: I would like to point out to the House that this government finds that already $170 million of this $200 million is committed to buildings that are under construction. I refer to downtown Vancouver building and the two buildings in the city of Victoria. So we're already committed there. This was a commitment of the prior government, and no provision was made whatsoever for the funding. That's what this bill does — fund that.

MR. LAUK: Nonsense!

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, there was absolutely no provision made by them, and this provides for that. If this had not happened, these structures would have had to cease. In the downtown Vancouver building, as an example, $25 million was...

MR. LAUK: Hogwash!

HON. MR. FRASER: ...in there when we took power — a big hole in the ground, full of concrete and pipes. I don't think this House wanted to see that happen, and that's exactly what would have happened without Bill 23, in regard to the downtown building.

As a matter of fact, while we're talking about deficits and all the rest of it, while the new government inherited a $541 million deficit, this $170 million commitment was not considered in that. Maybe we should add it to the $541 million that's already revealed; then it will show that it's over $700 million.

The other thing this bill shows is a complete change-around, that each department of government is now going to be charged back for the rental they request. I'm sure that's going to make each department of government a lot more responsible than has been the case in the past — whether it is the last three years or the last 50 years, as far as that's concerned.

I notice that very few referred to that, but that is one of the big principles in this bill. Up till now the individual departments of government have requested space from the department of Public Works. It's been billed and they have absorbed all the cost, whether it be rental or otherwise.

I might say that a lot of discussion has taken place that this is deficit financing. I would suggest to you that it isn't deficit financing at all; it is self-supporting.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: It will amortize itself. It provides for financing over a period of 30 years, and there is a place for the funds to come from to repay the money that's raised. And that's from the revenue rental provided from the individual department.

MR. WALLACE: Why don't you answer the questions on the order paper, Alex?

MR. LAUK: A self-supporting debt! (Laughter.)

MR. COCKE: No visible means of support, you mean. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I might say that it was particularly interesting to listen to members of the official opposition. I think it was the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) who said that this was identical to a bill they had drafted. As far as I know, we had no knowledge of that whatsoever. I think that was what he was more or less dreaming about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Embarrassing, isn't it?

HON. MR. FRASER: A lot of discussion took place in the debate this afternoon regarding expropriation. What I will say on that is that it is in the Public Works Act now, and as this does transfer

[ Page 2194 ]

some of the powers of the Public Works Act, that's all it's doing here.

MR. LEA: Why the Highways Act?

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, this is no different than what exists in the other Act.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

HON. MR. FRASER: There is another thing that I'd like to make clear. I believe the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) and two or three other members of the opposition said that there were 600 or 700 people who were going to lose their jobs in Public Works. I want to assure the members of this House, Mr. Speaker, that no one in Public Works or any other place will lose his job because of Bill 23.

MR. LAUK: That's what your Premier told us before, and he went back on it.

HON. MR. FRASER: The other thing that's been discussed here is the payment of taxes. This bill does provide that it may pay....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right — may pay.

HON. MR. FRASER: The observation I have is that that would legalize it if that is government policy, which has not been determined so far. As a matter of fact, the payment of taxes by provincial governments would not come through this portfolio at all. I believe it would come through the portfolio of the Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: If that does happen, this bill provides that that could happen, that provincial taxes would be paid.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, it's worse than I thought.

MR. LAUK: Rotate.

HON. MR. FRASER: I think that we've had enough on this bill, Mr. Speaker, (laughter) and I move that the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

MR. GIBSON: It hasn't had second reading yet, Alex.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, Hon. Minister, would you move that the bill be read a second time now, so we can get that motion first?

HON. MR. FRASER: I move that the bill be read a second time now.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 38

NAYS — 2

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 23, British Columbia Corporation Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on Bill 15, Mr. Speaker.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

(continued)

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): If I may, I would move adjournment of the debate on behalf of my colleague for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

Interjections.

MR. KING: The Provincial Secretary's (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) not even here. It's her bill.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

[ Page 2195 ]

MR. LAUK: Disgraceful, iron-heeled government!

MR. NICOLSON: Skippy-dipper! (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 15 has been called.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, in light of the government's lack of cooperation and their apparently repeated intention to ignore the Whip system in this House, I have no hesitation in speaking to this bill, and I'm sure my colleague from Alberni will be back when the continuation comes before the House again.

We heard a great deal, during the election campaign, from the government regarding the need for restraint in government expenditures, regarding the need for cutback in the salaries of members of this House and, at that time, cutbacks in the salaries for all senior civil servants. I pointed out, in previous discussions in this House, that while equitable cutbacks in salaries I think would be generally supported in the province, these cutbacks have to be seen as equitable and even-handed if any credence is to be paid to them at all.

I find it curious that this bill omits any indication of dealing with the salaries of government-appointed hacks, which this coalition government has appointed in great measure — in exceedingly large numbers. I point out that there's nothing in this bill, Mr. Speaker, which indicates a desire to cut back on government appointees such as the man Weeks, whom we've heard about before, who was appointed as a consultant in the Minister of Economic Development's (Hon. Mr. Phillips') office to a position that that minister was unable to explain, performing a function that the minister could in no way justify. I see nothing in this bill directed towards a cutback or a rollback for that kind of expense to the government. I see nothing in this bill that deals with the large staff which the Premier has hired in his office — a larger staff, at larger salaries, than was utilized by the former Premier (Mr. Barrett) of this province and roundly criticized by the Premier when he was Leader of the Opposition.

It's another mark like the previous bill, Mr. Speaker, of total inconsistency on the part of that coalition government; another indication that their election campaign promises are being totally ignored or, at best, dealt with in a token way, which is all that is represented in this bill. It's a token reduction in the salaries of members of this House for the period of one year, which is fine if the government is serious about it, which is fine if they are prepared to really do something that is meaningful in terms of the economy of this province. But if there was that kind of dedication, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that not only members of this House would be called upon to show that restraint but certainly senior members of the ministers' staffs as the Premier promised. I ask why there is a complete omission of any such provision in this particular Act.

Once again, it is the same conclusion that we had to draw from our debate on the previous bill, a commitment that the coalition party was prepared to make to try to woo the electorate at election time without any intention whatsoever of carrying through on the commitment they made.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, about the expense of printing such a document. I wonder if the expense of printing this document, utilizing the time of the House and distributing the bill and the time of legislative counsel, is not a greater expense than any saving that will be realized through the passage of this bill — a totally silly gesture, in my view, on the part of the government, devoid of any intention or any real meaning in terms of affecting the economic health of this province. These are the kinds of things that I think the people of the province see through. I believe that they understand that it is a rather phony gesture of appearing to fulfill a campaign promise without any substance to it whatsoever.

Mr. King moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table documents which were mentioned in the question period relating to the dispute in the B.C. Ferries system.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we adjourn, I have a statement to make to the House.

Hon. members, subsequent to oral question period today the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) sought to move adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance pursuant to standing order 35, namely an imminent strike of the employees of B.C. Ferries. I reserved my ruling on the matter.

I refer hon. members to an identical situation which occurred on February 15, 1968, which is recorded in the Journals of the House, 1968, page 62. On that occasion Mr. Speaker quoted May, 17th edition, page 365, and pointed out that a motion under standing order 35 must not be offered when facts are in dispute or before they are available. He stated that while a strike vote may result in the interruption of the ferry service between the mainland and Vancouver Island, the House had been advised that discussions were presently underway in this matter, and accordingly he ruled that he would allow the motion to be postponed without prejudice.

[ Page 2196 ]

Accordingly, I think it appropriate that I should similarly allow the motion to be postponed without prejudice to the member's right to renew that matter should a strike, in fact, occur.

MR. KING: Just on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When this matter was raised earlier during the question period, Mr. Speaker indicated that there were statutory provisions that would allow the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) to deal with this matter. I don't know precisely what Mr. Speaker had in mind, but I would hope that no such consideration coloured the Speaker's ruling, because I do not believe that there is any statutory provision whatsoever which would empower the Minister of Labour to intervene in the probability of a strike.

MR. SPEAKER: I am well aware of the statutes, Hon. Member. There was no thought in mind other than the rulings that we have to deal with, the question that was raised by the hon. member for Oak Bay and the actual decisions that we have before us. As you will note in my ruling, it is just a matter of not prejudicing the hon. member's right to raise the matter at the proper time if, in fact, a strike does take place.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.