[ Page 3293 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Provide for the Payment of Local Taxes by the British Columbia Railway

(Bill M 211) Mr. Gibson.

Introduction and first reading –– 3293

Oral questions.

Ministry of Mines submission to royal commission on BCR. Mr. Lea –– 3293

B.C. government representation at Destiny Canada conference. Mr. Gibson –– 3294

Ferry schedule on July 1 holiday. Mr. Barber –– 3295

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Highways and Public Works estimates.

On vote 146.

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3296

Mr. Barnes –– 3298

Mr. Barber –– 3302

Mr. Wallace –– 3306

Ms. Sanford –– 3309

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3310

Mr. Gibson –– 3311

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3312

Mr. Barber –– 3313

Hon. Mr. Fraser 3314

Mr. Wallace –– 3319

Royal assent to Bills –– 3320

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Highways and Public Works estimates.

On vote 146.

Mr. Wallace –– 3320

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3321

Mr. Barnes –– 3322

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3325

Mr. Barber –– 3327

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3328

Privilege

Alleged tampering with Public Accounts committee witness.

Mr. Speaker's ruling –– 3328

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): In the galleries today I have a few friends: Tim and Carol Dumphey from Quesnel; the mayor of Quesnel, John Panagrot; Alderman Albert Johnston from Quesnel; the administrator, Tony Green; and Mr. David Hopkins, the director of the Cariboo Regional District. I'd like the House to welcome them.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE

PAYMENT OF LOCAL TAXES BY

THE BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY

On a motion by Mr. Gibson, Bill M 211, An Act to Provide for the Payment of Local Taxes by the British Columbia Railway, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, I shall be asking leave of this House later this afternoon to make a statement regarding my trip to Ottawa last week on business connected with the Railwest manufacturing plant in Squamish. The reason I'm not making a statement at this time is that I am still awaiting more information from Ottawa which has a bearing on the matter of orders for Railwest.

MR. SPEAKER: Was that not a statement? I take that as a prelude to a statement that will be made later this afternoon, hon. minister.

Oral questions.

MINISTRY OF MINES SUBMISSION

TO ROYAL COMMISSION ON BCR

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Mines: did the Ministry of Mines prepare and submit a brief to the royal commission looking into the British Columbia Railway?

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Yes.

MR. LEA: Did the minister approve that brief before it was submitted to the royal commission?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes.

MR. G, S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Could you expand on that?

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, supplemental. While testifying in front of the royal commission, the chief geologist for the department, Athol Sutherland Brown, testified under oath that no worthwhile copper development will take place in B.C. for the next 20 years. Can the minister. explain to the House why he has been forecasting the building of two world-scale copper smelters in B.C. as part of the great Social Credit recovery programme, when he obviously had the departmental information available to him that he approved?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I haven't been forecasting the construction of two world-scale smelters in British Columbia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: Supplemental. Prior to making his statement on April 5, when he mentioned to the public in the first instance about the subsidy going to copper smelting, had the minister at that time consulted with the department? Had the minister consulted with the department about copper and the potential for copper prior to making that statement?

HON. MR. CHABOT: We're in effect prejudging a debate that will be taking place in the House very shortly regarding legislation. But the answer is yes, I am familiar with the copper reserves that exist in British Columbia - northwestern British Columbia and north central British Columbia. I know the potentials. The world economy has a great bearing on the possibilities of a smelter being constructed in British Columbia.

MR. LEA: A final supplemental. The minister said, when making that statement in the first part of April ... and I quote from the Vancouver Province: "Chabot said he believes B.C. could eventually support two world-scale smelters, probably one in the Highland Valley near Ashcroft and another in the northwestern part of B.C." Does the minister mean, in accordance with the chief geologist, that "eventually" means 20 years?

HON. MR. CHABOT: "Eventually" could be any period of time, depending on the world economy and world prices on copper.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, the minister has said that he approved the brief going to the royal commission which said it would be 20 years. He said he approved

[ Page 3294 ]

that. He also said that eventually it would happen. Now either he believes it will happen before the department thinks, which would be before 20 years, after 20 years or in 20 years.... Why did the minister say that it would happen eventually when he knew at the time that it would be 20 years? Why wasn't he more specific?

HON. MR. CHABOT: It could be less than 20 years.

B.C. GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATION

AT DESTINY CANADA CONFERENCE

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I have a question to the Premier with respect to the Destiny Canada conference held last week in Toronto, sponsored by the government of Ontario. Invitations went out to every provincial party in Canada, among others. Ontario was represented by its Premier. Quebec was represented by its Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs plus a couple of opposition MLAs. Three British Columbia provincial parties were represented by an MLA there, but not the government. Mr. Speaker, does the lack of a Social Credit MLA or minister give another indication of the generally neglectful and misguided approach of this government to the problems of national unity?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano can't ask a question without putting a political shot along with it. Yes, an invitation was received, but we believe that the future of Canada is important to all Canadians within the government service. We chose not a Social Credit card-carrying member, but a member of the Attorney-General's department for many years, Mr. Mel Smith, who has attended many constitutional conferences held by many Liberal governments over the years. We felt with his background he would be a worthy representative. As such, he was delegated to go and asked if he would go on our behalf.

MR. GIBSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Premier would tell us how many hours Mr. Smith was there.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to get that information and bring it back to the House. I don't have it at my fingertips. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) was originally invited to attend the conference, and Mr. Smith took his place. We could get that information for the member. I'm sure all of the members from this House would be willing to tell how many hours they spent at the conference.

MR. GIBSON: Supplementary, Mr. Premier. I think the Premier would maybe find that Mr. Smith was just stopping off on his way to the Attorney-General's conference. I would ask the Premier if he is still of the opinion that the problems of national unity in this country relate simply to economic problems of Quebec and not problems of a deeper and more cultural nature.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What was your question?

MR. GIBSON: That is a question. Do you still think it is just an economic problem?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, there are many problems facing Canada today that should be considered. To a large body of Canadians, the problems are economic. To the large number of unemployed, the problems are economic, and that is in many provinces across the country. There are also problems of regional alienation that have been present for many years in this country. I can remember that there has been a feeling for many years that we could have a better structure and a more responsive Canada with greater decentralization. Many Premiers over the years since I've been in this province, starting with Duff Pattullo, who is the first I can remember, took that tack in going to Ottawa.

I can remember Quebec and other provinces and other regions of Canada making the same complaints and the same concerns - not in a negative way, but as to how they could build the country. At the present time, I would say that to a large body of Canadians the problems are indeed economic to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bottom-line?

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Could the Premier answer this House as to whether Mr. Mel Smith was instructed as to the position of the government of the day on Confederation and whether Mr. Smith was instructed to say what the government's position was at that conference?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No and no.

MR. BARRETT: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the Premier not consider it a serious matter when all political parties, whether in government or in opposition, were asked to attend the conference for a political discussion about the future of this country? Does the government not consider it its responsibility, as the present government of the day in British Columbia, to be there stating what government policy was or is?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. Apparently the Leader of the Opposition is

[ Page 3295 ]

unaware of the billing of this conference and its purpose. It was to bring a conference of individual Canadians together.

MR. BARRETT: No!

HON. MR. BENNETT: As the government and representing the people we have a great opportunity. In fact, we have attended many conferences of an official and an unofficial nature with other governments in Canada and with the federal government. But this conference was designed to deal with Canadians from all walks of life. It wasn't to invite political parties as such.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, it was!

HON. MR. BENNETT: It was to invite individuals to give their thoughts on Confederation. . . .

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It was sponsored by the....

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Nonsense!

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's not nonsense! The people of this country have a great deal to say as individuals. When the member for New Westminster says that those who belong to political parties are the only ones with an answer, he says more about himself than he says about anything else in this country.

Most Canadians do not belong to a political party, nor are they forced to contribute because they also happen to be in the labour work force. Most of them are individuals and they have strong thoughts on the future of this country. I disagree with the member for New Westminster who says that his party has all the answers, because in three-and-a-half years they proved they have no answers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: I asked the Premier of the province what the government-of-the~day's position is and I did not ask for a political tirade,

I ask the Premier in a supplementary: is the Premier prepared to say to this House that the opportunity presented itself to correct the impression that the government's policy was as stated by the Attorney-General of Point Grey (Hon. Mr. Gardom) in saying, "withhold equalization payments, " or the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) who said that he was tired of reading French on cornflakes boxes? Does the Premier not see this as a government responsibility to state the government's position on Confederation?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition again has twisted statements made by others. The statements he said were not what the Minister of Human Resources said, and that's nonsense - just nonsense. The Leader of the Opposition takes a statement and twists it to whatever he wants to believe.

This government, Mr. Speaker, has gone to the government of Canada not in a political way, but to try and bring this province into Confederation -something that wasn't done under that previous government. We have achieved more agreements and more accord in trying to bring the country together than has happened in many years. Mr. Speaker, our actions speak louder than words, and the actions of this government have been to bring Canada closer together. In fact, our very record in the 18 months we've been government in relations with the government of Canada proves that British Columbia has never been stronger or a stronger part of Canada, and our future will be as part of Canada. A strong British Columbia will mean a stronger Canada.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby South): The Premier stated it was not a political conference. A simple question to the Premier: why then were politicians invited?

HON. MR. BENNETT: It may surprise the member for Burnaby North but some people still consider politicians people. (Laughter.)

FERRY SCHEDULE ON

JULY 1 HOLIDAY

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I have just a couple of very easy questions for the Minister of Transport responsible for B.C. Ferries. They are very simple. Was the minister aware that Friday, July 1, was a public holiday in Canada?

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I didn't realize it was so difficult. I'd appreciate an answer. Was the minister aware that Friday, July I... ?

MR. SPEAKER: It's a facetious question, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: It is not a facetious question, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Put it on the order paper.

[ Page 3296 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: What day is Christmas?

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member has a question relating to the July I holiday, proceed.

MR. BARBER: Well, assuming, Mr. Speaker, that the minister, by his silence, was not, let me tell him that it was indeed Dominion Day in this country.

My second question: was the minister aware that Friday, July 1, was the beginning of this year's summer schedule for B.C. Ferries?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARBER: Thank you. The next easy question is: given that Friday, July 1, was a public holiday and Friday, July 1, was the beginning of summer schedule for B.C. Ferries, did it occur to the minister that on Thursday, June 30, the traffic really might be very heavy and that some special precautions might want to be taken, some special planning be taken into consideration to run extra sailings in order that those citizens on Vancouver Island who were leaving on Thursday for the public holiday 1 which the minister agrees occurred on the Friday might have a chance to get off the Island?

HON. MR. DAVIS: On June 30, heavy traffic was expected. Extra sailings were scheduled. At one terminal there was congestion; that was Swartz Bay -people leaving the Victoria area. Otherwise there were no problems and certainly there was excess capacity on the Nanaimo run.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Before calling the committee, Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of the House that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor will be coming at 5 o'clock tonight for royal assent for some bills. There will be a short recess and then we'll resume estimates following that.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): A point of order, Mr. Speaker, you took a question of....

MR. SPEAKER: I think if the hon. member is referring to a matter of privilege, he would have heard my announcement in the House Thursday last, and also the fact that I met following the session Thursday with the Whip of the official opposition who asked me to defer any decision until the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) is in his place.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC WORKS

On vote 146: minister's office, $158,130.

HON. MR. FRASER: I would like to make a few introductory remarks before we go on to this very important vote.

First of all, I would like to say that the Ministry of Highways and Public Works has a catch-up programme going on throughout the province in highway construction. It's taking place in every area of the province: in the northwest, the northeast, central B.C., the lower mainland, the coast, Vancouver Island, the Okanagan and the Kootenays. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the largest highway programme in the history of British Columbia is now going on.

We are trying to accommodate the ever-increasing traffic that continues to use the highway system, as well as to provide employment for our citizens. We are building new roads, rebuilding old roads, four-laning inadequate two-lane roads, repaving worn-out existing paved roads. We are also building new bridges and redecking many old bridges. We are also building a lot of passing lanes to cut down on the congested two-lane roads.

We are presently constructing and paving approximately 1,550 miles of highway in the province of British Columbia.

It has been stated that this government has done nothing about unemployment. Mr. Chairman, that is not so. Because of the stepped-up highway programme, an additional 3,500 people are now working who would not have been working if it had not been for the stepped-up highway programme.

MR. LAUK: Including you!

HON. MR. FRASER: Right! These 3,500 people directly employed in highway construction have probably created another 3,500 jobs in support industries. Of the 3,500 additional people who are employed, 1,300 of these are Individual owners of equipment. We also have their equipment at work in the form of trucks, graders, front-end loaders, tractors and so on.

I'm happy to inform you, Mr. Chairman, and the House that 1,000 students are reporting for work today, and they will work until the end of August. They are doing various jobs in construction and maintenance in all areas of the province.

Mr. Chairman, because of the stepped-up highway programme we are running into some problems at the present time. There is a shortage of heavy-duty mechanics and there is also a shortage of construction foremen with experience. It was only a year ago that the road-building industry in British Columbia had a

[ Page 3297 ]

35 per cent unemployment rate. This highway programme started last fall and continued during the winter. Last winter more road work was accomplished because of the mild winter than had ever been done in the history of the province. I am referring not to maintenance work but reconstruction work. We had an excellent winter throughout the province which helped us to go right through until breakup, Of course, during the breakup period, with different timing all over the province, we had to suspend work for a short time.

This highway programme, Mr. Chairman, will continue as long as the weather permits until our highway system is brought up to a better standard than it has been in the past. We have to step up and catch up because of the ever-increasing traffic volume. I believe the average increase is about 8 per cent per year. In spite of the high cost of fuel and so on, the increase in traffic on our highway system has not slowed down.

I'm sure there will always be a lot of work to do on our highway system. We will continue to do our best to keep up. We cannot afford to neglect the highway system because it's so important to every facet of our lives in the province.

I have said before but I will repeat again in the House, Mr. Chairman, that we'll be going metric by Labour Day. All of our speed zones and so on will have been converted to metric if everything goes according to plan. They want the metric highway signs, speed zones, and so on, done prior to the opening of the new school term following Labour Day.

It was announced in the throne speech that we would build the new route of the Coquihalla from Hope to Merritt, and I would just like to advise the committee that this route is now being studied. The environment studies are going on, some surveying is going on, and we might possibly call a contract this fall. I really don't think so - it will probably be towards spring before we can - but it is the intention of the government to go ahead with this as soon as possible.

I would like to make a few other observations. Regarding highway maintenance, I believe in your estimate books there's a vote there of roughly $130 million. These are the people who grade the roads in the summertime and do the snow piling in the winter. I would just like to say, as the minister responsible, that we're not very happy with the productivity on the maintenance section and we're looking at ways to improve the productivity. I don't like in any way to criticize the men out there who have to work hard in inclement weather and so on, but I really feel strongly that we could get a little better productivity than we're getting.

As far as I'm concerned, I have traveled thousands of miles over our highway system. I haven't covered it all yet, but I hope before the end of this year that I'll be able to say that I've seen every remote road we have in British Columbia as well as the freeways.

One point that I feel quite strongly about, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that we have so many communities in British Columbia with congestion caused by arterial highways. Many of these communities in B.C. are being strangled by highway traffic. This minister is trying to do something about this. As minister I have met almost all mayors and councils in British Columbia on an individual council basis. We have given them planning advice and financial support, but we have a long way to go to resolve this serious problem of arterial highways going through or close to our communities. These municipalities must make some hard decisions themselves, not leave them all to the Highways ministry. Alternate routes must be developed through these communities other than the arterial highways. The days are gone when these communities rely only on their arterial highways to look after local traffic as well as highway traffic. We'll help these communities with planning and financing, but the councils of the communities must make the final decision where these alternate routes are to be located. We will help with that, but it is in their communities and that's why I say they must make the final decisions.

Mr. Chairman, I'm very disappointed that many councils in the province have not made these decisions. Some have, but many have not. Where no decisions have been made, these communities are now strangled by the density of traffic. It is so bad in some communities that pedestrians cannot cross from one side of the highway to the other in safety. It is affecting the economic life of these communities. I repeat, we cannot wait much longer in many communities for decisions to be made to relieve this serious problem. These problems will not go away, as the traffic volumes will continue to increase.

Our citizens are fed up with the lack of decision-making by their elected representatives. I say to the councils in British Columbia: if you do not make some decisions about these serious traffic problems in your communities now, you will not be around to make them, because you'll be rejected by the same people who elected you to make these decisions. The Highways ministry will help you financially and with planning, but in your communities you must make the final decision on the alternate routes.

Those are a few remarks regarding the Highways portion of my responsibility, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to say a few words regarding the Public Works section. As you are aware, last year in the Legislature the ministries of Highways and Public Works were combined into one ministry, the Ministry of Highways and Public Works. I have given you a short report on the Highways portion and I would just like

[ Page 3298 ]

to deal briefly with the Public Works portion.

The B.C. Buildings Corporation is now responsible for the construction and maintenance of all provincial buildings. However, this ministry will provide an administrative service during the phasing-in period of the corporation. The safety inspection division will continue to operate within the Ministry of Highways and Public Works.

The B.C. Buildings Corporation will provide more accountability by the various ministries. Each ministry for the first time must justify their requests for space to the Treasury Board before BCBC will proceed to acquire the space, either from the private sector or by building a new building. Following approval by the Treasury Board, the space is then acquired by BCBC and the ministry is given the amount per month they must pay in advance to BCBC for rent. This has been reflected for the first time in each ministry's estimates this year, as you have seen as we've proceeded through the estimates so far. All provincial government buildings, with the exception of the parliament buildings and Government House, are being transferred to the B.C. Buildings Corporation.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure the members of this House and all citizens of British Columbia will be interested to know that the value of land and buildings being transferred from the provincial government to the B.C. Buildings Corporation is $429 million. Land values are $153 million of this and building values are $276 million.

At the present time, there is approximately $70 million under contract by Public Works and BCBC for provincial buildings. There are 679 persons presently employed on these projects. It is one of the largest expenditures for public buildings in one year in the history of our province. These public buildings under construction are located in Victoria, Vancouver and Prince George.

Mr. Chairman, I have given the hon. members a brief over-view of the, activities which I have the honour to be responsible for. I look forward to the continuing debate and will do my best to answer your questions, Before I do, I would like to introduce the staff that's here. The deputy minister, Mr. Harvey, is on my right. I'll have to take a look who finally got here. Mr. John Pitcher, against the column at the back there, is the chief executive officer of the B.C. Buildings Corporation. Mr. Al Rhodes is assistant deputy minister, Highways and Public Works. Mr. Jim Dennison is assistant deputy minister and chief engineer, Ministry of Highways and Public Works. Mr. Stu Price is comptroller - Mr. Moneybags - Ministry of Highways and Public Works. Thank you.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): I have just a few brief remarks, Mr. Chairman. I don't recall having the opportunity to discuss the estimates of

Highways and Public Works last year. Alex, what happened? I should say, the member for Cariboo. Can you recall? Something happened. Were you sick or was I sick? I don't recall having had an opportunity this year of some pleasant hours with you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. BARNES: I would like to follow the minister and congratulate some of his new staff, particularly Mr. Pitcher, who I understand will be the new executive officer of the B.C. Buildings Corporation. I'll just suggest to the minister that I'm sure we'll be able to communicate as time goes on in discussing the many concerns that will be coming up respecting the responsibilities that he has. I hope that he will not lose that smile that lie always has and that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) will continue with the campaign because one of her leading aspirants for goodwill, I'm sure, is the hon. Minister of Highways and Public Works.

Now this is a vast department, really; one that we will have to take quite a bit of time on, I'm afraid, to get through all of the matters of concern. I would just like to pick out one specific concern that I've had for some time before we get into the long list of matters dealing with highways and public works. That's the development of the new B.C. Buildings Corporation. I'll go back to the original concept of that structure and that organization and ask you to indicate to the House the process that you employed in making that decision.

I do recall about a year ago we were discussing Bill 23, which is the number given to that legislation, the B.C. Buildings Corporation Act. At that time we were quite happy that the decision had been made, at least in principle, to create a new Crown corporation to deal more efficiently and economically with the matters of space allocation for the various ministries and perhaps the opportunity to exercise other efficiencies in respect to providing accommodation from time to time for the government.

I recall making a speech on this subject and suggesting that, really, the creation of this new Crown corporation was not that different from what a good socialist government would do because it was encouraging the public to take more responsibility for competing for the acquisition of land and the development of craftsmanship and professionalism within the public service - in other words, to utilize ordinary citizens in the work of the public rather than having to rely on outside assistance in the private sector.

I think, though, that we weren't fully aware at that time - about a year ago - exactly what the process would be; that is, just what the mechanics would be and how you intended to operate the Crown corporation as a principal method of dealing

[ Page 3299 ]

with the provision of public accommodation -buildings, lands, maintenance and what-have-you.

So what we were told in December, 1976 - at least we heard by way of a memo, 1 think, that your department issued to employees in the public service - was that the government was contemplating a reorganization and a rearranging of the basic structure of the Public Works department with a view to effecting more efficient methods of providing service and achieving a better system of accountability respecting the various needs of the ministries. At that time, 1 recall giving a tacit kind of concurrence, suggesting that public servants should be cautious with that suggestion, but as long as all things were equal and the government was assuming a responsible attitude in its approach, then there should be no problem. I don't think there was any reason at that time why public servants should be afraid of trying to improve a situation. Tax dollars are tax dollars and if we can become more efficient, then no employee should stand in the way of any suggestions or ideas which might achieve this.

About April of this year, the department issued a memo suggesting that a study had in fact been accomplished; that it was now at the formative stages of implementation; and that the employees were hereby being notified of impending changes that were going to occur. Many of them would have to be relocated, retrained and what-have-you. Some could have the option of retiring if they didn't find that they could fit into the system and so forth and so on. Now this was affecting some 2,200-odd employees of which the new corporation - the new structure, the new organization - was going to have the capacity to absorb some 1,100 or so.

Well, naturally, the question arose among the many persons affected as to which ones would be fortunate enough to be included in that 1,100 or so positions, and what was going to happen to those who were unfortunate enough to be excluded. 1, as the critic for your department on the opposition side, received many requests to investigate. I began to ask questions to try to get some answers. People were mainly concerned about not having any idea about what the directions were and how they were arrived at. I know that the minister had suggested that there would be a special joint technical committee of some sort struck at the end of last year. It would be consulting with the various departments, divisions and branches. It would be talking to the various managerial and supervisory staff in the various departments to get feedback and recommendations so as to ensure that there was sufficient input. & whatever transition that would occur, it would happen without undue hardship on the part of anyone.

MY investigations indicated that very few supervisory staff had been contacted at the time the announcement was made and that people were indeed - to use the common cliché of today - very uptight about the future respecting themselves and their co-workers. I think that they were so much so that they were ready to start demonstrating and making demands on the ministry to give them answers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, except for a quick reference to the problem, perhaps it would be better debated when the bill which is presently before the House comes up for its debate in principle. It's Bill 66.

MR. BARNES: That's an amendment, is it not?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 5 of that addresses itself to the problem.

MR. BARNES: Is that not an amendment to the bill?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. BARNES: I'm not discussing the amendment. Bill 23 has already been passed, Mr. Chairman, in all due respect.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 66.

MR. BARNES: That's an amendment to the bill. We're not discussing the amendment to the bill. I know about that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the matter in question happens to be covered by that section. I would perhaps ask the member to read the section and see whether he doesn't come to the same conclusion.

MR. BARNES: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just trying to check to see what you were making reference to. I'm sure, with all due respect, that you were thinking of the bill that is on the order paper. That is not my concern at this stage, although I do think the bill, since you've raised it, is worth mentioning, because it is an improvement over the prior bill, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not proper to debate it in Committee of the Whole House.

MR. BARNES: Yes, that's why I was avoiding it! (Laughter.)

Well, the question which I'm getting to is really one of attitude on the part of the ministry. I'm trying to work around this slowly, Mr. Chairman, because this particular vote - vote 146 - deals with the office of the minister. It deals with the minister's

[ Page 3300 ]

philosophy, his concern and his general ability to work. He sets the mood for what's going to happen and this is why I am asking him how he went about arriving at the decision to create the B.C. Buildings Corporation in the first place. I wonder whose idea it was. I understand that Peat Marwick and partners had tried quite a few times to sell the idea to various governments. I don't know; I've never been in government and I've never received any proposals. But I understand that it was not a new idea and, in view of the kinds of things that have happened, I can certainly see why it may have been rejected if it were proposed to the previous government, although we had some ideas on how to go about improving the public service.

What I'm really getting down to is: what was the most important thing in achieving this new solution to effecting economy in the Public Works department? Was it to save money? Was it to create more accountability on the part of the ministries as far as their responsibility for the places they utilized or didn't utilize? I know there was a problem with departments opting for space and then not filling it. Since they didn't have to pay directly, they were perhaps being inefficient in the use of it and often wound up with space that wasn't being used.

But all that considered, what you've really created was a shock-wave right through the public service, affecting people who had been in the system for many years and who, in fact, understood and made a decision to become public servants at great personal sacrifice. Many of them are professional people who decided, because of the security, the tenure or the opportunity to do something for the public in an area which they felt was fulfilling and rewarding to them, to become public servants. All of a sudden they found that they could be wiped out overnight. In fact, that is what is going to happen, because those few who are going to go with the new B.C. Buildings Corporation will not be public servants any longer. Perhaps they will still be in a collective bargaining position by forming a new union, but they will certainly not be public servants. Who knows what may happen once they become full-time workers under this new Crown corporation? Their tenure, perhaps, would not be as secure as it might have been had they remained public servants. So here we have an example of some very profound technological changes, in the sense that there was a new thrust, a new direction and a new emphasis being placed on utilization of the public service worker, with the idea of instituting more austerity programmes and trying to balance the budget as part of the government's concern.

Another possibility, I was thinking, was the idea that the public service should be kept at a very bare minimum as a philosophical idea rather than one that is justified by any rational consideration or in terms of need. It looked to me as though it wasn't just dollars and cents as much as it may have been philosophy; you never came forward with a feasibility study, to my knowledge. Now there may be one that exists someplace, but I haven't seen it -nor have I seen it published. For instance no one has any idea about the best way to maintain an existing facility in terms of the crews which look after it with repair work, remodelling, or whatever else has to be done from time to time on a yearly basis, compared to its being done by the private sector.

There is no specific evidence to my knowledge that you've introduced to the House to prove your case. I would simply think that should be available. We should be able to look and see, by example, the kinds of savings you are going to make. That, Mr. Chairman, is a beginning of the kinds of questions that I think public servants have been asking. What the minister is saying by suggestion but not in words is that there are better ways of getting the same job done, and that is to rely on the private sector. "Take the same requirements to the private sector and it will be cheaper, " is really what the minister is suggesting.

I would like the minister to bring to the Legislature the documentation that he achieved when he did the study with the joint technical committee and others before the decision was made - that is, assuming it was a decision based on some rational approach to dealing with a serious problem such as economics, staff morale, the cost of land, managerial cost, dealing with the labour union or whatever. There must have been a number of reasons why the minister wanted to use this particular method of improving the whole problem of efficient use of space and affecting more economies within the public service as well as trying to balance the budget on behalf of the government. These are the questions that really should be asked because without them we don't know whether it was a good decision or a bad one.

I'm not here to criticize the government without facts. I've been asking this question all along, Mr. Chairman: on what grounds were the decisions made? Be specific, because we're talking about making a major change and deviating from a long-standing tradition where people have committed themselves to serve the public. In fact, I think you should take the position of the public servant and argue the need for public servants, just as a point of departure to try and illustrate the need for some fairly substantial arguments on both sides in order for us as legislators to seriously participate in the discussion of whether or not moneys are being well allocated to proceed in the development of a corporation that will be given a borrowing capacity of some $200 million and which will not be shown as a deficit, as far as the government is concerned, at the end of the year. If we're going to go along with this idea, then why can't

[ Page 3301 ]

we get the facts?

We know for a fact that the public service is essential. We know for a fact that public employees are essential. The problem, Mr. Chairman, is that maybe we don't really know how critical they are. What we have been used to doing is exploiting the public servant - in fact, making the public servant the scapegoat in many cases because they're so visible. People look upon the public servant as someone who is soft-pedaling it, who is getting something for nothing, who is trying to find the soft life - the once-you-become-a-public-servant-you-never-get-fired type of thing. There has been a lot of unfair hostility and animosity built up around the public service. Naturally a politician wanting to become popular will say, "we're going to get rid of all those bums" - just like our Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) getting rid of all those people on welfare.

But let's just think for a moment: is that a fair assessment of the public service - working people who are committed to the government and the community, who are dependable, consistent and reliable? 1 suggest that their case hasn't been told all that well.

As our society develops, Mr. Chairman, as we talk about private enterprise, developing the north, and developing our resources, we have to have support resources, we have to have support means. The minister is just talking about expanding the highways programmes, the building programmes - larger than ever at any time in the history of British Columbia. He's suggesting right there the need for highways and means of communication. There's a need for rail.

He's. suggesting right there that there is a need for highways and a railway to open up the inaccessible areas in order to encourage private enterprise and stimulate growth. These are done by public servants. These people are relied upon to provide back-up support work, and they have to be dependable. Then as we develop new communities, we need more public servants to do education, to provide social services, to do a number of tasks within the municipalities, transit being not the least, and so forth.

These are all public servants, people who are essential in the society, people who are doing work that receives very little remuneration and very little recognition as far as being the most popular thing you can do with your time. Quite often they're not permitted to participate in politics. They're told to be quiet and voice no opinion. They give up their civil liberties in many ways just by virtue of their commitment to the people, and then they're the first ones who are told: "We're going to shift you because you're the most unpopular.---

1 think that's an unjust system; it's certainly unhumanitarian, to say the least. It's about time we began to recognize and give some credit to the people who are the backbone of our system - the public servants. What's wrong with having a public servant who is proud of his work and who can come to work with pride and participate with a sense of dignity and with some respect and encouragement on the part of those people who are the overseers or the supervisors? Instead of making it appear as though we're trying to save money by cutting back and getting rid of them, why don't we encourage them to meet the challenge, Mr. Chairman?

The minister also indicated that he was a little disappointed in the yield from the efforts by some of these people, I believe, if I heard him correctly. He didn't suggest that they were all bad, like the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) did one time before he backtracked, but he did suggest that he would like to see an improvement.

I would just like to ask the minister: how are you going to resolve the problem that you've created? You now have a capacity at the new B.C. Buildings Corporation for some 1,200 people, in round figures, who are going to be relocated. This will leave you with approximately 800, more or less, that you have to deal with. Perhaps it was one of these quick from the hip shots, but you suggested at one point that there were 1,000 jobs being posted in the civil service per month, and that there should be no problem at all relocating these people. You were saying it at the time when there were some 112,000 people unemployed in the province. To be generous, let's say that there are only 90,000 unemployed today, but that's still pretty horrendous for those people who are unemployed. Now I'd like to hear it explained what you meant by that statement that there were 1,000 jobs being posted per month and that there should be no difficulty finding jobs for those other 800 people.

Also I would like you to explain if there was any plan to ensure that not just the economic security which you've said you would guarantee by red-lining the salaries of those people, Mr. Chairman, who were going to perhaps be relocated at jobs that may not be in line with what they were doing.... But besides the economic factors, what about the factors of ability, skill, capacity and challenge - the other qualities that people require as well? You can take a person who is doing lab work and give them the same salary to do maintenance work, but will that necessarily match up with that person's abilities? Or is this a concern? Are you thinking mainly of the job? We're back again to what the considerations were in making the change. Were you gaining or losing? Did you improve morale or did you do it a disservice? Have you really gained?

I think that you should not just weigh it in terms of economics but you should weigh it in terms of the human factors as well, which are important. It's about time that those of us who are making fiscal decisions began to consider some of the other

[ Page 3302 ]

implications of those decisions.

I've gotten to the point on the B.C. Buildings Corporation, its inception, and what is involved and going to be involved in it, where I have at least suggested to you that there are two sides to the story. So far we've been talking in theory because we've had no facts on the table from which to deliberate and debate this issue. There has been nothing presented on the table, to my knowledge, in the way of a feasibility study that has been comprehensive enough for all of us to take a shot at what you suggest will be an improvement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One minute.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I can't get into it before someone else speaks, I will be returning to suggest what I think some of the results might be from the new B.C. Buildings Corporation, notwithstanding a couple of the amendments that you have made to the bill, which I know we can't debate, but which I do think are a step in the right direction. So obviously you have been giving some thought to the problems that we've been suggesting. Without having to be reminded again, Mr. Chairman, I'll take my seat. After there has been some intervening business, perhaps I can come back to this question.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to congratulate the minister and thank him on behalf of the residents of Parkside Place in Victoria for his speedy willingness to meet them and consult with them. I would like to advise him that they are very pleased with the assurances they have received regarding safety barriers and noise diminution, and to remind him that as far as those residents are concerned, the door to financial compensation, should they be able to prove that losses have been suffered by the residents at that location, is still very much open, at least in their minds. All the same, I am appreciative, Mr. Chairman, of the fact that the minister was willing to meet with them so quickly and respond so rapidly to their concerns. I received a copy of his letter just this morning and I thank him for that. However, I'd like to express a somewhat more grave concern about the B.C. Buildings Corporation. A number of very interesting facts have come to our attention in the last several weeks which I think might be of concern to you, Mr. Chairman. A number of very interesting conclusions have been drawn by people who have finally realized that the British Columbia Buildings Corporation, for which the minister is responsible, is potentially the most dangerous bomb he's got ticking away in his hands. I'd like to predict that the B.C. Buildings Corporation is going to prove the major source of scandal in that minister's administration. There are a number of reasons for that and I'll outline them shortly.

I'd like to predict that the refusal of that minister to provide for public tendering procedures will lead to scandal and allegations of scandal throughout this province. I would like to predict that the refusal of this minister to accept amendments from this opposition when the bill was debated last year regarding public tender and public accountability will lead to charges of campaign debt payoffs. The minister will find himself in a position of extreme embarrassment over and over again.

I suspect, from the reputation the particular gentleman who holds the portfolio has, that he himself is not personally responsible for this. I suspect that he has been under orders to proceed with this corporation in the way that he has. I regret that he personally should be the one who will be the subject of those charges of conflict of interest, of campaign debt payment, and of private, under-the-table and undercover tendering procedures. By all accounts, Mr. Chairman, this particular individual who holds that portfolio is a very decent gentleman. I'm sorry that he should be the one who is going to get into so very much trouble when it becomes very clear that this government has undertaken a most foolish proceeding by establishing the B.C. Buildings Corporation.

What have they done to date? Well, they've managed to offend the staff within the Ministry of Public Works to such an extent that hundreds of them felt compelled to demonstrate on the steps of this Legislature short weeks ago. He has managed to offend senior staff in his own department. The extreme personal embarrassment of some of those people - and I won't mention names, but the minister knows darned well who they are - is a source of private - and no doubt, shortly, public - record.

He has managed to diminish and hurt the morale of people within his own department. He has managed to be criticized in the press for the first significant occasion because of his foolishness, in my view, in proceeding with the B.C. Buildings Corporation as he has done. He has left the door open to those charges of scandal and those allegations of misuse of funds by his refusal to permit public tendering and advertisement of contracts of tender. He has reduced his own department to a sham and to a shell. He has reduced his own department, according to his own words, from a present high of some 2,200 persons to an all-time low of 275 within a short while.

Now why would a minister do this, Mr. Chairman? What would be the purpose served by a man of his character - and I admire the man personally - doing this to himself? What is the purpose in reducing your department from 2,200 to 275 persons? What is the purpose in creating a Crown corporation that is not accountable to this Legislature in an ordinary and an

[ Page 3303 ]

open way? What is the purpose in creating a Crown corporation deliberately in such a manner as to ensure that this Legislature will not know after the fact, not the public in advance of the fact, who wins the tenders, the contracts, the rewards and the plums handed out by that corporation? The minister refused to accept our amendments to go to public tender and to write that into the bill. Needless to say, we've seen no such provision later on. Why would a man do that to himself? Why would he leave himself open to those charges?

Well, it seems to me fairly obvious that the minister is under orders to do so. It seems to me fairly clear that the coalition in power today is more interested in paying off campaign debts to their friends than in keeping campaign promises to the people.

I'd like to remind the minister of one of those promises. I wonder if he recognizes this ad, Mr. Chairman. It appeared in a paper in Victoria on November 28,1975: "A Message from Bill Bennett to the People of B.C.'s Public Service." The minister may remember it; the minister may have written it for all I know. Bill Bennett is alleged to have said:

"The very essence of an effective public service is to be above politics. That is our democratic system. It has been my experience that the vast majority of British Columbia's public servants are true professionals. You take pride in your work and I believe you want to work beside people of equal competence and efficiency no matter what political party they might support. An ugly rumour is circulating that a Social Credit government would make widespread cutbacks in public service personnel."

In bold face it says, Mr. Chairman:

"This is totally untrue. It would certainly be unbecoming of me as head of a new government to authorize such action."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, this hardly falls under the administrative responsibilities of the minister whose vote we are presently considering.

MR. BARBER: Well, I believe it does, Mr. Chairman, because we've seen this minister responsible for reducing his department from 2,300 people to 275 people, which, in my view, is - at least on the surface, but more subtly and more dangerously underlying it - contradicted by the campaign promise of his own Premier, whose advertisement I'm presently reading. The advertisement is almost concluded. I'm not, because I have some more questions of the minister.

Mr. Bennett, in that advertisement of November 28,1975, said.... I'll conclude it; it's only two more sentences: "It would certainly be unbecoming of me as head of a new government to authorize such action. Indeed our first goal would be to work with the public service to assess its needs and further its values. Signed, Bill Bennett."

This corporation has had the effect of contradicting publicly and irremediably the campaign promise of that coalition - the campaign promise made, at least in my own city, to the public servants - that jobs would not be lost, that security would not be threatened, that careers would not be damaged. Why would a minister put himself in such a spot? Is it possible that it's more important to these guys to pay off campaign debts than it is to honour campaign promises?

Let's review what he's done to the department. He has reduced it from some 2,200 persons to 275. All that will be kept within the department are the divisions of safety engineering and the Glendale laundry. That's it; that's all that's left. There is no more Department of Public Works, Mr. Chairman. They have two functions: safety engineering and the Glendale laundry. No more.

Now the budget for the Department of Public Works, it has been anticipated, will be further reduced from $96 million to $6 million. That's all that's left of the department. Indeed, the minister, when making the announcement of the formation of the B.C. Buildings Corporation, indicated that he expected some 800 persons would lose their jobs presently within the department through the process of transfer and he further anticipated that outside contracts of various kinds would be awarded to private contractors to pick up the slack.

This government, Mr. Chairman, campaigned on the promise of making Crown corporations more accountable. I have already predicted that this corporation will be the source of major scandal and major ridicule during the hopefully short life of this coalition. One of the reasons for that is the failure and the refusal of this minister to allow public tendering to take place within his own corporation.

Now if it's possible, Mr. Chairman, that this minister simply didn't realize what it means to refuse to go to public tenders and what it implies to be committed to a private, behind-closed-doors, under-the-table procedure, then maybe his own boss, the Premier, might have found some way to get around that blindness on his part. Sure enough, the Premier introduced Bill 52, which is the Crown Corporations Reporting Act. The purpose of that Act, as the Premier has told us, is to bring into this House, and to a committee of it, accountability in an open and clear way of those Crown corporations which are responsible for spending public moneys and which likely might be subject to the charges of interference and to hints of scandal.

When we look at the schedule of Crown corporations to report under Bill 52, Mr. Chairman,

[ Page 3304 ]

which corporations do we find listed? Well, as I read it, we find listed the B.C. Ferry Corporation, B.C. Hydro, the B.C. Railway, the Housing Corporation of British Columbia, ICBC, and that's it.

Conspicuously absent from the list of corporations to be responsible to this House is the British Columbia Buildings Corporation. Let me ask the question again, Mr. Chairman: why would this minister hold himself open to such charges of scandal and payoffs, and why further does this government refuse to list the B.C. Buildings Corporation under its much-vaunted and much-boasted-about Bill 52, the Crown Corporations Reporting Act? Is it possible that they don't want this Legislature to know in advance what that corporation is intending or to advertise to the public in advance a tendering procedure which is understood and not the subject of back-room deals, and to ensure after the fact that this Legislature once again has no opportunity to criticize and to debate?

Sure enough, no provisions for public tender are found in the bill itself. Sure enough, the corporation itself is conspicuously absent from the list of corporations in the schedule, as reported in Bill 52 on the floor of this House.

Why does the minister do these things to himself? He has offended his own staff and diminished their morale. He has been criticized in the press over and over again. He's left the door open to scandal and charges of scandal. He's reduced his own department to a sham and to a shell, and he's now ensured, as a member of that cabinet, that the B.C. Buildings Corporation will not report under the new Crown Corporations Reporting Act.

Why does he take such risks, Mr. Chairman? Doesn't he understand what happened to previous Ministers of Highways when they took risks in this province? Doesn't he recall, Mr. Chairman, what happened when a previous Social Credit administration tried to run government like that? Doesn't he recall in that state to the south of us what happened when politicians in power tried to keep these things from the public and from the press?

Mr. Chairman, any minister is a fool who would embark on such a series of steps as this minister has, unless, Mr. Chairman, it is a calculated risk and unless this minister is under orders. It's my suspicion that he's under orders. I don't believe that this particular man would do these things on purpose because I believe in the character and honour and the integrity of this particular man who is widely regarded as one of the most honest and gentlemanly members of this House. He is not the sort of character who would write this kind of bill or who would maladminister this kind of corporation in such a way as we've seen. I believe he's under orders, Mr. Chairman, and there's only one source of those orders. That's the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I trust the hon. member will soon move off the debate on the bill, which is totally out of order in committee ...

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I'm debating the corporation which is now in existence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. ...and will move soon to points on the administrative capacity of the minister. Please proceed. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano on a point of order.

MR. GIBSON: My point of order is as follows: the B.C. Buildings Corporation is a government body in existence, and I would suggest that the hon. member has every right to discuss that existing government body.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me just review for the members again those matters that are not provided for, as far as debate material is concerned, during Committee of Supply.

"Estimates do not afford the proper opportunity for discussing from which House of Parliament a minister should be chosen, or whether he should be in the cabinet or not, or which minister should represent the government in respect of the estimates under consideration. The administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation can only be discussed in Supply on a substantive motion. Nor can the actions of those high public servants whose conduct can only be criticized upon substantive motions."

Committee of Supply does not provide for a wide-ranging debate on matters which require substantive motion or matters for which a debate has already been in matters of legislation. I have been very, very lenient and must draw these matters to the members' attention. That is page 725 of the 18th edition, just for members' reference. Please proceed.

MR. BARBER: If I may, I'd like to continue discussing this minister's responsibility for the B.C. Buildings Corporation, keeping in mind what you've just said. If I fall out of line, I hope to be reminded of it.

I'd like to read into the record, Mr. Chairman, as part of this prediction which I am making today -that this will be the major source of scandal in that minister's administration - an editorial which appeared in The Vancouver Sun at the time when the minister was promoting the creation of the B.C. Buildings Corporation, because it's quite remarkable how prescient this editorial has proved to be. It's called, appropriately enough, "Roll Out The Barrel." That seems a reasonable title for an editorial on the

[ Page 3305 ]

B.C. Buildings Corporation, doesn't it? The editorial reads:

"Driving by the construction site of the new courthouse and provincial government office complex the other day, we spotted a new sign telling us what is being built there, and stating that it is a project of the B.C. Buildings Corporation under the responsibility of Highways and Public Works Minister Alex Fraser."

It goes on for a couple of paragraphs just to talk about the establishment of the B.C. Buildings Corporation. It goes on, as well, to say:

"We were also informed that an interim board of three directors has been appointed by the cabinet. They are: Mr. Fraser; Finance minister Evan Wolfe, who is also, according to the Act, BCDC's fiscal agent; and Consumer Services minister Rafe Mair. Their terms expire April 1,1977."

Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the contents of the present amendment to the bill in that regard.

"Well, isn't that just peachy?" the editorial entitled "Roll Out The Barrel" continues to say. "Here is the biggest potential pork-barrel in the province - a Crown corporation with authority to borrow up to $200 million - being run by a cosy little coterie of Social Credit cabinet ministers. According to the Act, a quorum is a majority of directors. At the moment, that's two. A majority of the quorum - what's that, Mr. Fraser and 100 tenths of Mr. Wolfe? - is enough to make decisions. There is no built-in guarantee anywhere that the millions of dollars that they spend will not be used to reward political friends of the government. Dangerous and stupid! A bad law that needs to be changed at the earliest available opportunity."

Have they changed it, Mr. Chairman? No, not at all, As of today, there are still no provisions for public tender within the B.C. Buildings Corporation. They've managed to alert and offend the press and managed to advise the press that this will be the source of more scandal and more charges of corruption than any other aspect of this minister's administration. I ask the question again: why does he do this to himself, Mr. Chairman?

The minister has managed to demoralize and frighten hundreds upon hundreds of citizens in my own constituency. In person, by phone and by correspondence I have received literally dozens of complaints from public servants within the present Ministry of Public Works, who are soon to be transferred to the B.C. Buildings Corporation, telling me what it's like to suffer under the false promises of this administration.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Name names.

MR. BARBER: If I had their permission, I would name their names.

MR. KAHL: Supply the list.

MR. BARBER: If I had their permission, I would do it.

I'm sure, however, that you remember the demonstration on the front steps of this Legislature, when hundreds of public servants within that minister's department came to protest their concern....

MR. KAHL: Put up or shut up!

MR. BARBER: . . . and to display their fear of this particular minister. It is not good enough, Mr. Chairman, that the minister, referring to Bill 23, tells us in Hansard on May 27,1976:

You might be interested to know that because of the funds that will be available from this bill in 1976, 1,000 jobs will be created, or certainly continued, which will not have been possible without this bill. In 1977, it will create 1,500 jobs; in 1978,700 jobs; and when we get into the year, we hope to complete the downtown Vancouver building. in 1979,500 jobs will be created.' '

Well, assuming any of that's accurate, and I've yet to see the proof of it, that's hardly comfort to the hundreds and hundreds - perhaps 800 to 1,100 - of public servants within the Ministry of Public Works whose jobs are now very much on the line courtesy of that minister's unwillingness to buck orders from higher up. In the House, during debate on that bill and referring to job security under the B.C. Buildings Corporation, at page 2194, May 31,1976:

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 2 3.

That's what the minister said. I remind you that this is what the Premier said. I will advise this House that between 800 and 1,100 persons simply cannot find it in their hearts to believe what either of them have said.

It simply isn't good enough, Mr. Chairman, to tell them that a safety engineer who's presently earning $1,300 a month will have his job red-circled, will be transferred into a clerical position in the Ministry of Education and be told that his job has been kept. It isn't good enough, Mr. Chairman, that an interior designer in the Ministry of Public Works will have his

[ Page 3306 ]

job red-circled, be transferred to the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, be made into a typist and told that his job has been preserved. It is not appropriate, Mr. Chairman, to tell the younger civil servants within his department, who have just gotten married, who are just now raising children, and who have just taken out a mortgage, that their careers within that department have somehow been preserved by virtue of the fact that their jobs were red-circled and totally redefined, or that they were told to apply for another position in another department for which they are probably not trained or eligible at all - and that somehow a promise has been kept!

There are young servants in my riding who are in danger of losing their mortgages and whose families are in danger of being torn apart because this minister presumes that it is good enough to tell a safety engineer that he can become a clerk, that his salary will be frozen at its presently red-circled level and that somehow their promises have been kept. There are hundreds and hundreds of people in this riding, Mr. Chairman, whom I represent, who believe that the minister is either unwilling or unable to honour his promise to protect their jobs.

Why would a minister risk this criticism? Why would this particular minister, who is an honourable man, be prepared to receive phone calls, mail and personal delegations from those civil servants who were telling him those stories about their own lives and careers being shattered? I don't think he would do it at his own initiative; I think he's under orders. I think the orders come from one source only - the office of the Premier. Otherwise this particular minister, who is not a heartless, cold man - nor indeed a millionaire, by the way - would not feel compelled to be so coldhearted, dispassionate and unfair in his treatment of those civil servants. Let me review it again: he reduced his own department from 2,200 to 275 positions, leaving it with safety engineering, the Glendale laundry and, I understand, some minor role in building inspection. Pardon me, I left that out before.

He creates a corporation that refuses to go to public tender and he creates a corporation that is not listed in Bill 52, the Crown Corporation Reporting Act. He has on his own doorstep the embarrassment of civil servants telling him: "Thank you very much for preserving our jobs. I was a safety engineer, now I'm a clerk. I was a man who was earning $1,300 a month as a safety engineer. I'm now earning $1,300 a month as a clerk, thus alienating all the other clerks I work with as well, thus ensuring that my own opportunities for advancement, which previously were secure and fair, are now totally insecure and totally unfair."

The lesson is clear, the advice is obvious: this minister has set up a monster that's going to devour him, that has devoured the morale of his own department, that is devouring the futures of especially those younger civil servants who at one time had careers within that department and now find they had none at all. What it has done, though, Mr. Chairman in the only positive side that one can possibly see is that it has allowed the Premier, through his apparently willing pawn, the Minister of Public Works, to pay off the campaign debts that got them into power in the first place,

You can imagine, can you not, Mr. Chairman, all of the NDP contractors, all of the NDP millionaires, all of the NDP businessmen lining up to take the contracts and the tenders from the minister? Oh* , there are dozens and dozens of them in the province; I'm sure, without doubt, that our political friends will be the first to be rewarded. I'm sure the minister appreciates the sarcasm.

The fact is that in the province, Mr. Chairman, there is only one economic group that stands to benefit from this corporation: the friends of Social Credit who voted this coalition into power in the first place, the friends who have been protected because this corporation is specifically excluded from Bill 52 as having to report and because those corporations and those companies are specifically excluded from a public, visible tendering process because the bill itself makes no such provision, and nor will the minister allow it. It is incomprehensible to me, Mr. Chairman, that any minister looking at those facts and taking those steps cannot realize the danger in which he finds himself because of the commitment of that administration to pay off campaign debts as quickly as they can by whatever device they can find. They found the device: it's called the B.C. Buildings Corporation, and I don't think we've heard the end of it.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be timely if perhaps I added my comments on the same theme, since there are many other matters under the minister's jurisdiction which we will get to later. I also want to notify the minister in this committee of the incredible anxiety that's been created among the staff of his department. Unfortunately it goes beyond anxiety to fear - fear of losing a job which is supposed to have a very fair measure of security when you work for government. Some people choose to work for government because it has a measure of security which cannot be found in other occupations. Certainly it used to be, if it isn't the case now, that one of the reasons employees accepted perhaps less than the going wages in government was because there was an element of job security in government which isn't present elsewhere.

But that really is not the most important point of this discussion. I'm trying to get across in a very clear way the serious undermining of the morale of all public servants when they see what can happen in the

[ Page 3307 ]

Ministry of Public Works. I can almost anticipate some of the minister's replies - that this is a unique situation and public employees needn't get worried, everything is all right, this is just one of these once-in-a-hundred-year situations and will never happen again. I don't happen to think that public employees are that easily fooled, Mr. Chairman, and I don't think that will be an adequate answer.

We've had cries from the backbenchers during the last few minutes, Mr. Chairman, to name names. When you're a public employee who is probably going to lose the job you're in or accept a lesser job under another classification within government ranks, do you think you would be openly, in public, criticizing the minister who implemented that change in the first place? Let's not be ridiculous. Of course they're afraid! Some of them are terrified, and so would you be, Mr. Member, if you were in that position.

MR. KAHL: How many telephone calls have you had?

MR. WALLACE: Many!

MR. KAHL: Exactly how many? It's a bunch of nonsense!

MR. WALLACE: You just keep your patience, Mr. Member. I've got some information for you, if you'll just sit still and listen.

MR. COCKE: Don't have a nervous breakdown -just relax.

MR. WALLACE: The issue has been raised about how many telephone calls and letters I've received. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that there have been several within the period of weeks during which this uncertainty prevailed.

I've got one file here where the individual provides me with all the information for my use to understand the problem, Mr. Chairman. He pleads with me that no matter what happens, he doesn't want his name to be known for fear of reprisal by that government.

Now that's very natural, Mr. Chairman, when your job is at risk and you might be grateful for small mercies, namely a demotion or a reclassification or an allocation to another department which you never asked for and where your salary is probably going to be less. Let's be reasonable. How would such an individual feel the least bit confident in protesting publicly when he knows that his survival in the government's employment depends on the goodwill of senior civil servants and ministers? It would be unreasonable to expect people to be otherwise than afraid.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must take a minute to remind the hon. member, as I have previous speakers, that the question of transfer from one department to another is provided for in Bill 66 under section 5 and might better be debated at that time.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure it's quite in order to debate events that have taken place rather than to offend the rules of this House in speculating about what might take place. I think that's the point that the Chairman was making.

I just want to name names, Mr. Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) , since you were so keen a moment ago to hear about what's going on. I'll just tell you about Mrs. Ashmore, who happens to be the secretary to the Deputy Minister of Public Works. She took the trouble to show me the memo of May 20 from the minister. I won't read it all. It's to -BCBC management and administrative support positions." One of the sentences states very clearly, Mr. Chairman: "These positions will be filled on the basis of merit selection and may be open at a later date to the general public in the event that qualified Public Works candidates cannot be found."

Another memo which Mrs. Ashmore gave to me, dated June 8, is signed by the minister. I quote: "To all Public Works employees: in the event that qualified Public Works candidates cannot be found, the positions may in the future be opened to the general public, but for now I would strongly encourage all staff to apply for any positions for which they believe they possess the necessary qualifications."

That last part of the sentence is very important, Mr. Chairman. I'll just repeat it: "I would strongly encourage all staff to apply for any positions for which they believe they possess the necessary qualifications."

Well, Mrs. Ashmore believed that she possessed the qualifications for a certain job and she applied for it. On June 15 she got a letter signed by Mr. Dolezal, director of corporate services for B.C. Buildings Corporation. I'll just read the first two paragraphs, Mr. Chairman.

"On behalf of Mr. Pitcher, I would like to thank you for the interest and time you took in applying and inter-viewing for the position of executive secretary to the general manager. While we do consider you to be a good candidate, " which in my language would seem to imply that she had the qualifications for the job,

"still in the running for this particular position, we have decided to delay finalizing our decision on your application pending review of suitably qualified applicants on the Victoria labour market."

[ Page 3308 ]

MR. BARBER: Did you know about that, Alex?

MR. WALLACE: Oh, the minister knows about it, Mr. Chairman. I've discussed it with him personally. I didn't want to have this hassle on the floor of the House because I don't enjoy this kind of fight.

MR. BARBER: Do you know what that does for their morale, Alex?

MR. WALLACE: But I took it up with the minister and he did his best to find the facts. I'm personally convinced that he wasn't given all the facts. But that's just an impression I have, because I'm like the member for Victoria - I've never found this minister to be anything but direct, straightforward and on the point. But he wasn't able to give me the answers on this one.

Today Mrs. Ashmore received another letter, which I don't have since it only arrived today, stating that she had been turned down for the job and no reason was given. So we've got these memos from the minister assuring justice and fair play for the employees in Public Works and at least fair consideration on merit basis, which I agree is the way it should be done. Here we have at least this position where not only were the terms and commitments of the minister's memo completely broken, but also she is turned down and no reason is given.

I would like to ask the minister - and if he can't tell me now, could he find out? - was this particular position of executive secretary to the general manager of the B.C. Buildings Corporation widely advertised publicly after Mrs. Ashmore received the letter saying that she was a good candidate, she was still in the running but hang on until we get somebody else for the job? Was that job publicized? Was it advertised in a search for suitably qualified applicants on the Victoria labour market?

Mr. Chairman, another similar situation is with regard to another individual who applied for the job of manager in the information systems. I understand that he also has been turned down, but we've even gone one better this time, Mr. Chairman. We've managed to give the job to somebody from Alberta. This is the government that repeatedly answers questions, not only of mine but of other members in the House, that you really can't get a government job in this province until you've lived here at least one year.

I've had all kinds of letters, and I've got one I'm going to bring up later on about a man who couldn't get a job because he was a landed immigrant. He hadn't been here five years and couldn't be a Canadian citizen, and first preference had to be given to Canadian citizens. Now the period of time is three years; I realize that, Mr. Chairman. But what I'm trying to determine is what kind of answers we get from that side of the House and what actually happens in practice. I believe that a Mr. Dennis Jacques has been appointed as manager of information systems, despite the fact that qualified persons within the Ministry of Public Works applied for that job.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the House is entitled to some kind of explanation. I don't know how many other situations are similar to those two that I've been asked to look into. I have a third one here where I'll respect the confidence as much as the fear of the individual who came to my office. He came in the door as though he was frightened he was going to be seen. I think when that kind of atmosphere prevails in this province or in this country, there is something far wrong with the way things are being done. When public employees have to skulk into the office of an MLA just from fear that they might be seen by somebody who controls their destiny in the public service, I think we've reached a pretty sad low. That is exactly the impression I've had with several of the people who have contacted me. Some have phoned, and when I asked them to come in to discuss the matter or to give me documentation you can just hear the pause at the other end of the line. I think I've quoted the kind of example and documented the letters, Mr. Chairman. If need be, I'll table them with the House.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

The sad part is, Mr. Chairman, that the principle of the B.C. Buildings Corporation had a lot to recommend it. There should be a greater measure of efficiency in the provision of office space for all departments of government. I like the minister's emphasis on the fact that each department will have to state what it needs, what its requirements are and it will be charged an appropriate rent for that square footage. Nothing could be more sensible and straightforward than that.

But a whole department, involving several hundred public employees, has suddenly been clobbered first of all with the decision that somehow or other they'd be relocated, and then, as in the two cases I've mentioned, completely demoralized by setting this kind of example. I'm not even intruding on the bill that's before the House, Mr. Speaker; I'm just talking about a couple of situations which I can document which have happened, and I just shudder to think how many more there are.

That leads to my next question, as a matter of

[ Page 3309 ]

fact. How many appointments have been made to B.C. Buildings Corporation as of today? The obvious supplementary to that question, Mr. Chairman, is: how many of these appointments have been filled by persons other than persons presently in the employment of the Ministry of Public Works? How many more such positions are presently under consideration where the corporation is going outside the available pool of employees now in Public Works to fill these positions?

I would also like the minister to tell me how many employees there are still within the ministry in management positions who still have the possibility of competing successfully for employment at the same level of management in the B.C. Buildings Corporation. I ask this because I have a letter here from a man who has been in public service over 20 years, which ends with the very sad statement: "It appears that I and others are deemed to be over-experienced, overpaid and over-age, but I feel we are too young to wither on the vine." Now how many of these senior management persons in Public Works still have the opportunity to apply for similar positions in the Buildings Corporation, and how many of those positions are currently being considered by the selection personnel and are open to public competition by others not presently employed in Public Works?

The second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) quoted an election ad, and I don't think that is the way that promise has been broken. It's just an incredible step in this day and age, when we're all trying to build better harmony between employers and employees. We've all stood and made speeches about the evils of big unions and big business and big government, and here we've got the most blatant example of what big government can do when it chooses to. Yet this same government expects to go out the next day and make public statements that it believes in the tripartite kind of understanding that government, labour and business should be building. It's just such a total contradiction to come back into this House and have to debate this kind of situation within the minister's ministry.

What is even worse, I tried to find out about this privately, as I always try to do with ministers before we get into a public hassle on the floor of this House. I know that the minister made a very serious effort to find out exactly what happened in one of the particular instances I've quoted. To this moment, Mr. Chairman, I've not had an explanation. I presume the minister has not had the information passed up to him which would have enabled him to do what he always does, and that is to give members the facts. When you can quote specifics of this nature and you know that there are several hundred other people shaking in their boots wondering where they'll be at this time next year, I think the minister should try to give some kind of at least approximate figures.

You talk to these fairly senior people in his ministry. I said to one of them: "I realize why you're worried, and I would be worried too, but have you been given any kind of approximate idea as to where you might be relocated, and when, and what kind of income adjustment might be involved?" This particular individual couldn't tell me anything. He just said that the matter had been expressed in these memos, parts of which I read. I think that's grossly unfair, regardless of who the employer is. We all know that if any other employer or any private company did that there would be a most terrible outcry, and rightly so.

Mr. Chairman, I can't possibly over-emphasize the atmosphere of anxiety, fear and disillusionment for many of these employees. But I don't think the battle is lost. I think the minister has an opportunity during estimates to clarify first of all some of these figures that I have asked for, and secondly, perhaps to be more definitive in giving many of these employees an assurance as to what they can expect in regard to future employment.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I just wanted to make sure that the minister is aware of just how serious the actions are that have been taken with respect to the employees in the Public Works ministry, and just how serious the problem is. We've had instances now related to the minister from the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) and from the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) . But I wanted to ensure that the minister is not listening to the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) , who keeps shaking his head. I would like to hear him get up, as a matter of fact, and tell this House what he knows that we over here do not know.

MR. KAHL: You're unbelievable.

MS. SANFORD: We have found time and time again that the people ...

MR. KAHL: I'd have to talk forever to tell you what you don't know.

MS. SANFORD: ... in the Public Works ministry are scared. They are frightened.

MR. KAHL: With a spokeswoman like you, they should be.

MS. SANFORD: When they talk to me they look up and down the road or the sidewalk or the corridor to see if anybody might be listening or looking at them. This kind of furtive attitude that they've had to adopt in order to protect their position says something about this government. I don't know why

[ Page 3310 ]

the member for Esquimalt keeps shaking his head about it. Those are the facts.

MR. KAHL: I can't believe what I'm hearing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you address the Chair please, hon. member?

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, those people in the public service have had shabby treatment. The public service employees throughout the province are now wondering what's going to hit them next. If they can be dealt with in this manner, as we've had outlined now example after example from earlier speakers this afternoon, what's going to happen to them next, they keep asking me? Are they going to be subject to wage and price controls by this government - in other words, a provincial-only public service sector wage control? Is that what's next for them? Maybe the minister this afternoon could answer that question so that I can answer the public employees who keep asking me about this. Is that what's going to be next? Are they going to have their union done away with as we've seen happen in other instances? Is that what's going to happen to all of the government employees?

If the minister expects to get service from the employees in the government service, then he has to give better treatment than what we have seen in this particular instance where they've been fired wholesale and can't even get hired back on again if in fact they are qualified. What's happening is that he's bringing in people from Alberta, I'm told, in order to fill positions that they would otherwise be able to fill.

But I hope that the minister this afternoon understands that it's throughout the public service that this fear exists as a result of this treatment. I hope that this afternoon he can give us some answers as to what is ire, , store for them in the future, because they're all asking me: "What's going to happen to us under that government?"

HON. MR. FRASER: I have listened with interest to the various speakers. I think I'd like to go back and try to reply to the observations of the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) , the first speaker under the estimates.

First of all, as you all know, the B.C. Buildings Corporation was brought into law in this Legislature, I believe, on June 29 or June 30,1976. It was proclaimed by the government - and I could be corrected on this - about October. For the information of the House, that's correct. I believe the second member for Vancouver Centre said we did have Peat Marwick and partners make a study of the Public Works sector, also in consultation with the senior people of what we know as the old Public Works section.

1 have a few other notes. There is a great departure here in the B.C. Buildings Corporation. This debate really should have taken place when that bill was up before. In the history of British Columbia, I think they've been financing buildings out of the current year's expenditures. The B.C. Buildings Corporation provides for long-term financing spreading over a period of years with a maximum borrowing power of $200 million. This is a big departure from what has ever happened in the past.

The other thing that we have put into the B.C. Buildings Corporation is more accountability to the ministers. As I said when I spoke, we're trying to cut out waste. I would remind the members here that I have been a member of this House for quite a while and we're still waiting for answers from the prior administration when they rented space in the private sector and never used it at the rate of $75,000 a month. It was found to be empty office space, We're still waiting for those answers because that happened in the prior administration. This is another reason for the B.C. Buildings Corporation, because we want more accountability. The other thing is that we want to make more use of the private sector. That has been said openly.

There has been a large building programme going on. As far as staff is concerned, did they think that the large building programmes that were started under the prior administration would go on forever at $200-odd million worth? Certainly it couldn't go on forever. The staff had been built up because of the large building programme, I might suggest, from about 1,400 people in 1972 to 2,200 to 2,300 by 1975-1976 when the government changed. I don't think any government could finance it going on at that rate, so something had to take place.

I'd like to deal with the numbers involved. I might be 100 out here, but the studies showed that we could incorporate the B.C. Buildings Corporation and operate it with 1,100 people. The second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) got everything squirreled up as usual and said that the Public Works section would go down to 275. That's not my information. There will be at least 400. So we're 1,100 and 1,400; we had 2,300 and we have, therefore - and these are approximations - 800 whom we said appeared to be surplus. They have been given all the prior rights of finding other positions.

I might say this: their salary vote is all protected until March, 1978. We're right in the middle of all the negotiations now and they were one of the first who were told when we had all the facts. As far as these employees are concerned, we are talking with their union, and any information that they want they should be able to get there. But I want to assure this House that these 800 who are causing concern - and probably rightly so - haven't lost any jobs. There'll be some jobs that will go by attrition, but they

[ Page 3311 ]

haven't lost any jobs and they're being given priority in the other public service.

I'm really concerned about another remark that the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) made when he spoke regarding the jobs in the Public Service Commission postings. I'd like to advise this House, Mr. Chairman, that I believe I did say that 1,000 jobs per month are posted in the public service. I'd like to correct that. I believe that figure is 700 jobs per month, not 1,000. I'd like to get that on the record.

The second member for Victoria's remarks regarding public tendering: while it probably isn't provided for in the bill, nothing has been done under BCBC other than by public tender. They haven't done a lot, admittedly, but they have started to take over to some degree, even to the tune of rental space, which was never the case before under Public Works. So I don't know why you're making such a big issue about that.

The public tendering will continue to go on. I repeat and remind you, sir, as a new member of this House, that it didn't go on before under public works. You are anticipating a scandal, and I know that your attitude is pessimism all the way. I don't anticipate any scandal at all regarding which way we're going.

You are muddying up the waters a bit. This Crown corporation is accountable to this Legislature, and you know that. I'm the minister responsible. We just tabled the first annual report. Why didn't you mention that? It was just tabled here last week and it was only for a partial year. It's already here. That's really fast compared with what we got out of Public Works before.

I don't know why you're making such an issue about campaign debts. This member says that we'll look after our friends and pay off our campaign debts. How do you know we've got any debts?

AN HON. MEMBER: How do we know you've got any friends?

HON. MR. FRASER: Don't be so ridiculous, blowing up smoke bubbles all the time and being so suspicious. There are a few honest people left, you know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I take full responsibility for anything that has happened here under policy. Certainly it's a government policy. It's not from any one person in this government; the way we're going with the B.C. Buildings Corporation is government policy, make no mistake about that. It's my individual responsibility to see that it's carried out, and I intend to see government policy is carried out.

Regarding the fact that this Crown corporation is excluded from Bill 52 that's before us - a good question. I believe the thinking of the government at that time was that they already have quite a few Crown corporations to take on to start with, and eventually the B.C. Buildings Corporation will be added to that list along with others that are not on there at the present time.

MR. BARBER: Do it now and you will reassure us a lot.

HON. MR. FRASER: Regarding the member for Oak Bay's remarks regarding staff anxiety, I'm certainly aware of that, Mr. Chairman. We're trying to move along as fast as possible to clear up this anxiety. The government is dealing with the union. I don't like to get down to individuals but the member there did.

MR. WALLACE: You asked me to name names!

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, right. Dealing with one individual here, the answer to the question, as I understand it, is that the executive secretary's job was advertised in the public service.

Regarding the other one mentioned, which I was not aware of, I understand this job was advertised. This is a highly technical job and the person getting it was the only one qualified for the job. It's a computer job. That handles a couple of them there.

Now regarding the other questions of the member for Oak Bay, one concerned the number of appointments made by BCDC. We have really just started, Mr. Chairman. Nineteen have been made and 13 of those appointments made are from the Public Works side. I assume the other six are from outside Public Works.

The next question you had was how many employees in the Public Works are still to be placed? Well, going back, we've said here that there are 1,100 jobs finally available in Public Works. It appears that 19 have been made, so we've sure got a long way to go in filling the jobs. We're moving there as fast as we can. I think maybe your question was directed to the head office or senior people. The note I have here from the chief executive officer is that 90 jobs have been posted and 19 have been filled.

The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) - the only remark I have is that she really didn't have much to contribute to debate other than she's the member who's been going around the province saying we don't do anything about jobs. I wish she'd read what I said when I led off in my estimates.

MR. GIBSON: It's a pleasure to hear from the genial Minister of Highways who's a bit of a legend in this Legislature. The difficulty is that when he's

[ Page 3312 ]

finished talking and when he has sat down, you're not quite sure what he's said. So we'll have to come back and ask some more of these questions again.

The minister just finished telling us that he had a study done. I think it was by Price Waterhouse, he said.

HON. MR. FRASER: Nope.

MR. GIBSON: No? Peat Marwick.

HON. MR. FRASER: You weren't listening, you see. That's why you don't hear me. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: No, it's just you're so confusing, Mr. Minister. But I remember the numbers. The numbers were 2,200 on Public Works strength; 400 would be required to continue on normal Public Works functions; 1,100 would be required for BCBC functions; and 800 would be - and the minister used the word - "surplus." I want to know if the minister is telling the House that prior to that time one-third of the employment of the Public Works department was a waste. The minister says 800 our of 2,200 are going to be surplus. This is an incredible surplus if it's true, Mr. Chairman,

I would like the minister to identify for this Legislature where the surplus positions were or, alternately, what services are being cut. It has to be one of the two. Either there were jobs that weren't productive before or else services are going to be cut. Could the minister identify that for us? One out of three positions in his department - or more! That is a very, very serious charge against the way his department has been run for many years if that's true. I'd like to know more about it.

Next the minister said the Buildings Corporation was put together to provide for more public accountability. That's a fine thing, but if that's the case, Mr. Chairman, I want to know why the minister is not prepared to guarantee to the House that contracts entered into by the BCBC will always be by public tender. The minister said it's the practice now for public tender, but I'd like a guarantee that it will always be, that the BCBC will not enter into any contract that will not be done by public tender, or, if there should be any exception, the minister will stand up in the Legislature on that exceptional occasion and tell us why. If he really believes in public accountability of this corporation, that kind of thing is essential.

I'd like him to clarify for me how employees are being hired at the moment. I understood him to say that at the moment you're working through the Public Service Commission. He nods his head at that. I'd like to ask the minister if it is his intention to continue employment through the Public Service Commission. This is a very important question, Mr. Chairman. I will listen to his answer very attentively because one of our concerns when Bill 23 was being debated last year was whether this was going to be an opportunity for the evasion of regular public service rules for the possibility of widespread patronage in hiring. I'd like the minister to respond to that specific question.

I compliment him concerning the fact that he is currently hiring through the Public Service Commission, but will he give the House this undertaking that BCBC will continue to hire through the Public Service Commission? Admitting the possibility of certain exceptions, if that's the case, will he always advise this House in person of those exceptions?

So in summary then, there are three things I would like to hear from the minister. What was this incredible surplus - this incredible waste he talks about - of 800 people in functions of the Ministry of Public Works who apparently aren't required or weren't required to do the jobs that were being done? Secondly, will he give us his guarantee that contracts entered into by the B.C. Buildings Corporation will always be by tender? And thirdly, , will he give us his guarantee that he will continue his existing practice, which I much approve of, of going through the public Service Commission for employment?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , first of all, your concern about what I said about the 800 surplus employees.... That was more or less what I said - that after the studies were made, there seemed to be 800 surplus. I guess you didn't understand. I hope that I explained that and the fact that we had a huge building programme going on, and we don't intend to continue that.

I'm not saying that there was waste there in the past to any large degree, but this government doesn't envision building any more $116 million monuments in downtown Vancouver or any other place. These people were involved in that. In anything new that's coming up we intend to make a lot more use of the private sector. As a matter of fact, the government has announced that we're going to build a new courthouse building in New Westminster. The B.C. Buildings Corporation will build that. We've already called tenders for architectural proposals for that structure and, of course, when that is analysed, an architect will be chosen from the private sector, as I see it happening, and then they will go on and develop the specifications and on to tender call for the structure itself.

As far as accountability is concerned, it goes back, Mr. Chairman, again to the fact that this Crown corp oration is definitely accountable to the Legislature. I'm not giving a guarantee at this time regarding everything that will go to public tender. Everything has so far, and as far as I'm concerned as

[ Page 3313 ]

the minister, everything will in the future but there are the odd times.... I would remind you that there were a lot of things not going to public tender under Public Works. We've already tightened up on that, but to give you an absolute guarantee that everything will go to public tender is very difficult at this stage. I will remind you that a lot more is already going to public tender than ever went before and I hope that we continue that. But to give a commitment here and then maybe through an emergency to have to break it.... I'm not prepared to give a total guarantee on that.

Now I want to clear up something here, Mr. Chairman. I understand that the hiring is being done by BCBC regarding employees and it is being circulated through the public service to the Department of Public Works employees, not the total as I understand that. I just want to clear up what I said before when I gave a wrong impression. The hiring is being done by BCBC, the senior people there, after it has been circulated through the Ministry of Public Works, and that's what we intend to continue to do.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this last clarification of the minister on how the hiring is being done changes the situation considerably. The hiring, in other words, is not being done by the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission is assisting in the hiring process, but the decisions are being made by the B.C. Buildings Corporation ...

HON. MR. FRASER: Correct.

MR. GIBSON: ... by the management of the B.C. Buildings Corporation or the board of directors. Mr. Chairman, if that's the case, then I have to take back my statement earlier on that that was essentially a sigh of relief. To me there are insufficient safeguards there; the spectre of patronage still exists there. The executive council-dominated board of directors has here a set of 1,100 jobs, according to the minister's own prediction, that they will be able to fill without let or hindrance, except insofar as this Legislature may accidentally come across any variances from proper practice. That's exactly why the Public Service Commission was installed in this province many years ago, and it's exactly why successive governments have been careful to put the employment under the public sector through the Public Service Commission, because they don't want this kind of allegation and because they don't want this kind of problem.

Mr. Minister, you're going to find that a lot of alleged friends of your party are going to be on your doorstep day after day saying: "I need a job badly. Will you give it to me in the B.C. Buildings Corporation because I know you can do something for me there?" You're going to find that a nuisance, and it's wrong in terms of public administration. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry that they got that clarification. It sounded for a moment like the proper thing was being done. I regret that answer very much.

I'll just ask the minister one further short question on this issue: is he prepared to table in this Legislature and make public in some way the Peat Marwick report?

HON. MR. FRASER: First of all, back to the more or less 1,100 positions, I have further clarification to the member from North Vancouver-Capilano. I understand that of those 1,100 positions, 1,000 will be filled by bargaining with the bargaining unit that represents these employees, if that makes you feel a little better. Of course, that hasn't happened and that's going to be discussed in future legislation. No, I'm not prepared to file the Peat Marwick report at this time.

MR. GIBSON: More public information we paid for can't get....

MR. BARBER: 1, for one, find the minister's failure to include within Bill 52 the B.C. Buildings Corporation and his lame excuses about the failure to go to public tender really pretty inexcusable. If the problem is a technical one, if it is such that it is a nuisance to go to public tender for a bid of say, $200 or $300, or even $2,000 or $3,000, t~en surely legislation could be written that would create, if you will, a floor or - depending on how you look at it -a ceiling which would say that above the level of $5,000 per contract, no public bidding procedure should be necessary.

I would think that a reasonable course of public administration, Mr. Chairman. There is no need for those small amounts to go to public tender over and over again. It may be totally impractical. We're not concerned about that. We are concerned about a principle.

I wasn't in the previous government. Had I been, I would have argued for some kind of statement of principle about a commitment to public tendering within the department had we created something like it within the B.C. Buildings Corporation. It's an important principle, and the public should have the trust and the confidence to see that it's understood and to see that it's adhered to.

I do have some questions about the minister's present hiring practices, if I may review them. The minister indicated that to date the B.C. Buildings Corporation has hired 19 persons - is that correct? -of whom six....

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Well, you've actually hired them,

[ Page 3314 ]

have you not? The deputy minister says yes; 19 positions have actually been filled to date.

HON. MR. FRASER: Right.

MR. BARBER: The minister says "right." Of these positions, 13 are now filled by persons who were previously with the Department of Public Works and six were not so previously employed. The minister indicates that through the advertising services of the Public Service Commission, but chiefly at the decision of the B.C. Buildings Corporation itself, those 19 positions have been filled. That is correct.

I wish to ask the minister: has any private agency or organization been involved in soliciting or hiring persons on behalf of the B.C. Buildings Corporation? That's my first question to the minister, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, the answer to the second member for Victoria is yes. Peat Marwick and partners have been active in helping recruit.

MR. BARBER: Has any other private organization, to the best of your knowledge, Mr. Minister, been involved in hiring these 19, or later on planning for the hiring of additional personnel? I ask the minister to pay particular attention to that.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that another agency was told to do it. They didn't do anything and they were disposed of before they had.... They didn't engage anybody.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, was that other agency Drake Personnel?

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, apparently one of them was Drake Personnel or whatever the name is. They made some suggestions, apparently; none of them have been acceptable either.

MR. BARBER: So if I understand properly, Drake was engaged in some capacity but failed to deliver and has not itself been responsible for hiring anyone for the B.C. Buildings Corporation. Is that correct?

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes that's my understanding; that is correct.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, could the minister please tell the House what contractual arrangements have been obtained with Peat Marwick for the provision of these services? Well, if not the minister, perhaps the deputy minister.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I think you're asking an overall question here. Peat Marwick and partners were hired some time ago by the government to act for them and there's a contract based on the time put in on the job.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Victoria, please. I would ask if you would group your questions so that the House can proceed with this.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): What's the hurry when you're doing the nation's business? I don't know what the rush is.

MR. BARBER: That's sometimes a bit difficult to do, Mr. Chairman, when in order to ask a competent question, you have to wait for the previous answer. We don't know all the answers in advance or we needn't ask all the questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know any of the answers.

MR. BARBER: Oh, we know some of them, and I'm sure you know what I'm getting at with these questions, Mr. Minister.

To make sure that I understand it properly, Mr. Chairman, the firm of Peat Marwick was engaged by contract some time ago to provide generalized consulting services to the government in the establishment of the B.C. Buildings Corporation. As a result of that general contract established some time ago, Peat Marwick has specifically been required to provide, if you will, "employment services, " by which one would presume them to be involved in the writing and the implementing of job descriptions, the setting of salary levels, and on the basis of those two documents, proceeding to interview people and then recommending to the board of directors the hiring. Is that all a reasonable assumption, Mr. Chairman, to the minister?

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes.

MR. BARBER: One would presume, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that B.C. Buildings Corporation has been paying to Peat Marwick all along a per them for services. Is that how it is calculated? That's the usual relationship with that particular 'partnership. I'm familiar with the operations of that company and that's the ordinary arrangement - a per them based on the number of personnel who would be involved in a given project over a given period of time. A voucher would be submitted on the basis of which payment would be made. Can the minister confirm that this has been the practice with Peat Marwick?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I thought I explained that before. Peat Marwick and partners are engaged by the government and they're paid on a

[ Page 3315 ]

time basis according to their invoices. They're still on that basis.

MR. BARBER: Could the minister then provide to the House, Mr. Chairman, an indication of the average daily payment - or, if that's not a practical statement, the average monthly payment - to Peat Marwick for the provision of the services which the minister has been describing and we've been debating?

HON. MR. FRASER: I can't at this time, but I'll certainly bring it back.

MR. BARBER: I appreciate that.

I've another series of questions, Mr. Chairman. I'll try and group them as best I can. The minister has today enunciated a new policy. It's one that we tried to get him to admit last year and he refused to; it's one which today he finally did admit. B.C. Buildings Corporation is in the business of deficit finance. The minister said today - I'd be happy to check the Blues, but I took notes when he was speaking - that this is a new departure for government, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of the B.C. Buildings Corporation is to pay out of income and to pay out of borrowing, over a longer period of time, for certain capital construction projects. He went on to say that it had been the practice of previous governments to pay for capital construction out of current revenue. The minister said that and I believe him. As a matter of fact he described it specifically as a new departure for government.

It's very nice that finally - and I suppose we should expect it from this minister, who is more honest, more candid, more blunt than most of his colleagues - this admission would come forward. However, if I may, I should like to read into the record two comments and ask the minister for his own comments. I do a lot of homework and I love reading the old speeches from the old days of the old members here. On May 31,1976, we had been suggesting that the real purpose of this bill was to borrow, to cover up deficits, to hide away and squirrel away pockets of money, to evade the political promise that they would engage in no deficit financing whatever. He said on that occasion:

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.

Hansard records various interjections, and we can imagine what they were. He went on to say:

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 departments.

Now this is not quite the explanation we heard today from the minister, because today he was calling it a new departure; today he was admitting for the first time that the Socred government is engaged in creating long-term debt for capital construction purposes. I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that our party supports that position - we just think it should be done honestly and openly and honourably.

We wonder why this government has pretended for so many years to be opposed to deficit financing. We wonder why the minister refused to admit it last year and why today, to his credit, he does admit it. It may be that the political climate has changed. However, let me read something else. In the same debate on May 31,1976, page 2186, his colleague, the car dealer, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , was quoted as saying in his notorious budget speech earlier that year:

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.

MR. LEA: We've rolled back the odometer of government!

MR. BARBER: The Minister of Finance - such as he is - went on to say:

The government believes that 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 for government capital expenditures.

MR. WALLACE: Oh! Is that right?

MR. BARBER: That is what the minister was saying in his budget speech in 1976.

MR. WALLACE: He's seen the light!

MR. BARBER: The Minister of Finance then went on to say.... Let me read the whole sentence as I've got it here; it appears a little later in Hansard: "Therefore it has rejected borrowing either for budgetary deficits or government capital expenditures except for those capital projects I have already referred to as being removed from the province's budget."

That, of course, was not referred to at all in the minister's remarks. We see no reference whatever to the famous courthouse project in downtown Vancouver or to any other of the projects for which B.C. Buildings Corporation is responsible. Indeed,

[ Page 3316 ]

they were not accepted at all by the Minister of Finance when he made those statements.

So either we are to presume, Mr. Chairman, that we have here another split in the coalition policies regarding long-term deficits, or we have finally one honourable minister at last, to his credit, admitting that Social Credit engages in debt financing of capital projects. At last he has had the courage and the honour to admit it. His Minister of Finance won't, but we don't expect him to. He wasn't even doing it a year ago, but that was a bit too much to hope then. This year, at last, he admits that in a new departure from previous policy they are engaging in long-term debt financing of capital projects.

I just hope at the next election, Mr. Chairman, the same minister has the honour and the honesty to say it then, too. It has been the truth all along. It was a gross political mis-statement by that coalition in the last election, Mr. Chairman, that would try and persuade anyone into thinking that they were going to do anything different. They have no choice, but neither did we when we confessed that he has been borrowing money for long-term capital construction purposes. I have some questions about that indebtedness.

In the first year of the B.C. Buildings Corporation they were permitted to borrow up to $200 million. That amount is specifically found within the Act. Can the minister tell the House precisely how much was borrowed by the British Columbia Buildings Corporation in that first year? I know a figure appear s in the first report, but I wonder if it has been amended since by subsequent borrowings applied to the previous capital year.

Secondly, can the minister bring us up to date on borrowings to this month by the British Columbia Buildings Corporation? Thirdly, can he tell us how much he expects to have borrowed by the end of this present fiscal year?

On the basis of those answers, I have some other questions, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to answer some of the observations of the second member for Victoria.

MR. WALLACE: It's going to be tough!

HON. MR. FRASER: But first of all, about the new policy on long-term financing, the only thing I said is that it was a new policy. What prior governments of whatever stripe have been doing in British Columbia for the last 100-odd years is financing year by year out of the annual budgets. The B.C. Buildings Corporation really puts it on a long-term financing basis. That was there last year. But the second member for Victoria muddied up the waters again; he called it deficit financing.

MR. BARBER: It is!

HON. MR. FRASER: I don't call it deficit financing at all because we're getting revenue out of all these buildings. That's how the long-term financing is paid off.

As a matter of fact - you know how he loves to fuzz things up - it's exactly how he buys his home or somebody buys their business, and why shouldn't government do it? But don't call it deficit financing.

MS. BROWN: That's deficit financing.

HON. MR. FRASER: As regards his remarks about the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , I think the Minister of Finance is quite capable of answering him. I don't see why I should answer what the Minister of Finance said.

MR. BARBER: Especially today!

HON. MR. FRASER: Regarding the borrowing for the first year, well, we just tabled the first annual report of the B.C. Buildings Corporation. I believe it shows that we had borrowed $14 million to March 31,1977. To get you more up to date I'd have to get that information. But that's pretty current for a government operation to be within three months of the date of operation. But I will get and make an estimation later on in the debate for how much we anticipate to borrow by the end of this fiscal year, March 31,1978.

MR. BARBER: I did ask one other question. Let me put it again, if I may. Does the minister expect to have to revise that section of the present Act that puts a $200 million ceiling on the total borrowing power of the B.C. Buildings Corporation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, that question would be out of order because it would deal with further legislation.

MR. BARBER: Is it enough, according to Mr. Moneybags? You might want to get his ear for a moment? Is it going to be enough? Is that question proper? Can I ask that?

MR. WALLACE: Can you get by on $200 million?

HON. MR. FRASER: It depends on what period of time we're talking about. In this fiscal year, for sure, $200 million is quite ample. (Laughter.)

MR. BARBER: It is indeed $200 million a year which is authorized, Mr. Chairman. Some of us who are concerned about the long-term debt into which this coalition is putting us - [illegible]through B.C.

[ Page 3317 ]

Hydro - are also concerned about the long-term debt into which that minister is putting us, chiefly through the B.C. Buildings Corporation.

I wonder if the minister remembers fine, old speeches in this House from the previous, previous Premier, Mr. W.A.C. Bennett, who, happily, is still with us, and who, happily for his own peace of mind, is not here today to hear his policies being repudiated by that minister. He used to say - I wish I could imitate it - "Pay as you go. Pay as you go. Pay as you go. Anything else is deficits, my friend. Anything else is deficits."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, could we get back to the vote, please?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: That is the vote!

MR. BARBER: We're talking about the minister's responsibility for hurtling this province ever deeper into debt. I'm reminding him of the political legacy, under which we all live, which once, advised us through the words of the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett: "Pay as you go is the only philosophy that my government supports. Anything else is deficits, my friend, " he would add, with a beaming smile at the end. I used to sit in those galleries and watch for hours and hours. I remember it very well.

There's another kind of pay as you go that I'm concerned about. We raised, when we were debating this bill earlier, the question of the corporation's responsibility for paying - as it goes - its property taxes in the cities in which it owns buildings and does business. There is nowhere within the Act, Mr. Chairman - I don't see it anywhere within the minister's financial statements from the ministry -any serious commitment to pay 100 per cent, or anything like it, of its property taxes.

Now I have previously remarked in this House on numerous occasions about the failure of the coalition to honour its campaign promise to the people of Victoria. They promised, in the words of the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) , to pay their full share of property taxes in the cities in which the province owns property and does business in this province. Happily, when the previous administration introduced the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, they introduced that policy as well. They paid 100 per cent property taxes in every location in which they operated in British Columbia. This bill says that the corporation may pay its property taxes, but does not require it to do so.

I wonder if I could read into the record a speech from the old days. I don't know if the minister will like this one particularly but he may recognize some of the words. It seems a certain Bill Bennett was saying that governments municipal have to survive on a handout basis from governments provincial because, indeed, municipalities don't have their property taxes paid for them.

That was in a debate that appeared on April 30,1974, reported in The Vancouver Sun. That's reasonable enough. Mr. Bennett, then the Leader of the Opposition, went on to suggest a municipal revenue-sharing formula and, indeed, they've introduced it. However, we have comments from a Mr. Alex Fraser (SC, Cariboo) who, if I may quote from the article, said: "While the current per capita grant and the current budget went from only $32 - a 6.7 per cent increase - expenses are up about 12 per cent this year." He's referring to municipal government expenses in British Columbia. "He suggested the province should start paying grants in lieu of property taxes equal to full property taxes."

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, did he say that?

MR. BARBER: Yes, one Alex Fraser, Social Credit, Cariboo, said that in 1974.

" 'The province now only pays grants equal to 15 mills on the tax base, when in most municipalities, the tax rate is up to 30 mills or more, ' Fraser said.

"He went on to say, 'B.C. Hydro doesn't pay adequate grants. They also pay when they feel like it and not when the municipalities want them to pay.

" 'Central interior and northern communities need more provincial aid, ' he said, 'than municipalities in southern areas because expenses are higher.' For instance, he pointed out water and sewer lines in the Prince George area must be buried at least eight feet while in the lower mainland four feet is adequate."

Let me repeat the key phrase:

"He suggested the province should start paying grants in lieu of property taxes equal to full property taxes."

Assuming the minister is not prepared to repudiate his own remarks....

MR. WALLACE: He changed his mind.

MR. BARBER: Oh, do you think so? He wouldn't do that. Surely not. Walter says he wouldn't do that. He calls for order.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the minister might today indicate to us whether or not he's prepared to keep his own promises in regard to property taxes. We understand why he's unable to keep the promise of the Premier that there would not be wide-scale firings of public servants in the city of Victoria because, of course, the minister had no responsibility for it. It was the Premier's promise and not his.

In this case, Mr. Chairman, I'm reminding the minister of his own promise. In 1974, he said; "Full property taxes should be paid by the provincial

[ Page 3318 ]

government where it owns and operates." I wonder if the minister still believes that. I hope he says yes, because, if so, I have some more questions.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, Mr. Chairman, in reply to the second member for Victoria regarding property taxes, as related to my responsibility it's a matter of government policy whether the B.C. Buildings Corporation pays property taxes or not.

But I would suggest to you that contrary to the prior administration, we're moving that way, because we're going to employ more of the private sector -they pay the taxes that are incorporated in the rentals - than if we went down the public-sector road.

I would also remind you - maybe this is off the reply - that this government has already come in with new revenue sharing as well that, I think, should be considered in the light of your question.

MR. BARBER: That's pretty thin soup, Mr. Chairman. When he was in opposition and it served his purposes, he said: "The province should start paying grants in lieu of property taxes equal to full property taxes." Now he evades the question by telling us: "Well, you know, it's really a matter of government policy and the fact that I'm a member of the government and sit in its cabinet is, I hope, to be forgotten and deemed irrelevant."

He wants us to forget, Mr. Chairman, that he's a member of that coalition which made campaign promises in the capital city to pay its property taxes and which has refused to do so and failed to do so on every day since taking office - December 22,1975. The revenue-sharing Act applies equally to all municipalities, but it's not applied specifically to the capital city, which, more than any other, has a particular problem of successive provincial governments, including my own, to pay their fair and full share of property taxes here.

The minister tells us: "Well, it's government policy." The minister reminded me just 10 or 12 minutes ago that he was the minister responsible for government policy as it applied to BCBC. I agree with him. He is. The Act says so; we say so; he says so. Don't slough it off, Mr. Minister; give us your own answer.

Ten or 12 minutes ago, when it served your purpose, you said that you were responsible for policy; you would make it; you would carry it out. The British Columbia Buildings Corporation was your baby and you were proud of it. Well, good. That's an

I honourable thing to say. It is yours. I'm sure you would be a'lot more proud of it if it did pay your taxes.

My question, Mr. Chairman: is it the minister's personal intention - being responsible for the B.C. Buildings Corporation which, within its Act, has the authority to pay :its property taxes - to pay those taxes this year or any other? Is it the minister's personal intention to honour his own commitment of 1974 and to honour the commitment of his own government in the most recent campaign? Is the minister personally willing to honour his own promise through the B.C. Buildings Corporation to pay its full property taxes everywhere it owns something in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, Mr. Chairman, just to answer the member: I'm sure that you're just repeating yourself. I've answered that it's government policy.

MR. BARBER: Is it your policy?

HON. MR. FRASER: I said it was government policy.

MR. BARBER: Is it your policy to pay?

Mr. Speaker, this is not acceptable. Just a few minutes ago, when the minister chose to do so, he reminded us that he made policy for the Buildings Corporation. He told us that he was the authority. We believe him. Now 1 want to know, Mr. Chairman: will he exercise that authority and will he honour a commitment and establish a policy to pay their property taxes? In this particular debate, Mr. Chairman, I'm not interested in the opinion of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) or the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) or the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . They are other members of the government. They are not directly or personally responsible for the B.C. Buildings Corporation. I want to know if the minister is. If so, will he honour his commitment?

Do I misread the record, Mr. Chairman? Have 1 misquoted The Vancouver Sun? I know they wouldn't misquote the minister. Harvey wouldn't do that. He wasn't even there but I'm sure his predecessor wouldn't do it either. If we have it right - I'll get out Hansard and quote it directly, if you prefer, Mr. Minister - then 1 can only presume that at this time, a competent minister made an honest promise which, at the moment, while hiding behind the skirts of government policy, he pretends not to remember and refuses to honour.

It's really not a very good situation, Mr. Chairman. They're certainly going to get in some trouble in this riding in the next provincial election. They're certainly in some trouble now with the mayor of Victoria.

If they're not willing to honour that promise, can any of their promises be believed, Mr. Chairman? If they're not willing to honour this commitment, can any of their commitments be taken at face value? If they're not willing to honour their own words, do their own words mean anything at all?

[ Page 3319 ]

1 want to hear from the minister personally. Does he still believe what he said back in 1974? If he believed it then and believes it now, will he do it now? The capital city of Victoria, which has this problem more than any other, demands and deserves an answer today. Stop hiding behind the skirts of someone else's policy; you're responsible for the B.C. Buildings Corporation. The city of Victoria wants to hear today whether or not the Alex Fraser of 1974, making an honest promise then, is willing, as the honest minister today, to keep his promise. Mr. Minister, will you personally keep it?

MR. WALLACE: I would like to return to an issue I raised earlier which the minister answered but, I'm sorry to say, not adequately. I'm referring to the fact that he sent a memo to all Public Works' employees on May 20, saying that the employees should apply right away for jobs that were posted. These positions, he said, would be filled "on the basis of merit selection and may be opened at a later date to the general public in the event that Public Works' candidates cannot be found."

Now in the case of Mrs. Ashmore, she did just that. She applied for a job; she received a letter back. I'm afraid I'm going to have to quote it again, since I don't think I got an adequate answer. The letter of June 15 to Mrs. Ashmore stated:

"While we do consider you to be a good candidate still in the running for the particular position, we have decided to delay finalizing our decision on your application pending review of suitably qualified applicants on the Victoria labour market."

Now, Mr. Chairman, either the minister has a policy of selecting people who are adequately qualified within his existing employment or he does not. To give employees this two-sides-of-the-mouth treatment really isn't fair. I don't know how many other employees who have applied for jobs on the basis of the minister's memo of May 20 that they will be given first choice, must be wondering right today. Now I suggest, Mr. Chairman, you tell those applicants that they don't reach the standard that is required, and be honest and fair about it. Don't give them a letter like this one of June 15 which says: "Yes, you have the qualifications and we're still thinking about you, but we're going to go out on the public market and get somebody else." Now that just isn't fair; it's not even good labour-management practice.

. Even putting that aside for the moment, the minister tells me that the job was advertised and given to someone else. Meanwhile Mrs. Ashmore is sitting, wondering where she is going to go or whether she's still in the running or whether this letter of June 15 is just a smokescreen. It obviously was. She gets a letter today saying somebody else has been hired. I don't think we should undersell the fact that this kind of experience is very demoralizing to all public employees.

1 hope the other ministers in the treasury benches are listening very carefully because there are many people who have subsequently talked to me about the ripple effect that this is having in the public service in British Columbia. If this kind of thing can happen in Public Works, don't think it can't happen in some other ministry and with the same lack of sensitivity by the government as an employer.

I'm really very disappointed that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) isn't in the House to listen to this very important debate, because indeed it is. I'm sure history is going to show that this was the start of a downward trend in relationships between government employees and the government of the day. 1 just draw to the minister's attention that this particular employee who is willing to put her name on the line and come out publicly and express her opinion and stand behind it and give me the documents....

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): The Lieutenant-Governor is here.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, I'll only be two minutes, Mr. Attorney-General.

So what I want to know is: Was she seriously considered for the job? If she really wasn't the person that was wanted, why keep her dangling in the expectation that she was still in the running when you really went to the public market to get somebody else? Now why was that done? It conflicts with your memo of May 20.

Secondly, how many other employees in the Department of Public Works are sitting in exactly the same position today, having applied for a job with BCBC, having been told they're in the running, when really at the same time BCBC is out looking for people on the public labour market? It really isn't defensible, Mr. Chairman, as an honourable and fair practice. I hope that maybe this one episode that I've documented will make the minister at least ensure that when somebody is no longer in the running, they're told they're no longer in the running, that they don't cut the mustard, they haven't got the qualifications or whatever. But to do this two-faced approach is really not becoming of a government that is supposed to set an example in management-labour relations.

We've heard so much from this government that it isn't reactionary. We've had a very enlightened and cooling effect by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) on certain proposed labour legislation which he quite wisely told this government to forget.

But here we have a pretty blatant and very insensitive attitude in relation to those employees

[ Page 3320 ]

who are to be in some way or other either relocated or to seek employment with BCBC. The sad part is that they've been told the conditions under which they can seek that employment, but those conditions seem to be meaningless if this letter of June 20 to Mrs. Ashmore is anything to go by. Perhaps the minister could stand up and say, "that's just one incident and this isn't happening as a general policy, " but we've got his own figures that 19 jobs have been filled, and one-third of them have been filled by people who are not presently with the Ministry of Public Works. Now when we get up to the 90 which are still to be filled, does that mean 30 of them, on an average, are going to be filled by people who get the job in front of the Mrs. Ashmores of this world?

I've quoted another example where the minister says that the best person for the job got the job in the computer field, and he's from Alberta. There again the minister dismisses the answer very lightly by saying he's the best man for the job. Are you trying to tell me that for this particular job there's not a single person living in British Columbia who could do it? Don't make me laugh - that's ridiculous! That's the answer the minister gave: "Mr. Jaques from Alberta got the job because he's the only man capable of filling it." I think that's a pretty incredible statement! It either means we've got an incredibly inept group of professionals in the systems field in British Columbia - and I know that isn't true - or there's some fancy footwork going on in the processing of applications for senior jobs in BCBC.

Out of respect for the Lieutenant-Governor I'm quite pleased to sit down, but unless I get a specific answer to these two specific questions this vote will never go through.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, might we request a short recess?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think the recess will be very short. I believe the Lieutenant-Governor is just about the enter the premises. If the members would just kindly remain in their seats, I believe the Lieutenant-Governor will be here momentarily.

The House took recess at 4:56 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:59 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is approaching. Would all members please rise?

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Survivorship and Presumption of Death Amendment Act, 1977

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 1)

Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters Act

Registered Nurses Amendment Act, 1977

Plant Protection Act

Captain Cook Bi-Centennial Commemoration Act

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC WORKS

(continued)

On vote 146: minister's office, $158,130 -

continued.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I discontinued my comments prior to the attendance of the Lieutenant-Governor. I wonder if the minister would now be ready to answer the two particular questions I asked. The minister's shaking his head.

MR. LAUK: Arrogance!

MR. WALLACE: Well, I just want to ask a more general question, Mr. Chairman, as to what understanding the minister has with B.C. Buildings Corporation as to the procedures which shall be followed, particularly in relation to the two memos that I've quoted, one of May 20 and one of June 8, addressed to all Public Works employees and signed by the minister on the letterhead of British Columbia Buildings Corporation. These two letters from the minister state quite plainly that present employees in Public Works will be given every opportunity arid, in fact, they're encouraged right now to apply for jobs which have been posted by BCBC, on the very logical and reasonable basis that if they have the qualifications for the job they will be given first choice, first preference.

If such applicants don't have the qualifications for the job, why are they not receiving a simple letter

[ Page 3321 ]

to the public."? That's what should be done, but oh, no! They write back to the applicant and say: "You've got the qualifications and you're still in the running, but we're going on the public market anyway to see who we can find to fill the job."

The letter of June 15 to Mrs. Ashmore says: "While we do consider you to be a good candidate still in the running for this particular position, we have decided to delay finalizing our decision on your application, pending review of suitably qualified applicants in the Victoria labour market." That's a complete and total contradiction of the memos of May 20 and June 8.

1 wonder if I could even suggest, Mr. Chairman, that maybe the minister was not aware of the kind of letter that went to Mrs. Ashmore on June 15, because I believe quite sincerely that the minister is not at all happy about that kind of letter that went to Mrs. Ashmore on June 15. But there are probably a lot of Mrs. Ashmores around right now out of the 800 people who were shaking in their boots wondering where they're going to be working next year. I don't think it's fair that people in her predicament should be given this kind of letter signed by the director of corporate services for BCBC. This isn't any letter from some low-level civil servant. We're talking about a letter from the director of corporate services, Mr. P. Dolezal.

I wonder if the minister would tell us whether he would consider implementing some directive to the BCBC to ensure that at least this unfortunate practice that's being applied to Mrs. Ashmore's application should be discontinued forthwith. If persons in the Public Works department apply for other jobs and are found to be lacking the training or experience or qualifications, at least they should be told before the B.C. Buildings Corporation then proceeds to advertise the job to the public. It seems a very straightforward simple request that I'm making, but as long as the minister does not respond, Mr. Chairman, can you imagine how many other people now employed by Public Works are just wondering what the future holds for them? They hear of what happened in this case of a person who did what she was asked to do in the memo by the minister, put in an application, was told she was a suitable candidate but then: "We'd better go see if we can find someone on the public market anyway."

I'm not even asking for an apology for the mistake that's already been made. I'm just suggesting that at least the minister would give those other 800 people some kind of reassurance that they're not some kind of ping-pong ball in this whole business of reorganizing the Department of Public Works. That's all I'm asking. It's certainly setting a bad example for the government as a whole as an employer. I've already mentioned that I'm sure other ministers are not very happy about the impact and the ripple effect that this is having in the employment force.

I'll just repeat the second question. Since this other position in computer services has been filled by an applicant from Alberta, can I take it that there's just simply nobody in British Columbia capable of filling that particular post?

I have a copy of some of the ads, Mr. Chairman, that have been appearing in the local press: "Join the BCBC Team" - this is The Province of Saturday, June 25 - "Join the Senior Financial Management Team." The positions that are advertised are corporate comptroller, manager of financial planning and analysis, secretary-treasurer and manager of corporate affairs. I presume that there was some similar post advertised for a computer expert, for lack of a more precise word.

I gather from meetings that I've had recently with representatives of the computer industry in British Columbia, who, I might say, are very concerned about this government for reasons I needn't define, since I would be intruding on the rules of the House, Mr. Chairman.... But I happen to have talked to several people in the computer business in recent weeks. For anybody to suggest that there's a job with BCBC dealing with computers which can only be filled by somebody from Alberta, Mr. Chairman, is really stretching credulity just a little.

So we have someone who is in Alberta picking up a job with the B.C. Buildings Corporation when we are going to have I don't know how many either unemployed people from Public Works or other people getting shuffled aside or down the ladder or shoved off somewhere else just simply to find any job. Some of these people in their late 50s and late 40s have been in government service a long time. What a shabby way to treat these people. To just tell them, "Well, I'm sorry, there's not a job for you any longer in Public Works but we'll find a job for you somewhere at some level with some kind of rearranged classification, " is really pretty shabby, I think.

I just hope that the minister will answer two simple questions: that he will see that no other people are given a letter saying they're in the running for a job when they obviously are not; and secondly, that he will tell me that this gentleman, Mr. Jaques from Alberta, is the only possible person in the whole of Canada who can fill this job with BCBC because there's no such qualified experience in the whole of the 2.3 million people in British Columbia.

I know I'll be very interested to go back to the computer industry and the people I've just talked to and ask them if they consider that there's just nobody in British Columbia capable of filling that job.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'll attempt to answer the member for Oak Bay here.

[ Page 3322 ]

First of all, dealing with Mrs. Ashmore, the lady did apply; that is correct. But I would refer you to the letter of May 20 that I wrote, and I'll read a section out to you. "These positions will be filled on the basis of merit selection and may be opened at a later date to the general public in the event that qualified Public Works candidates cannot be found." That is the section of this letter that affects Mrs. Ashmore and that's exactly what happened. The B.C. Buildings Corporation went out and found, in the general public, somebody with more merit or capability - whatever you want.

MR. WALLACE: But you said she was still in the running.

HON. MR. FRASER: That is correct, but I understand that it goes by stages. That was definitely correct that she was in the running when the letter was written.

Regarding the other positions that you've mentioned, as far as finances are concerned, there was no similar position in Public Works at all. As for the other one, it is correct that the man from Alberta was the only man who applied for the job that qualified at the salary posted that we were prepared to pay.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I neglected to give the hon. minister his new title. I know that we're in another phase of the debate now, but just to give a little credence to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) , who was giving some pretty articulate explanations of why the BCBC is open to scandal, I would just like to say that I think that the minister, by virtue of circumstances beyond his control, should now be dubbed "the Baron of Pork, " which would suggest that whether he likes it or not, he'll have to preside over the pork distribution as the corporation develops over the years. I don't think that that's too far-fetched.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If I may just interrupt you, I think the hon. member knows that if he has any allegations which he wishes to make, they need to be made by substantive motion and not by suggestion in debate. That goes for all members who are debating.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was suggesting that this was a possibility. I think my remarks indicated that it was a possibility, not that the minister was guilty of having been....

MR. LAUK: He's the purveyor of pork!

MR. BARNES: ... the purveyor of pork or anything at this stage. But I think that potentially it's quite likely that he might find that he is presiding over such a barrel.

But back to the questions raised by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) . I think that should be pursued a little bit further - the question of opportunities available to the public servants who now find themselves not even in the running for certain positions.

I would like to just review a comment made by the minister himself. In fact, this was before the demonstration. Last May 17, we had a demonstration of public servants in front of the parliament buildings.

"Public Works Minister Alex Fraser said current Public Works department employees will not necessarily be given the first opportunity with the new B.C. Buildings corporation. Fraser says: 'The 1,200 jobs in the corporation will be posted for competition, and Public Works employees will be given priority only if they meet all qualifications for the job. The information of the B.C. Buildings Corporation will mean that about 800 civil servants will have to seek other jobs within the civil service.' Mr. Fraser says he has heard that many junior employees are just giving up on the department and are looking for new careers."

He didn't go on to state that he was alarmed at the decision of those few junior employees who were going to give up on the department and look for new careers. I presume by that that he wasn't disturbed. But in any event, it just doesn't seem to me to be quite responsible for the minister to say that on the one hand he is going to ensure that everyone has a fair chance, and then say he's going to open the competition to the public. Then we find that in the first flush of jobs that were offered - some 19 of them - 13 were filled by the public service and the other six or seven were filled by the public, indicating that the trend, as was pointed out by the member for Oak Bay, certainly will leave them much further short than indicated by the 1,200 that they are supposed to be going to employ.

We're talking about the role of Peat Marwick and partners in the creation of the Crown corporation. I was just looking over an ad that was placed June 25 in which a number of senior positions were being offered. I would like the minister to comment on how these jobs were filled or if they have been filled, and how many of the present public servants applied for the positions.

You certainly would think, again to corroborate the points being made by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) , that at least we could find some of the public servants presently working with the system would qualify for some of these jobs. This one says: "Join the B.C. team as manager of corporate affairs." I won't read the details of the ad, but the position of manager of corporate affairs was advertised. "Join the

[ Page 3323 ]

senior financial management team." Again, a corporate comptroller was required. "Manager for financial planning and analysis. ' ' "Secretary-treasurer. " These certainly aren't positions that are beyond the capacity of the personnel presently working for the public service. I would just like to hear the comments of the minister in regard to this.

I'm going to shift back to the actual demonstration which was on May 18. As the minister knows, I was also in attendance at that demonstration in front of the parliament buildings. I still don't know why he was so reluctant because I know that he's congenial and always willing to discuss the matters of his department with those of us who are interested, but for some reason he failed to attend a couple of these meetings that affected the future of the public service. At this meeting on May 18, the minister came out and issued the following statement. I must remind the House, Mr. Chairman, that this was following the May 17 statement in which the minister had just indicated that certain of the positions would have to be posted for competition.

"My purpose in coming out here today is to reassure you on the matter of yesterday's new report, which has been misunderstood. The matter that was in my mind at the time was that a number of management jobs will be available in the corporation, and which must be competed for and awarded on the basis of merit."

We're hearing this word "merit" quite a bit in these deliberations.

"The remaining jobs within the Buildings Corporation will be filled by present Public Works staff on a basis to be arrived at through negotiation with the unions. It is my understanding that negotiations are underway and no transfer s will be made until the appropriate process has been decided as a result of these negotiations.

"I would further emphasize that no Public Works employee will be laid off as a consequence of the introduction of the Buildings Corporation. Further details on this matter are to be set out at the bargaining table."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think I have to draw to the member's attention again - I think this is the third time - that the matters presently being debated by the member are covered under a bill presently on the order paper and his debate is out of order.

MR. BARNES: Which bill was that, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The bill is on your order paper, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: What's the number?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not my responsibility to give you the number. The number is 66.

MR. BARNES: The number is 66. That's the amendment bill. That's the one we discussed earlier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is a bill. It is legislation.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the member understand?

MR. BARNES: Quite clearly. I just didn't understand the relationship to what I was saying, but I do understand the bill, thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I'm just trying to illustrate how confusing it is for those of us on this side of the House and, I'm sure, the public employees when they try to find out the direction the minister is following. He has indicated on the one hand that he was going to post for public competition positions. Then he says it's a misunderstanding. Then he says he is the chief officer, the chairman of the board, so to speak, for BCBC, as minister in charge, and therefore is responsible for policy and is assuring this House that public tenders will be made available. That is, all activity will be subjected to competition on a free and open basis to those interested in competing for the requirements of the BCBC. But then, when asked to ensure that this will be done through the legislative process, he indicates that he's not in a position to make any guarantees.

He says that there are some honest people still around; I believe that was the expression he used. I certainly think that he is one. I have no cause to believe that the hon. member is in any way dishonest or intentionally will try to deceive. At the same time the public business has to rely on something more substantial than the good intentions and good will of individuals when you are dealing with people who are not elected and who are being given a responsibility to make decisions on the expenditure of public funds, as will be the case with this board, and when you have an open-ended fiscal programme whereby they're permitted at any point in time to commit the government, through the corporation, for up to $200 million of debt and where it may or may not be feasible - as the minister has pointed out - to deal with public tender.

You wonder just what we're supposed to believe, what we're supposed to think. That's not to suggest that the minister is not sincere, but I don't see how you can think anything other than the worst being possible, if not likely to happen. Perhaps it isn't

[ Page 3324 ]

probable, but it certainly is possible for the things that were being charged by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) to happen. It's the potential that we're concerned about. No one is charging anyone with having committed any wrongdoing, in my view, at this stage. I think that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) was indicating the same thing.

It's the potential and I think it's the responsibility of the government to demonstrate to the people its good intentions and its sincerity and enshrine within the legislation those protective clauses that will guarantee that the public will have first view of any decisions that are being made and that it will have the opportunity at any point in time to review the decisions that are being made. This is not the case right now.

Now I would like to ask as well if the minister could point . . .

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you still up?

MR. BARNES: I just got up, thank you, my friend.

... to that section in the legislation for the B.C. Buildings Corporation that specifically requires all ministries to deal with the B.C. Buildings Corporation.

Now I know that the B.C. Buildings Corporation is being developed as an outgrowth of the Public Works department to carry on and that most of the ministries are already in public buildings. With most of them it's just a matter of paper because they will carry on as usual, Mr. Chairman. Just as I was suggesting we have been assured that there will be opportunity for public tender, it should be in documentary form, it should be written within the statutes of British Columbia in a way that we can ensure that the public is protected.

I ask the same question, Mr. Chairman: just where in this B.C. Buildings Corporation Act does it specifically require the ministries to do business with B.C. Buildings Corporation? Now it could happen conceivably in the future where one of the ministries might opt to do business with some other organization. They're going to find they have that option. In accountability it works both ways, in my view. I'm not sure, but maybe there is something in the Act. If the ministry is going to be accountable, if it has to be charged for its space, then I would suggest that it has the option of getting the best deal wherever it can. So conceivably a ministry could go outside of the BCBC in order to get accommodations at any point in time. I'm just wondering if that in fact could happen. Are there any assurances that it will not happen?

That's the analogy I'm making with these other things. It's not likely that it's going to happen, but could it happen legally? And if that could happen legally, then we could also see how there may be cause from time to time not to exercise the public tender option. There may just be an occasion when some officer of the board will find it opportunistic, shall we say, to avoid dealing through the public at any particular time, not that that is the plan. This is why I would suggest that there be some assurance that public business will be protected despite the motivation of individuals from time to time, be they honourable or otherwise.

I just want to draw one other interesting little aside to show how things can change. I can understand the need for flexibility, but the Public Works department ran an ad not too long ago, last May 18, in which it sought bids for space for one of their departments.

This particular space that I have here is on Commercial Drive. It's bounded on the west by Commercial Drive, on the east by Rupert Street, on the north by Hastings Street and on the south by 25th Avenue. This is the area that the Public Works department was hoping to acquire to find the space that was needed. It finally had an applicant apply and make available the space which was refused - at least, it was noted in the ad that the lowest bidder would not necessarily be accepted. I suppose that's a prospective clause, because there could be circumstances that would warrant refusing a low bid. You just never know - you may have somebody who has a bad reputation, although they happen to have what you require, and for one reason or the other you don't want to deal with him. I can understand that.

The main point in this little bit is that the lowest bidder was not accepted. It was clear that the lowest bidder would not be accepted.

Then we have an example again where the minister, in order-in-council No. 12, on January 7, awarded a contract to the second-lowest bidder - a contractor for building cleaning and maintenance. This particular bidder was second to someone that the department, for one reason or the other, had decided should not receive the bid. It read: "Tenders have been received for the janitorial contract at leased premises 2277 Commercial Drive, Vancouver, and the Minister of Highways and Public Works does not deem it expedient to let the contract to the lowest bidder in this case." Again, he has some discretionary power and is able to be flexible, I suppose, to protect the public's interest.

It's interesting that we've been accusing this minister of making statements depending on how he feels from time to time and as it pleases him. Here is a question asked by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) . This was on March 16, and it was on the order paper. He asked the minister regarding the offices now occupied by the Premier and his staff:

[ Page 3325 ]

"Were bids asked and tenders submitted for the purchase of furniture and carpeting?" The minister replied: "Yes, all items, whether new or refurbished of existing, were tendered and awarded through the normal channels of a Purchasing Commission requisition, and awards were made to the low bidder."

Presumably it pleased the minister to not have a hassle with that member for Oak Bay in suggesting that it went to the low bidder. Otherwise he would say: "I found it advisable on this occasion to award the bid to the lowest bidder."

My point here is that it looks good when you say the lowest bidder, but then in many cases you find that you don't want to do it or there may be other extenuating circumstances. This is a kind of situation that you may be thinking about when you want to keep the door open with the B.C. Buildings Corporation in dealing with large contracts and handling large maintenance projects and contracts.

At the same time, there has to be a mechanism whereby the public is protected. Fears have been expressed about the possible corruption or collusion and porkbarrelling and all of the things that, you know as well as 1, could happen. There doesn't have to be any motivation on the part of any of the present staff to involve themselves in this kind of thing. It's just a matter of time. People become habitual in little ways, and negligent. Over a period of time you get careless. People set up little patterns and habits - a little slip here and a little slip there and the legislators are out of the picture. I don't see any mechanism, quite frankly, where a legislator is going to be involved in scrutinizing the activities of the BCBC except through the annual report. As you say, you sent one in just last week, which is somewhat of a record by the standards in what's happening in other departments. You're to be commended for that.

But the annual report is after the fact. What we want to know is: how do we scrutinize on a daily basis? What access do we have to see what's going on with BCBC all the time, so that we don't have a situation where the legislators - including the Premier - are crying about corporations being out of control and too big and too unwieldy? I don't think there's a member over on that side of the House who wouldn't agree that B.C. Hydro is out of control. B.C. Hydro has well over $600 million of debt. Pardon me, I think that's billions. They just got $650 million this last year, so it must be close to $4 billion as their extension, I believe.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to the vote!

MR. BARNES: So there's an example. Even your government and the Premier are very upset over how things are there with B.C. Hydro. Now we find that the same thing could conceivably happen with the B.C. Buildings Corporation. It's starting off with the $200 million borrowing capacity which you say is nothing more than a self-supporting scheme, but which is a $200 million bill that does not have to be shown at the end of this fiscal year through the general balance sheet. Public Works will not have to show that loss. Mind you, the various ministries will have to show some costs, but it will be considerably less when you consider that BCBC will be, through another system, paying for a lot of the cost of the private sector. But there will be some rental cost that will be reflected in the budgets of the various departments. But that will be considerably less, I'm sure, than what otherwise might have to be shown with some 1,200 employees not on the payroll.

So we're justifiably worried about the future of this new corporation. I think it's essential that right now, Mr. Chairman, we get as many of the basic problems out of the way and debate them, so that as we go into the years, we're not going to find ourselves totally alienated. I would think that one of the most essential things that you should want to do - and now is the time to do it, before there is a scandal. I hope there never is, but should there be one, it's going to be a question of covering up and the government being embarrassed and a whole bunch of manoeuvres that will be much more difficult now and wouldn't serve the public's best interest.

I would advise on a strictly non-partisan basis that the minister seriously take a look at ways of safeguarding the public's interest and ensuring that the members of this Legislature can scrutinize the activities of the B.C. Buildings Corporation. I would like the minister to comment, if he would, on the mechanism whereby I or any other member of the House will be in a position to go and take a look at what's happening with B.C. Buildings Corporation, to be able to ask questions and get answers, to feel free and encouraged to participate in overview - perhaps not participate; maybe that's a little bit too ambitious because we're all busy - but certainly to overview the activities of B.C. Buildings Corporation, to feel that we have access to information and to decisions, to policies, to the ordinary goings-on. If that could be done, then I don't think there is any way we could do anything other than support what is happening and what the government intended to do.

HON. MR. FRASER: To the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) , I've made a few notes here, starting with where you ended off, Mr. Member - the financial statement and the review of the B.C. Buildings Corporation. You have an annual statement to analyse and that has to be tabled under the Act here. That's where you'll be able to find out what's going on.

I think you mentioned earlier in the debate that

[ Page 3326 ]

you also wanted to watch daily. Well, you'll have to win the next election and be the government. That seems to be the answer there. In other words, government policy is carried out day to day, but it's finally public knowledge through the financial statements published.

I wasn't sure of the part you were asking. Was that May 18,1976, regarding the property on Commercial Drive? I'll get you a reply to that. I don't recall the details but the low bidder was ruled out. We had to go the order-in-council route to the second low bidder. Is that correct? But I'll get you the details on that; I don't recall them now.

Regarding the mandate of the corporation that you discussed in your debate, the mandate of the corporation is to supply the real-estate requirements of the province of British Columbia. You were suggesting, as I understood your debate, that a ministry could go outside of that and bypass the B.C. Buildings Corporation. I feel that's physically impossible because every ministry must have Treasury Board approval, and they won't get Treasury Board approval, in my opinion, to go outside of the B.C. Buildings Corporation.

Regarding where you were earlier on corporate and financial affairs, I think you were talking about three jobs: specifically, the comptroller, the manager of financial planning and the secretary-treasurer. They were advertised quite extensively - across Canada, I believe. They have been filled, but I would remind you - and this is maybe one of the weaknesses in Public Works - that none of these positions existed in the old Public Works establishment. They never existed under any administration. These were new positions.

MR. BARNES: That was very close to what I wanted, but I think you were just a little bit on the edges. I don't mean that the Treasury Board couldn't intercede, say, in a situation for political reasons, obviously to protect the BCBC. But they may change; they may not. There is no way of telling just what the Treasury Board may do in terms of their political decisions. I'm talking about the statutes of British Columbia. In other words, there should be a companion piece of legislation to go with the B.C. Buildings Corporation Act, or at least incorporating within that Act some directive or statement, ensuring that ministries must - and I should underline "must" - deal with the BCBC. There is nothing that says they must, and the Treasury Board may decide that there is nothing to bind them to it and they may close their eyes and let something happen.

I'm just suggesting that that is no different than you telling me, as far as you are concerned, nothing is going to happen that is irregular with public tenders. There is a new policy that you have encouraged; it didn't exist under the Department of Public Works before. So I say, congratulations. That is a good move on your part. But what is to ensure that it will happen should there be a cabinet shuffle and you found that you were replaced by the now Chairman of the committee?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that an attack on the Chair? (Laughter.)

MR. BARNES: He might be different. We have examples of the different ways of dealing with things, depending on how personalities are from time to time. I know that you, as a former Tory and very devout Conservative, wouldn't do anything wrong, because you're a chip off the old Oak Bay block, I'm sure! (Laughter.)

Back to the other questions about the jobs that were being advertised. I'm not too satisfied with your suggestion. Now you say these are new positions. But even so, don't you feel some commitment to the professional people within the public service for those positions? Must you really hide behind the argument that they are new jobs and we should go out there.... Aren't there people in the public service who can fill these positions?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I remind you for the fourth time.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just feel that under the circumstances, when you're stirring up a hornets' nest, and you're just coming in and bulldozing right through the whole public service system, you have a commitment. If you had sat down before you made these decisions with the public service, in fairness, you would have negotiated just as you are negotiating now, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member is out of order.

MR. BARNES: Which one - me? (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is only one member who has the floor.

MR. BARNES: I thought I was in order, Mr. -Chairman. Thank you very much. You confused me.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to get back in order if I'm out of order. You've been very nice this afternoon. I have no qualms with you straightening me out there. I just wanted to pursue this question of a commitment on behalf of the ministry to those people who are being displaced and who were being asked to relocate, et cetera, in order to continue their public service. I wonder to what extent the minister has considered making some concessions, if you want to call them that, in at least giving the first call, or ensuring that these people are not capable of doing

[ Page 3327 ]

the work. I don't know if that's being done.

If it's a question of relocation, maybe there are some in some parts of this province who weren't from this precinct and who would have had to be relocated to apply, or who qualified but found they weren't physically in a position to take the job. Are you telling me that there are applicants in the public service, Mr. Chairman, who applied for the positions that I read out earlier and they did not qualify?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, regarding these three positions - that's the ones I'm talking about - I understand they were posted within the public service and right across the nation, and as far as the staff now know there were no applications. I'm not saying they weren't qualified. They have some determination to make too - the individuals - and there were no applications. That's why the appointments were made from the applications received.

MR. BARBER: Well, I'm back for the third time to the question of whether or not this minister is willing to keep his promise to pay property taxes in the city of Victoria or in any other city where the ministry owns property, courtesy of the B.C. Buildings Corporation, The minister told us earlier, Mr. Chairman, that it was not up to him to decide, that it was a matter of government policy, and he thereby hid behind the skirts of that policy.

I'd like to pursue some of the other authors of that policy; the minister having raised the point, I think it's fair to follow it. I'd like to read into the record some comments made about Social Credit policy towards municipal government and property taxation as reported April 30,1974, in The Vancouver Sun by the now Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer): "McGeer said that cities have been held back under the Social Credit government."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is this in the administrative responsibility of this minister?

MR. BARBER: I believe so, Mr. Chairman. What the minister has said to us is that he personally is unwilling to honour his own promise to pay property taxes. I've read into the record the minister's own statements regarding that question. The B.C. Buildings Corporation, for which the minister is responsible, has within its Act the consenting authority that permits the corporation to pay property taxes but does not require them to do so.

The argument I'm pursuing, Mr. Chairman, is this: will the minister keep his promise and, if not, who will? If someone else is to keep the promise, who might that be? The minister has told us that it will be government policy. I'm now looking at the other authors of government policy.

Mr. McGeer said:

"Cities have been held back under the Social Credit government. 'We had a gymnasium teacher from Campbell River for years making decisions for the cities, ' he said, referring to former Municipal Affairs minister Dan Campbell. 'Cities and municipalities could not reach their destiny under Social Credit, and under your government' - referring to the NDP administration - 'they cannot do any better, ' McGeer shot back."

Well, I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. Minister of Education is the author of government policy regarding property taxes. He had condemned the previous Social Credit government; he had attacked its minister of Municipal Affairs as a former gymnasium teacher from Campbell River. I wonder if they've now shook hands and made up. I wonder if the hon. Minister of Education is the author of government policy regarding the payment of property taxes where the province of British Columbia owns buildings.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must call the member to order. The administrative responsibility of the Minister of Highways and Public Works is under debate. Please keep your remarks in order.

MR. BARBER: With respect, Mr. Chairman, the minister has attempted this afternoon to do the famous end run around his own political statements of 1974, which he today obviously finds embarrassing. If he did not find them embarrassing, he would stand up, defend them, and enact them. There would be no debate on the question of payment of property taxes where the province owns property because the payments would all already have occurred. It's precisely because the minister, an honourable man, is embarrassed to find that he simply cannot meet his own promises - let me read it again: he suggested the province should start paying grants in lieu of property taxes equal to full property taxes - that we have this particular debate, Mr. Chairman.

I wonder, by way of a question, then if this satisfies the rules better, Mr. Chairman if the minister might tell us who does make policy. If not he for the B.C. Buildings Corporation, who does make policy regarding property taxes? Would the minister be so good as to name the member of the cabinet, if not he, who does? If not a member of cabinet, the committee of cabinet, and if so, who chairs it? Who makes the policy that is embarrassing the minister and which seems to forbid this government from honouring its campaign promises in Victoria and during the general election and which the minister himself made in April, 1974. Is it the Minister of Education? We've already quoted him, and we know his opinion of Dan Campbell and of the

[ Page 3328 ]

issue. If it's not, who is it? Who's making government policy? Who's the minister hiding behind?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, this member seems to be out of order to me. I have answered this member two or three times on this subject. That's as far as I'm prepared to go. It's government policy that decides these matters, and he knows who the government is. If he doesn't we should tell him, I guess.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am now prepared to give my decision on the matter of privilege raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) .

On June 28,1977, the hon. member for Nanaimo rose on a point of privilege and alleged that the hon. member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) had improperly persuaded a witness, Mr. Norris, from attending a scheduled meeting of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs, and had thereby committed a breach of privilege.

In reaching my decision, I have considered the authority cited by the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and I have carefully examined the material provided by the hon. member for Nanaimo, namely, a memorandum addressed to him from the hon. member for Coquitlam and his reply thereto.

I also note that (1) under standing order 72, the chairman and the members of a committee have the right to call witnesses in accordance with an agenda agreed to by the committee, or arranged by the chairman with the general consent of the committee, although no person has the right to bar the attendance of a witness; and (2) Votes and Proceedings of this House for the second day of March, 1977, contain a list of the members of the committee and show that it is composed of 17 members representing all parties.

In his memorandum, the hon. member for Coquitlam requested adjournment of a meeting scheduled for the following day as he had been advised that the Social Credit members on the committee would be unable to attend.

Standing order 71 (2) indicates that a quorum of the committee would be'a majority of its members, and based on information provided to the chairman, there could be no quorum for the meeting in question. That this was obvious on June 27 is confirmed by the letter of the hon. member for

Nanaimo of the same date, which reads, in part, as follows: "I have checked and established that all four of the NDP members will be present. I do hope that at least five of the Social Credit committee members will attend so that we may proceed with a quorum." Any question as to why a quorum was unable to be present is not before me and is not relevant to my consideration of the matter.

Committee on Privileges, House of Commons, Westminster, June 6,1934, 1 cannot find in this material even an allegation or suspicion of corruption or intimidation, or of any appeal, direct or indirect, to greed or fear. There is no evidence of an attempt in the context of a matter of privilege to persuade a witness not to attend. On the contrary, the memorandum of the hon. member for Coquitlam expressed requests that the B.C. Rail delegation be recalled at a later date.

I can find no authority to suggest that it would be improper, as secretary of a select committee, for a member or his staff to inform a witness that he need not appear on a particular occasion based on information that a scheduled meeting of a committee should not transact business by reason of the lack of a quorum.

The authorities I have referred to indicate that it would require a positive move to intimidate, hinder or deter with a wrong motive a witness in order to constitute a contempt, and such a situation is not indicated in the material at hand.

I therefore rule that no prima facie breach of privilege has been raised.

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's not debatable! What's wrong with you?

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Baloney! You didn't even stand up on a point of order!

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): There's a member on his feet on a point of order.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, it would be an understatement to say that I'm dissatisfied or concerned with the statement presented by yourself. It would seem to me that in the statement you dealt only with the memos - as a matter of fact, with one particular memo - rather than with the written statement from myself.

Mr. Speaker you did say that there was no evidence that Mr. Norris had been interfered with. In my written statement I pointed out that Mr. Norris phoned on that same day, twice, and once on tile following day, to inquire as to whether the meeting

[ Page 3329 ]

was still going ahead.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. STUPICH: It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that there was evidence that Mr. Norris had been ordered by someone that he should not come.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member is now abusing the rules of the House.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, you didn't deal with that in your statement.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member knows the rules of the House as well as any member here. A reflection on a decision handed down is entirely improper. There is a provision if the member wishes to exercise it.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that you are certainly inviting that course of action ...

MR. SPEAKER: Not at all, hon. member.

MR. STUPICH: ... by saying that. You're certainly inviting some sort of action when you say: "If you don't like what I've done, challenge it."

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, hon. member, it's your position as well as the position of all of the members of the House to maintain an orderly discussion on events that are under discussion. This is not debate, hon. member, and I remind you of that. It's up to me to hand a decision down, which has been handed down. Now it's not a debatable matter and the hon. member is well aware of that.

MR. STUPICH: That's an incredible statement!

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, my reading of Beauchesne, fourth edition, at page 95, clearly indicates that your decision is totally out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a debatable matter, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: I'm not debating the decision at all, Mr. Speaker. It says:

"It has been often laid down that the Speaker's function in ruling on a claim of breach of privilege does not extend to deciding the question of substance whether a breach of privilege has been in fact committed, - a question that can only be decided by the House. The Speaker requires to be satisfied both that there is a prima facie case that a breach of privilege has occurred and also that the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity."

Mr. Speaker, you have deliberately ignored evidence placed before you....

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member will take his seat.

An attack on the Speaker is an attack on all of the members of the House. You're fully aware of that. All of the facts that were presented and all of the authorities that needed to be referred to, including the quotations by the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) , were duly examined.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. member! Withdraw that statement now. That is an improper accusation, and the HON. member knows it.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that statement, but I must say to the Speaker that if ever in the history of the British parliamentary system there was a prima facie case, this was it. How can we expect to respect the rules of this House after a decision like that?

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): I want to know whether, Mr. Speaker, this was considered: "Any conduct which is calculated to deter prospective witnesses from giving evidence before a committee of either House is a breach of privilege." That is in May at page 130.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is out of order.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, if that quotation is correct, what you said when you said why the quorum was not present is not relevant.... That was deliberate throttling of the public accounts committee on June 28. Now if that's not breach of parliament, what is?

[Mr. Speaker rises. I

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member will please take his seat.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Please be seated, hon. member.

[ Page 3330 ]

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Please take your seat, hon. member. Will the hon. member... ?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the hon. member take his seat? The hon. member is now indulging in an abuse of the House and the members of the House.

Interjection.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat. ]

MR. SPEAKER: I've indicated to the House that all of the matters put before me and all of the evidence was considered duly. The decision is as it is.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask you to leave the chair with permission of the House to have someone sit in the chair to make the following motion: That this House has lost confidence in the Speaker by reason of his failure to allow a prima facie case of contempt of the House to be examined by a committee of privileges or to give proper or any reason for his decision, thereby interfering with the right of the House to vindicate its rights and dignities.

If the Speaker will leave the chair, I will put the motion that has been co-seconded by the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) and the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) in this extraordinary move, Mr. Speaker.

I ask you now, Mr. Speaker, if we are to have any respect for the Chair, to accept your leaving this chair and put the committee Chairman in your place so that I can ask leave of the House and let the House decide.

MR. SPEAKER: Such a motion must be on notice, and the hon. member knows this.

MR. BARRETT: I'm asking for leave, Mr. Speaker, and I'm asking for leave at any time by you leaving the chair and having an impartial Chairperson. Then I will ask for leave, and that's what I'm asking for now.

MR. SPEAKER: I remind the hon. member that it must be on notice.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm asking leave. A request for leave is in order at any time.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

AN HON. MEMBER: The ayes have it!

MR. SPEAKER: I hear a number of noes, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Are you ruling while you're in the chair?

MR. SPEAKER: Exactly.

MR. BARRETT: You're ruling on your own motion while you're in the chair? I asked for the committee Chairman to go there! I asked for the committee Chairman to take that vote!

MR. SPEAKER: The question was put. You have no leave.

MR. BARRETT: That is pure obstruction by the Chair absolute and pure! I've never seen anything like this - a straight fix!

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Leader of the Opposition please take his seat?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will you take your seat? Will the hon. Leader of the Opposition please take his seat?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: On the rule that you're not in any way in possession of the floor, hon. member. You know the rules as well as I do. When the Speaker is on his feet, the other members take their seats.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! That is a gross distortion, hon. member. That is a gross distortion. I ask you to withdraw it.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. member and Leader of the Opposition please withdraw that remark?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, how can I when I

[ Page 3331 ]

ask for an impartial person to take the motion of leave... ?

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's on notice!

MR. BARRETT: No!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you have ears as well as the rest of the members of this House have ears. I said: "Shall leave be granted?" It was not granted, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: I asked that the Chairman be called.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Now you're trying to badger the members of this House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you're trying to badger the members of this House and the Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: Don't badger me - just stick to the rules.

MR. SPEAKER: I am, hon. member. It would be nice if some of the members would also stick to the rules.

MR. BARRETT: What's your ruling on the vote?

MR. SPEAKER: I put the question. There were many people who said that leave would not be granted.

I recognize the member for North Vancouver-Capilano on a point of order.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present to you two propositions. The first proposition is that where a motion arises out of a question of privilege, notice is not required. You'll find a citation to that effect in May. Therefore I would suggest to you that this motion is in order without notice. Secondly, I would remind you of the elementary question of justice that no man shall sit as judge in his own case.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, had the Speaker found a matter of privilege to be in order, as stated by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) , you're correct, a motion could then have been moved by the hon. member. He indicated in his remarks to the House when he first raised the matter of privilege that he was prepared to move such a motion.

Having found that there is not a matter of privilege - and that is the decision of the Chair, hon. member - a motion without notice is not in order.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6: 11 p.m.