[ Page 1809 ]

CONTENTS

Introduction of Bills

The Human Rights Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill M204).

Ms. Sanford.

Introduction and first reading –– 1810

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions.

Bank of Canada interest rates. Mr. Howard –– 1810

Administration of justice. Mr. Macdonald –– 1810

Refit of the ferry Queen of Surrey. Mr. Barber –– 1811

Permit for Keremeos sewage treatment plant. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 1812

Supply Act, No. 1, 1980 (Bill 11). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 1813

Supply Act, No. 1, 1980 (Bill 11). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1813

Mr. Stupich –– 1814

Mr. Cocke –– 1814

Mr. Nicolson –– 1815

Mrs. Dailly –– 1815

Mr. Lea –– 1816

Mr. Hanson –– 1817

Mr. Gabelmann –– 1818

Mr. Lockstead –– 1819

Mr. Hall –– 1819

Mrs. Wallace –– 1820

Ms. Brown –– 1820

Mr. King –– 1821

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1821

Supply Act, No. 1, 1980 (Bill 11). Committee stage.

On section 2.

Mr. Stupich –– 1823

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1823

Report and third reading –– 1823

Special Funds Act, 1980 (Bill 7). Second reading.

Mr. Cocke –– 1823

Mrs. Dailly –– 1825

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1826

Mr. Nicolson –– 1827

Mr. Brummet –– 1830

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'd like to introduce two gentlemen who are in the gallery today. Both of these men have given of their personal life to serve in public office, and I've had the opportunity and privilege of serving with them. The first is Mr. Frank Laird from the city of Penticton. He is the former mayor of the city of Penticton and is visiting us in Victoria today. Mr. Laird has been involved in many areas of public life, the regional hospital and CMHC as well. The other gentleman is Mr. Fred Stinson, former resident of the city of Penticton, former alderman of the city of Penticton, who now resides in Kamloops. I'd like the House to welcome both these gentlemen.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like the House to join me in welcoming a delegation from the National Farmers Union who met with our caucus today: Mr. Jack McCloy, Mrs. Ruth Viener and Jean Leahy. I would like the House to join me in welcoming them.

Also, Mr. Speaker, while I'm on my feet, it was mentioned the other day by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) that he had brought his son to work with him. Well, my son is in New Zealand, so I can't do that, but today and this week I have in the Legislature with me my MP's daughter, who is understudying politics. I would like the House to welcome Heather Manly.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud indeed today to welcome to our House Ken and Marilyn Adrian from the Central Fraser Valley. Marilyn is one of those people who make a tremendous contribution to the future of our province — she is a teacher from my community. Would the House please welcome Ken and Marilyn Adrian.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of guests in the gallery today. Mrs. Lorna Duncan of the city of Revelstoke is here, along with her son Scott, her daughter Emily and, in addition, her sister, Mrs. Kutyk, from the city of Victoria. I would like the House to join me in extending a warm welcome to these visitors.

Additionally we have, originally from the fair city of Revelstoke and now studying at the University of Los Angeles, Miss Joan Wasylyk. I would like to extend a welcome to her also.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, one of the attractions for which British Columbia is justly renowned is our aquarium in Vancouver. In your gallery today are some of the people who are responsible for this magnificent development: the director, Dr. Murray Newman, and Mr. and Mrs. James Graham. I'd like the House to bid them a warm welcome.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join with me today to welcome a personal friend who goes back to 1946, Kay Sumpter. Kay is over in Victoria as a co-director of publicity for the ACMR which is the Association to Control Mortgage Rates. They are having a national meeting on April 13 in Vancouver. I would ask everyone to welcome her here today.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, you will be very pleased to know that not only has British Columbia a famous magazine, Beautiful British Columbia, but the format of that magazine has been undertaken by the western Australian state government's Department of Industrial Development. In the gallery today, and visiting with the Ministry of Tourism and the government of British Columbia, are Mr. and Mrs. Ian Parkes, of Perth in western Australia. They are here to visit us in the House, and most importantly to renew their views on Beautiful British Columbia magazine, and to take back some new ideas to Australia as well as leave some of their very fine ideas with us. Joining them in the gallery, from a very beautiful city in British Columbia, Vernon, are Mr. and Mrs. Bill Shields and their children Cheryl and Derek. I'd ask the House to welcome all these visitors, who are here to watch democracy in action in British Columbia this afternoon.

MS. BROWN: We are very fortunate to have three young people from Burnaby-Edmonds visiting us today because it is the spring break. They are the Parken children, and they have brought their parents along with them. I wonder if the House, in bidding them welcome, would also bid a special welcome to the daughter, who is celebrating her birthday today.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I see a number of familiar faces in the gallery today, members of the number one industry in British Columbia — more specifically, the Council of Forest Industries. I understand that the Council of Forest Industries hosted the NDP caucus at dinner a couple of nights ago, and will be doing the same for the Social Credit caucus tonight. I would ask the House to please welcome these members of our very important forest industry in British Columbia.

MR. MUSSALLEM: From the constituency of Dewdney and the town of Maple Ridge, some friends and neighbours are visiting this city and this parliament today: Mrs. Betty Millward, her daughter Tricia and son Michael; Mrs. Pauline Thack; and Mrs. Sylvia Jorauer, with her children Jacqueline, Amber and Gordon. I wish you would make them welcome.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome a couple from Prince George, Mr. and Mrs. Don Buchanan. Don is the general manager of Northern Mountain Helicopters Inc. and had the honour to be featured as a centrefold in the spring edition of B.C. Economic Development. I would ask this House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Buchanan.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I am very pleased to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in your gallery today is a young man from Terrace, Darcy Preston. Darcy is accompanied today by his grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. S.G. Preston, who live in Victoria. I would ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I would like to refer the House to the statements that have been made many times by the Premier of our province

[ Page 1810 ]

and the former Ministers of Tourism of our province about the impact one person can have in promoting British Columbia and in bringing the word of welcome from British Columbians to other parts of the country.

I have here a full-page article that appeared in the Calgary Herald on March 22; it's there because a good friend of ours in the fourth estate, Jim Hume, had a friend by the name of Mike Burn visit him. They spent a day together in Victoria, and this is the result of Mr. Hume's efforts.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, visiting with us today in the gallery is a young gentleman by the name of Terry Allen, a student from South Delta Senior Secondary School, who has come over here specifically to spend the day with us. I ask you to bid him a very warm welcome.

Introduction of Bills

THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE OF BRITISH
COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

On a motion by Ms. Sanford, Bill M204, The Human Rights Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1980, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

BANK OF CANADA INTEREST RATES

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. The question is based upon the decision today by the Bank of Canada to boost the bank rate to 16.2 percent — a jump of more than three-quarters of a percentage point from what it was last week. I ask the minister whether he will take the course of communicating today with the government of Canada and the governor of the Bank of Canada itself, protesting on behalf of the people of B.C. and the Legislature this continued escalation in interest rates.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Hon. member, I have been having some discussion with a member of the government of Canada today, but not on that specific point in question. I replied to that question in an earlier question period, and I'd like to inform the hon. member that this government is extremely concerned — as no doubt are Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and the general public in British Columbia — about the advancing interest rates.

MR. HOWARD: There's no question about the concern of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, which is why we're asking the minister to communicate with the government and with the governor of the Bank of Canada and not wait until towards the end of this month for the governor to come and visit the Western Premiers' Conference. Is the minister aware that if the escalation in interest rates continues it will be close to 19 or 20 percent by the time you meet the governor of the Bank of Canada at the Western Premiers' Conference?

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question to the Attorney-General relating to one of his internal investigations. I ask the Attorney-General whether he, his officials or Mr. John Hall received any evidence whatsoever about Mr. Brian Weddell complaining about interference on the part of the Deputy Attorney-General in the conduct of the Michael Moran case.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice and refer to my notes of those discussions.

MR. MACDONALD: Did the Attorney-General or his officials receive a letter from a Crown counsel of the province of British Columbia complaining about such interference and setting it out?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not to my recollection, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: May I ask then that the Attorney-General take that question as notice and report definitely to the House whether it exists or not?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I said I would check my file with regard to this matter. I'll be happy to respond fully to the member, as I always have.

MR. LAUK: My question is to the Attorney-General re the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie). In a letter to a Ms. Katherine Brennan of Vananda, B.C., dated March 20, 1980, the Attorney-General responded to an inquiry by Ms. Brennan with respect to, among other things, the Ritchie case. The Attorney-General stated, in part: "You also wonder why Mr. Ritchie was not given his day in court. I ask you to appreciate that charges are only laid in cases where there is a prima facie case established." The Attorney-General stated that he has not read the RCMP report and that he is relying on the opinion of his Associate Deputy Attorney-General that no charges should be laid. The Friesen affidavit in the RCMP report set out a prima facie case against the member for Central Fraser Valley. Why were charges not laid?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member has read a portion of a letter which gives the answer to the question. The opinion was expressed by a highly credible and experienced member of the ministry, who is charged with the responsibility of making such decisions. I didn't seek the opinion of the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: By that answer, is the Attorney-General saying that Mr. McDiarmid gave you the opinion that there was no prima facie case?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's the law, and I would have thought the member would have known it.

MR. LAUK: In the body of the letter, the Attorney-General states that the associate deputy minister, who is head of the criminal justice division of the ministry, concluded that there was not a proper case for the laying of a charge. Is the Attorney-General now stating that that means that there was no prima facie case in the affidavit or the RCMP report?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I was writing to a correspondent whom I considered was perhaps not as skilled in legal

[ Page 1811 ]

phraseology as the hon. member, and accordingly I used language which I thought would be appropriate for her to understand.

MR. LAUK: Then why is it that at the bottom of your letter you refer to the words "prima facie case"? Why did you choose those words?

A new question. The RCMP report indicated that there was a prima facie case. What new evidence did Mr. McDiarmid have for him conclude that there was not a prima facie case?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member is basing his question upon matters of which I have no knowledge and of which he should have no knowledge as well. The question with respect to what was or was not in the police report was one posed to me by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) which I have taken on notice.

MR. LAUK: The regional Crown prosecutor, Mr. Allan Hoem, is alleged to have had the opinion that there was a prima facie case when the minister authorized Mr. McDiarmid's actions in this case. Was he aware of Mr. Hoem's opinion?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the action taken by Mr. McDiarmid was not authorized by me. It was carried out by him in accordance with his responsibilities as the Associate Deputy Attorney-General.

MR. LAUK: This House cannot cross-question the Associate Deputy Attorney-General. It is the responsibility of the Attorney-General to find the answers to these questions and bring them before this House.

Again I ask: will the Attorney-General bring back to this House, after having read the RCMP report and interviewed Mr. Hoem, the conclusive evidence — the conclusive decision — that there is no prima facie case against the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In the conduct of the administration of criminal justice, decisions are made by qualified officials of the ministry. They are not decisions made in this House. What the member might consider to be conclusive may not be the same as other persons who have the responsibility and are charged to carry out that responsibility. You don't try these matters here, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: This is not a case involving not a private citizen but a member of this House who is still sitting in the chamber. I ask the question of the Attorney-General. He believes that he should not be tried in this chamber. Should he be tried in the back rooms of the Attorney-General's ministry?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I assume that was a question. No, he should not be tried in this chamber nor in the back rooms of the Attorney-General's ministry. And he was not.

REFIT OF THE
FERRY QUEEN OF SURREY

MR. BARBER: I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development. We now know that B.C. Steamships spent at least $54,000 to obtain drawings for the refit of the Queen of Surrey for its proposed use on the Victoria-Seattle run. With what authority did Mr. Elworthy proceed to obtain such drawings for the proposed refit?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if there's a Minister of Economic Development anymore in the province. Maybe the member would like to direct his question to another minister.

MR. BARRETT: What did you stand up for?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Just to help out. I always try to help the member out.

MR. BARBER: You can help us out by answering the whole question as it comes to you. The minister was on the board at the time the refit drawings were commissioned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What minister?

MR. BARBER: The minister to whom I addressed the question — the minister of industry and small development. I specifically ask that minister with what authority Mr. Elworthy commissioned the drawings for the refit of the Queen of Surrey — Mr. Elworthy being the president of the board on which that minister sat and still sits.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the small member for Victoria, we had a board of directors who met from time to time to make policy decisions with regard to the Marguerite. Every individual decision that was made in the operation of the Marguerite was not made by the board of directors, and so far as I'm concerned what the member is trying to create here was a decision which was made by the management of the Marguerite. I might remind the member that the management has changed in the B.C. Steamship Company in recent times. Maybe, if the member would use his head, without me saying too much more he might understand why.

MR. BARBER: I certainly understand the hint about attempting to scapegoat Mr. Elworthy for decisions that he cannot properly be held responsible for. Did the minister personally advise Mr. Elworthy on any occasion that the vessel Queen of Surrey was to be made available on the Victoria-Seattle run in 1980 for B.C. Steamship Company?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I think that the statement the member for Victoria made with regard to a slur on the character of Mr. Elworthy should be withdrawn, even though he made it in this chamber under the immunity of the law.

MR. BARBER: Of course, I withdraw any slur. There was none intended. Nonetheless, would you answer the question directly: did you personally advise Mr. Elworthy at any time that he could have the vessel Surrey for the Victoria-Seattle run? Yes or no.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, through you to him, let me answer the member's question this way. I had many discussions about the Marguerite with Mr. Elworthy, and he had many discussions with me. During those deliberations he told me that the Marguerite had to go. I said to him:

[ Page 1812 ]

"Mr. Elworthy, why does the Marguerite have to go?" He said: "Come down and look at it." I said in this House last year that I didn't know anything about running a steamship. I wouldn't know a boiler from a turbine. Anyway, I said to Mr. Elworthy: "Now listen, you're telling me that the Marguerite is no good, unsafe, rotting and she's doing all this. Would you go and get me some concrete, hard evidence about the Marguerite?" Then, the first time we went out, Mr. Speaker, we had some people who know something about ships and the operation and the hulls do some studies so we could make an intelligent decision. That's exactly what we've done. That's why this government is responsible. That's why we made the decision and that's why we're sticking by it.

MR. BARBER: It's hard to imagine a more irresponsible answer to a serious question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. If question period is to serve the purpose for which it is intended, we must....

MR. BARBER: Then answers should be given plainly.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. If argumentation is going to take the place of question period, we lose the value of this exercise. I ask the first member for Victoria to continue.

MR. BARBER: I spoke this morning with Mr. Arthur Elworthy in Vancouver. He is available by telephone now to the press at 261-7670. He informs me that he met with you, so that there should be no doubt as to the authenticity of this information and the credibility of the minister in reply — such as it is — in your office on the morning of Wednesday, September 26, and specifically promised that the vessel Surrey was to be made available....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What's your question?

MR. BARBER: Will you listen? "Art, you have the Surrey." You went on to tell him that the arrangements would be handled by the Minister of Finance, that the announcement would be made the following day at 1:30 p.m. together with your colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), and you further indicated that he should inform the board of directors of your decision that the Surrey was being made available, and further that details for transfer would be handled by the Ministry of Finance. Does the minister deny the truthfulness of Mr. Elworthy's statement to me this morning that you did in fact promise the Surrey to him, on the basis of which promise they then proceeded to waste $54,000 to obtain drawings for a ship they were never allowed to use? Is Mr. Elworthy telling the truth or are you?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the first member for Victoria — and I'll stack my credibility up against his any day — I would like to say that there were many alternatives discussed in the course of doing business with Mr. Elworthy. I don't wish to talk about Mr. Elworthy. If he wishes to make a statement, that's fine. We discussed lots of possibilities.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I ask leave to answer a quite lengthy question on which I didn't wish to take up the time of question period.

Leave granted.

PERMIT FOR KEREMEOS
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

HON. MR. ROGERS: The question was from the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), and it pertained to the status of Keremeos and pollution control permit PE-5270. The village of Keremeos was issued pollution control permit PE-5270 on September 29, 1978, for the treatment and disposal of its sewage effluent on the ground near the Similkameen River. Construction of the sewage treatment plant has been delayed due to several appeals relating to this permit. The first appeal was to the Pollution Control Board, with the request that pollution control permit PE-5270 be rescinded. The Pollution Control Board upheld the appeal. The second appeal was to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It sought a reversal of the board's decision. The second appeal was also upheld, and permit PE-5270 was restored. The village of Keremeos is presently undergoing tender for the construction of a sewage treatment plant and disposal facility.

MR. SKELLY: Is the permit in effect?

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's in effect.

Orders of the Day

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied in such manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine a sum not exceeding in the whole $1,470,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, not otherwise provided for and being substantially one-quarter of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia at the present session.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution and asks leave to sit again.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the resolution as reported be considered?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Now, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the report of resolution from the Committee of Supply on April 2, 1980, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the resolution be now read a second time.

[ Page 1813 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The resolution is that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied in such manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine a sum not exceeding in the whole $1,470,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, not otherwise provided for and being substantially one-quarter of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia at the present session.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, what point are we now at in these proceedings?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question proposed is that this House doth agree with the committee and the said resolution.

Motion approved.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. CURTIS: At the next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Ways and Means; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, surely the bill should be distributed to the members of the House before we go into committee consideration of the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has been advised that when the bill is introduced it will be distributed. We are currently dealing with a resolution.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied in such manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine a sum not exceeding in the whole $1,470,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, not otherwise provided for and being substantially one-quarter of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal yearendingMarch 31, 1981, as laidbefore the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia at the present session.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the report of resolution from the Committee of Ways and Means on April 2, 1980, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. CURTIS: At the next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

SUPPLY ACT, NO. 1, 1980

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I present Bill 11, intituled Supply Act No. 1, 1980.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would ask you to remain in your seats for a few minutes while the bill is circulated.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Leave granted.

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report recommending the introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports, recommending the introduction of the bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time. It would perhaps be appropriate to make a few remarks at this time, with leave.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, while the veterans discuss this — and I respect their assistance today, inasmuch as this is a relatively complex procedure for interim supply — hon. members will be aware that this is the start of a new fiscal year for the government of British Columbia. As such

[ Page 1814 ]

there are no funds available to make payments of expenses in this new year. To provide for such funds it is the practice to introduce an interim supply bill, and therefore we are undertaking this activity today.

The interim supply act, Bill 11, which is before all hon. members at the present time, provides the sum of $1.47 billion, being substantially one-quarter of the total of the main estimates. As in past years the amount is arrived at by taking the total of the main estimates, in this case $5,549,629,000, and adding to it the total of advances made or recoveries deducted — $328,635,000 — for a gross expenditure of $5,878,264,000, one-quarter of this amount being substantially the $1.47 billion.

To assist members the advances made and recoveries deducted include advances regarding rural school taxes, $145 million; recoveries re post-secondary education, $11.4 million; advances to regional districts, hospital districts and other local government entitities, $29.5 million; recoveries of $52.8 million for expenditure on highway construction in connection with British Columbia hydroelectric construction projects, of which amount $100,000 is required for the Juanita-Nelway highway in connection with the Seven Mile Dam, the balance relating to highway 23 and Mica Dam; recoveries by the Queen's Printer, $14.5 million; and other similar advances or recoveries. These recoveries have been added to the total main estimates as the expenditure is made in the first quarter with recoveries made at a later date.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I would think that if the people in the galleries were confused by the proceedings of the last half hour they would realize that the members in the House were also confused. I think if the Minister of Deregulation were still in office one of the things he might undertake is a review of this whole procedure. I recall the first time that I ever experienced it in the Legislature. It was being presented by a person who was really unsurpassed in his knowledge of the rules of the House: the Premier of the day, W.A.C. Bennett. It was the first time I ever saw him confused by a procedure that he was piloting through the House, and he had a fair amount of trouble with it as well. So I think if people are confused it's only natural that they would be, and I would suggest that somebody undertake some review of this and see if there isn't a way of handling it a little better.

With respect to the bill itself, the minister mentioned a few items in particular, but one point that I would like to take from this legislation is that — and I'd invite the minister to comment on it when he closes second reading — from my reading of the bill it's clear that it limits the government in that it may spend up to one-quarter of the total estimates. It limits the government further in that it may spend this money only on the estimates that have been presented on those votes; but it doesn't limit the government in spending within any one of those votes; that is, the total amount of a particular vote could be spent once this bill, as I understand it, has been given royal assent. I'd like the minister to concur, or to perhaps give me some other explanation.

As I see it, those are the only limits: the total amount to stay within the estimates that have been presented, but to spend any amount of money within any particular estimate, any particular grant, that could be paid out in full in this period, or not at all, depending on the choice of the minister and treasury, etc.

Apart from that, the presentation of interim supply is something that was new when I entered the Legislature, but it has become a pattern that is fairly well established. Even though we can't follow the procedure, it's something that I suppose will be with us. Sessions have grown longer; the work of government has become much more complicated; there are more members in the House now than there used to be, and I would think that the presentation of interim supply is something that is going to be with us from now on.

I don't intend to go into any more discussion of any of the items before us at this point. Certainly there will be lots of opportunity in the days and weeks and months ahead for us to discuss the particulars of government spending, of estimates, and to hold the ministers accountable for what they have done and what they are doing, but I do know that a number of my colleagues want to take part in this second reading discussion of Bill 11. Mr. Speaker, I have nothing more to say. The opposition is going to cooperate. We will not discuss it for long, but we do want to discuss some of the items.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the fact that I had chosen to say a few words on this bill was one of the reasons that I didn't get up on a point of order with respect to procedure. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and his assistants called across that section 81 would be the way to get this bill through three readings in one day. It's not extraordinary; it's not urgent, because, you see, we have another day, and we've been informed that it's not necessary until around April 6. Therefore we needn't put it through under section 81. If the government decides that they don't want to ask for leave, then they should inform us that they're going to fight and use closure and all the rest of it in this House. Then we'd be interested in talking to them about that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that one of our problems, of course, is that there has been very little debate on the whole budget, the estimates to date, because the estimates only came up a week or so ago. That's as a result of a very late call of the House, as is becoming a habit, and I would think that we'd be a lot more comfortable voting this government well in excess of $1 billion if there had been some more debate on the estimates. This government, which was once opposition and famous for the phrase "not a dime without debate," has made a mockery of that phrase. It would, in a way, be justified if this opposition decided to take that same kind of course. Now, naturally, that's very unlikely because of our responsible position.

But, Mr. Speaker, in light of some comments by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) in the last couple of days, after he was asked to spontaneously reply to questions with respect to the nurses and some of the hospital workers getting an increase, he then began flying a kite about an increase in not only hospital costs, tying them to some sort of COLA, but also decided that he would fly another kite or balloon around the whole medicare thing.... We deem those costs to be very, very bad forms of taxation. They are counterproductive; they tax the poor. We want to serve notice that at this time, when one can speak about budgets and supply, the minister and that government should very definitely think long and hard before they go in that counterproductive way with respect to charging a tax larger, to an extent, than they've already done.

When that government was first introduced in 1976, they doubled costs, tripled costs and every other form of multiplication that one can imagine. Particularly in terms of health-care costs, ambulance costs tripled, medical-care costs doubled — that is, the insurance aspect of it — and, of

[ Page 1815 ]

course, hospital costs went from $1 to $4 a day. If the minister is thinking along that line, then he should have been talking about it during his estimates, not now at a very crucial time in our parliament. We're totally in opposition to any more retrograde forms of taxation. They do not work. All they do is make sure that the working poor have less access and greater burden. Just to give you an idea, in medicare a person earning $5,000 a year qualifies to pay the full medicare premium, as does a person earning $50,000 a year. Yet they both pay exactly the same premium. Think in terms of those percentages. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) in his normal, sympathetic way, says: "Oh, gosh!" He has a great deal of concern for his constituents. He has lots of them in the category of which I speak. I would dare that member to go up to his constituency and talk the way he does down here.

MR. KEMPF: They don't want to see you anymore; they saw enough of you in 1974.

MR. COCKE: I am sure he is adding a great deal to this debate, as he does to every debate we have in this House. I'm not speaking to him. I'm speaking to intelligent people across the way. I hope the Minister of Health will listen to it in the way I mean it. That is, if he goes the way he says, then it's going to be a very, very counterproductive way indeed for this province.

MR. NICOLSON: First, at the risk of being considered a curmudgeon, I would like to disagree with the opening comments of my colleague. I think that it is good that we are forced to adopt the ancient practice of parliament, and that we are reminded from time to time of the roots and the long-standing tradition of what is going on here in Committee of Supply, Committee of Ways and Means and so on. It is very serious thing that we are doing, and it is something that is not to be taken lightly.

I like the manner in which the bill is drafted, inasmuch as it does not pro-rate the amounts to be spent, but allows some flexibility as long as any one amount set out in the estimates of the fiscal year is not exceeded. It creates problems. I concur with my colleagues who said that an earlier start of the Legislature seems to be in order — or perhaps we should move the fiscal year up to June 30 or something, if we're going to start sessions in February or March.

I would like to relay to the Minister of Finance my very real concern. I often hear people in the various branches and ministries of government saying that they cannot initiate a certain program until the estimates are passed. In fact, I even remember hearing that when I was a cabinet minister. It's very difficult for those people waiting for grants to be told that certain amounts are not forthcoming because the estimates have not been passed.

I'd like to centre in on a couple of things. For instance, in the activity centres or sheltered workshops around the province, there are volunteer groups undertaking a tremendous portion of what is really the government's responsibility to provide meaningful work and activity for ex–mental patients whom we have decentralized all over the province; also for mentally handicapped and sometimes for the profoundly handicapped. These people undertake a tremendous amount of responsibility for which they get no financial remuneration. They are faced with the problems of people who have debts of $100,000 and $50,000. I hope we can get that money out to them.

The other problem with interim supply is that I think it leads to surpluses being generated. It happened in the vote concerned with activity centres, which comes under the Ministry of Human Resources' estimates, in fiscal year 1978-79 — it might have been the 1977-78 fiscal year. I recall that we voted $3.8 million for that particular vote. We only spent $3 million; in other words, we underspent that vote by $800,000. People were being told that, first of all, they couldn't get the grant because they hadn't passed the estimates yet. Then we find out: "You can't have it; the budget is all spent." And then, one year in retrospect, I get to see the public accounts, and I find out that that is not true, that the budget was indeed underspent by $800,000 — a $3.8 million item for people that really need it underspent by $800,000. I can assure you that here in Victoria there is a sheltered workshop that could have used that money; in Nelson there is a sheltered workshop that could have used that money; in Vernon there is one — all over this province.

I am very concerned that this dependence on interim supply leads to underspending in areas that should not be underspent. In areas where government comes to us and asks for $3.8 million, we gladly, unanimously, in this House vote $3.8 million; but it ends up there being only $3 million spent. So I would hope that, particularly for activity centres where they are requesting some capital funding — I know there is a new formula — in addition to the $1 per client-day allowance that they are given under formula, this money would be spent, and that all efforts would be made to make sure that what is in the budget this year is totally spent and does not go into surplus to then be put into projects which I think are of much lower priority.

In the area of habitat protection in the fish and wildlife branch, we don't even have a specific item in the estimates anymore, under the present system of keeping estimates. A good number of the projects for habitat protection should be funded right away, so that if we are going to enhance, for instance, streams for spawning, those projects should be finished before August. They can only be done at certain periods of the year, and those moneys for various kinds of projects should be forwarded, and a special effort should be made not to prorate the authorization of those funds. This is my concern.

I would also ask the minister, just out of curiosity, whether or not the computers have been held at bay. Are they printing cheques at this very moment, perhaps in contravention...you know, without any authority? What are the computers up to right now? Are they stilled at this moment, or are they awaiting the speedy passage of this bill in order that they might go ahead? Perhaps the minister could address himself to that question in summing up debate.

MRS. DAILLY: There are two issues which concern me and which I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance this afternoon.

The Minister of Finance, as we all know, is a former Provincial Secretary; therefore I know he is very much aware of the very fine work done by the public libraries of this province. Recently our whole caucus met with the B.C. Library Trustees Association. They expressed to us a particular concern about the budgeting practices which seem to be imposed upon them by inadequacies in the Ministry of Finance. They have informed us that they don't know when they are going to receive their grants from government, and they don't know how much. This results in many instances

[ Page 1816 ]

where they have to borrow money at high interest rates because of this lack of communication with the government on the amounts of money and the timing of receiving it. And they feel that the Library Trustees Association and, ultimately, the taxpayers of British Columbia are the ones who are suffering unnecessarily because of obvious inadequacies imposed upon them through something that isn't working in the Ministry of Finance. I would be most pleased if the Minister of Finance could comment on this, to assure us that the library associations of British Columbia will no longer be subjected to this hit-and-miss way of receiving their grants from the government.

The second point I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance.... And I wish to do this by just reading a section of the bill which we all have in front of us — section 2(1):

"No sum out of this supply shall be issued or applied to any purpose or activity other than those provided in the main estimates, or in excess of the estimate of expenditures in them" — and this is the part I wish to emphasize: — "and the due application of all money expended under the authority of this act shall be accounted for to Her Majesty."

The way I read that, Mr. Speaker — to the Minister of Finance — is, of course, the whole area of how the ministries of this government are accounting for their estimates and their budget, ultimately for application and investigation by the auditor-general.

I think we're all aware — and I'm certain the Minister of Finance is aware in detail — of a number of the criticisms which the auditor-general has levelled at the general accounting practices of many of the government ministries. It seems to me that section specifically states that it is the responsibility of government that those moneys be duly and properly accounted for. I wonder, in view of the recent very positive criticisms of the auditor-general, if the Minister of Finance can assure the members of this House that he will be looking into this whole area very seriously, so that as Minister of Finance he will be following to the full letter of the law the bill which he has presented before us.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to talk for a few minutes about money that may be spent out of this interim supply on port development in the province of British Columbia, more specifically on the port of Prince Rupert. For the past ten years there has been active work done on behalf of Prince Rupert by three provincial governments: the previous Social Credit government, the NDP government and the present Social Credit government. I must say that I've had nothing but cooperation from this government — the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and other members of the cabinet — in trying to get Prince Rupert a viable and busy port.

We had nothing but good rapport and good policy out of the federal Conservative government which has just been defeated. We have had nothing but problems with the federal Liberal government for over 100 years; and it can be no more specifically pointed out than it can be around port development in Prince Rupert — one broken promise after another. The latest slap in the face comes from the Minister of Transport, Mr. Pépin, in a recent announcement in British Columbia that he's going to change the ground rules once again. I don't know what Mr.Pépin is up to — whether he is serious about changing the ground rules, or whether he is trying to blackmail British Columbia and Alberta into putting more money in than was previously agreed to by this province and Canada while the Conservatives were in government.

When I grew up in the interior of this province, Mr. Speaker, I woke up every morning feeling I was a Canadian. The more I'm around government, the more I see the workings of the federal government as it pertains to Liberalism, the more convinced I am that every morning I wake up I'm feeling less of a Canadian and more like a British Columbian. You know, there are a lot of western Canadians who are waking up every morning feeling more western Canadian than they are Canadian because of a Liberal Party and a Liberal government that has treated the west with nothing but contempt for year after year after year. This latest slap in the face is more than any of us should take, regardless of party. The nerve of them, to go down in absolute defeat in the west — they had two members elected west of Ontario — and say they're going to change their tune. They say that they're going to start treating us like they're treating central Canada. They're not. As far as I'm concerned, the federal Liberals are now going to say to the west: "You didn't vote Liberal; now you're really going to get it, and this is the first mark of how you're going to get it. We're going to change the ground rules around port development in Prince Rupert."

I know that the minister and the Premier and the government have to be a little nicer to the federal government; they have to negotiate with them. But my experience in negotiating with the federal Liberals is that right up until the federal election everything seems to be coming into place, deals are about to be signed, everything looks good. And after the election you see all of those deals, all of those promises, all of the negotiations floating out the window, or floating out into the atmosphere like mist off a pasture in the morning. All you ever get out of the federal Liberals are promises, promises, promises; but after the election they don't keep any promise to the west — none. One promise they don't have to keep is double-tracking; everybody knows that was a boondoggle.

But I maintain that the reason we have the federal Liberals is that people in central Canada perceived Joe Clark and the Conservatives as a government and a political party that were going to decentralize the decision-making process into the west, and they weren't going to put up with that. They don't like Trudeau any more than they did before, when he was defeated in eastern Canada and in central Canada, but they knew, from their point of view, that at least he wouldn't give the west an even break. I have heard rumours from people who have visited Ottawa in the last while — not from government but from private industry — that they've had the word directly out of the Primer Minister's office: "They didn't vote Liberal and we're going to give it to them." There's no better example than what they've done now to port development in this province. I hope it's a pitiful attempt on their part to try to blackmail this province into more money, but if Mr.Pépin is going to throw out the window the deal that's already been made between the Conservative government and the Social Credit government, or the people of this province, then it's imperative that Mr.Pépin give to this province at least some idea of which way he intends to go. It's my understanding that he hasn't done that.

Mr. Speaker, I will gladly vote for interim supply if some of this money is going to be used to try to convince the federal Liberals that the west needs the opportunity to produce so that we can better our lot as a people. In this particular area I

[ Page 1817 ]

have faith that the minister and the government are going to act properly on our behalf as citizens. But boy, you've got a rough road to go, because I have lost all faith in the federal Liberals. It's a poor time to admit it, but I once voted Liberal federally. It almost makes you ashamed to have even voted at all, because those people have no intention at all of giving the west an even break.

If separatism ever rears its head in this province, in my opinion you can only thank the federal Liberals for a hundred years of inactivity and decisions made purposely against the west. Unless they change their ways and start treating us with the courtesy we deserve, unless they start treating us in a manner that makes us equal with central Canada in our opportunity, I think we're in a sad state. The next four or five years that we see Pierre Elliott Trudeau and those Liberals down there is a sad day for the west.

Through this interim budget I urge the government to take the hardest, most severe position it can take with the federal Liberals, because it won't be enough. As far as I'm concerned, they've sold us out and are going to continue to sell us out. I want every member of this House to join me in condemning the actions of those federal Liberals and the manner in which they've treated port development in this province. On this specific area I wish this government nothing but the best of luck dealing with a group of pirates.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take a few minutes while we vote for this tremendous sum of money — $1.4 billion — in this debate, to pay the bills for the next three months while we continue debating our estimates. With that amount of money, it makes me sad when I see the problems in my own constituency of Victoria that could be attended to with a relatively small amount of money. I'm thinking of 60 people who live within two blocks of this building in a residential hotel called the Glenshiel.

If you could cast your mind back a few years, Mr. Speaker — and I know you remember this — the NDP government purchased the Glenshiel Hotel to allow senior citizens living within the legislative precinct to continue living in a hotel that they were very fond of, was most convenient for them and was their home. What happened over the next few years after the present government took office was that there were several occasions when those residents became very fearful of their security because there were rumours that the government was going to sell the hotel. The most recent one was quite founded in fact; the government intended to bulldoze the hotel and turn it into a parking lot. Over several years, when the person who maintained the building had been let go, gradually the Glenshiel deteriorated somewhat and certain major structural things — for example, a repair of the roof — were not attended to. It should have been clear to all of us then that the government didn't intend to keep it going. Recently, as a result of public pressure and a courageous organizational effort on the part of the residents, they forced the government to cease and desist and to allow them to live there for the rest of their lives.

However, it isn't really a happy story, because can you imagine living in a hotel that when one individual...? These are homes; this is not a hostel. This is a collection of homes where people have lived for up to 14 years. Some of them have gone blind in that hotel, and they know their way around; they know their way up and down the hall and to the dining-room, to the Provincial Museum and over to this building. Those people came to the government and said, "We'll fight you all the way," and the government backed off. But as I say, the decision was not a happy one, because the government said they would not allow any new tenants to come in. As people move or pass away, a little nail goes in their door, or a lock goes on, and no one can move in. So over the next couple of decades people will gradually be living in a hotel alone. If that isn't the stupidest decision I've ever heard!

I wish this government would take part of that $1.4 billion and give those residents of the Glenshiel Hotel a secure home, well-renovated — spend money on plaster, a new roof, a carpet and a paintjob. We have a serious shortage of senior citizen accommodation here in Victoria. If money could be taken from this interim supply and a decision could be made today by the Minister of Finance, the member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis); if he could tell his deputy, "Look, Treasury Board will allocate a certain amount of funds into the vote of Highways for the repair of that hotel," he would make 60 people very happy, he'd make 25 more who could move in there very happy, and that hotel could provide accommodation for years.

The course you are following makes no sense on economic, social or humanitarian grounds. I implore you to change your mind, reconsider and do as I have suggested.

Secondly, when I look around my riding I see the condition of the marine waters, all polluted. The shellfish are no longer collectible; they're polluted with domestic sewage. Here I have a nice glossy booklet from the Ministry of Environment on new policies for commercial fisheries and mariculture. Mariculture is fish farming, the farming of scallops, prawns, mussels, clams, crab, geoducks and so on. Here we have this glossy pamphlet proposing fish farming in waters that cannot support any kind of edible molluscs. It's incredible! Fish farming where? Fish farming way up the northern coast?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

For the first time in recent years Ladysmith harbour is now closed. Parts of the Cowichan estuary are closed. Salt Spring Island is closed. Saanichton, all the Saanich Peninsula — the Minister of Finance's own constituency. His own constituents cannot go down to the shore and collect clams and other shellfish, because the water is polluted. Is money allocated within this interim supply bill to provide proper sewage treatment facilities for this area? No.

What else? The Royal Jubilee Hospital and the Victoria General Hospital have waiting lists to get in. Some 2,500 people are waiting to get into these hospitals. Are these minor things? Are these cosmetic things, nose-straightenings and face-lifts? No. These are people who have been hurt at work, cartileges, hernias, cataracts. Some of them have cancer. They're waiting. Can you imagine waiting month after month to get into a hospital with something where an early diagnosis is important?

I'm going to be voting for interim supply so the government can pay its bills, but I really wish that attention was paid to some of the really important issues. All these "high flyers" — B.C. Place, huge monumental edifices to try to take political heat off bad management.... I wish they would just about-face and reorient themselves to the real needs of British Columbians and of my constituents, which are health, proper accommodation, employment and clean water.

[ Page 1818 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, my comments, too, will be brief. I'd like to deal more specifically with the principle involved in the legislation before us. In introducing that I would like to say to people who are with us in the galleries today, and to those thousands of British Columbians who at least skim, if not read, the Hansard reports of our debates, I think it would be fair to say that a great many people really wonder what it is we're doing here. Certainly the first half-hour of today's session could leave a lot of people in some confusion.

I think it is important for Hansard readers, if for no other reason, to say in very simple layman's terms that what we are doing is approving, without full consideration, a quarter of the annual budget in an hour or so this afternoon. We are doing that, in a sense, in violation of all the British parliamentary traditions, which are that legislators, the entire parliament, consider carefully, scrutinize carefully, all expenditures before they are expended. What we are doing today is allowing the government to spend a quarter of the annual budget without scrutiny, without comment in specific terms.

While I am going to vote for the bill — no alternative faces me — I find the procedure and the situation entirely objectionable. I don't believe that this is the way we should be scrutinizing — to use that word — the expenditures for three months in this province. When students come to the building, I usually try, in my few minutes talking to them about what it is we do here, to give them some understanding of what the Legislature is for, what its purpose is. I simplify it a little bit by saying: "We do two things here." One is we pass and/or amend legislation — laws. The other thing we do is make decisions about how to raise the money and how to spend it — that is, their money, not our money; not some individual's money, but the public's money, all two million plus people out there. It is their money. They have elected 57 of us to make comment on the ways in which that money is raised and spent. As long as I've been in and around these chambers, not just the government in power now, but other governments — so I'm not making an attack on the current government at all when I say this — increasingly over the years have resorted to interim supply.

Now it may seem that this is an issue which only concerns legislators and wouldn't have much public interest. But I discovered during the election campaign last April and May that, in fact, there is some public interest about this precise topic, because I raised it. I remember in a couple of all candidates meetings — one in Campbell River and one in Port Hardy — I raised the issue. Interestingly, after the meeting a number of people came to me and said that that was an important issue, one they hadn't thought of before. That included a very interested series of questions from the editor of the Port Hardy North Island Gazette.

I proposed in the election campaign, and want to propose again now — we can't do it probably for a few years — that we should get ourselves into the position of thinking about a new system for financial estimates. I am not proposing that the fiscal year be amended; it seems reasonable that April 1 be a starting date. But why not move up the whole process of departmental estimates that go through the bureaucracy and the cabinet in the late fall and into the winter? Why don't we move that whole process up, move the starting dates for estimates up a little bit — up quite a bit, in fact. We could have a session of this legislature in December — December 10 through 15 — for a few days, and do whatever emergency business there might be for those few days, and also lay before the parliament and the public the estimates for the year starting April 1, which would be three or four months later. We could do that in December. We wouldn't be the only jurisdiction doing that. It is not without precedent; it happens elsewhere.

Then we, as MLAs, would have an opportunity to use the month of January, after the Christmas holiday, to go with that budget to our constituents and say to them: "Here's what the government is proposing as to how we raise our budget and how we spend it. What do you think?" I would like the opportunity, for example, Mr. Speaker, to take that budget and put it into some non-partisan form that would allow me to distribute it to public meetings around my constituency. And, in a non-partisan way, to say to those public meetings.... [Laughter.] The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and others laugh, but I am making a serious proposal, and when I say....

MR. KEMPF: We know how non-partisan you are.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I'm as partisan as anybody in this House. But I am talking to you now about a non-partisan approach, a non-partisan proposal which I would ask members — if not to agree with, because that's fair enough — to listen to. I know it's hard for some members on that side to deal with something new, but for those members who can deal with it, like the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), I would like to continue with the proposal.

Why shouldn't every MLA in this House have the opportunity, if they so wish, in January to go through their constituencies in public meetings, saying to their constituents: "Here's how the government proposes to tax you in this next fiscal year, and here's how the government proposes to spend the money they are raising from you. What do you think? Do you agree with it? Do you think there should be more on highways, less on highways, more on health, less on health? What's your opinion? It's your money. I'm in Victoria to represent your views. What are your views?"

They could then come back to a session of the Legislature called for about February 1 and would have all of February and March to consider all of the estimates, and we could be finished with the estimates by April 1. We would never need interim supply again. If we had that kind of system, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it would be more democratic. I believe there would be less criticism from the public about government in general — whether it's NDP or Socred doesn't matter — if we open up the processes of government to the public.

I really believe it's a procedure, a system, that is well worth considering. It would mean that the bills would then be debated from April 1 on. It might mean shorter legislative sessions, which, I'm sure, would be in the interest of the government of the day. Although it has not been canvassed widely in this province, it might be an idea worth considering. The presentation of the budget to the House in a quick one- or two-day session in December, discussion with our constituents in January, full debate of estimates in February and March, and we're done. We never need interim supply again. We can scrutinize the finances. That's all I want to say on this interim supply. I will vote for it, although, as I said earlier, I do so even though in principle I'm not sure that I want to.

[ Page 1819 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On this particular bill, I wish to suggest to the government one way in which they may save money and add to the huge surpluses they talk about at every opportunity — which, by the way, they got off the backs of the people. We're all aware that the government is spending vast sums of money to turn a day ferry into a night ferry and a night ferry into a day ferry, etc. Yesterday we heard the most incredible speech by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland). He told this House — incorrectly, in my view — that the Princess Marguerite was unsafe to sail between Victoria and Seattle over the summer season. In my view and in the view of the Canadian Coast Guard, the federal Ministry of Transport and the American Coast Guard the Princess Marguerite is a safe vessel, and it should be replaced on that route during the summer. Compared to the $10.2 million cost to refit the Queen of Surrey and the $2.5 million cost to refit the Queen of Prince Rupert, for the relatively small sum of $1.5 million we could have a suitable vessel on the Victoria-Seattle route this summer. The net result would be that the Queen of Prince Rupert could remain on its central and north coast route, and those people on the central and north coast of this province would not be left stranded. I'm attempting to suggest ways for the government to save a few dollars and add to their surplus. It makes good common sense; it really does.

Mr. Speaker, are you aware that the CP vessel Princess Patricia, sister ship to the Marguerite, is going to be sailing to Alaska this summer? As it turns out, the Princess Patricia is one year older than the Princess Marguerite. It's a perfectly good vessel. There's nothing wrong with it. This morning I spoke with an engineer who was involved in testing the hull of the Marguerite. He told me that there's no problem on that route. It could actually sail for four more years on that route, as far as the federal government is concerned. That vessel is safe. I think the government should reconsider its very, very bad decision. Don't leave those people up the coast stranded.

Mr. Speaker, are you aware that within four days 114 people will be laid off at Ocean Falls? That's the same time they're taking the vessel off. Due to another bad government decision, there's no way those people are going to be able to get out of Ocean Falls. I'm asking the government now to reconsider that terribly bad decision they made some time ago. I hope that at least in cabinet the minister will speak for the proposal I'm putting forward now.

MR. HALL: I want to make sure that this interim supply bill goes through as quickly as possible for a number of reasons. One, it's traditional that both sides of the House cooperate in ensuring that our public servants and our programs are paid, as well as all the necessary things the minister announced when he introduced the bill. I wish I could share the confidence of my young colleague for north Island (Mr. Gabelmann) about doing things a different way. But when we see the report of the auditor-general.... Time and time again during this last little while we've seen financial statements being filed late, and it's no wonder that we're faced with interim supply time and time again. It's a pity. I hope one day we'll get to the stage where we can look at the suggestion by the member for North Island about how to deal in a different way with the budget and the debates on estimates. But until that happy day when we can do correctly that which we are supposed to do, it will have to wait.

There is a crisis in money in this province. It's quite obvious. The government's information service has completely broken down. I don't know what's happening in the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary; I don't know what's happening at all in British Columbia Government News or British Columbia House in London. Obviously, some serious mistakes are being made. I want to make sure that at least one-quarter of the money allocated from interim supply to the government's advertising, its communications systems, is dispatched as fast as is humanly possible.

Quoting, if I may, from Toronto's Globe and Mail of today, April 2.... As you know, Mr. Speaker, we are being honoured by a visit at this time by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. The Prince of Wales is in Vancouver. He was being shepherded through a crowd in Vancouver, "by Provincial Secretary Grace McCarthy at a B.C. government reception."

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Who?

MR. HALL: "Provincial Secretary Grace McCarthy."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Who?

MR. HALL: Exactly, that's my point; you're not really telling the story, are you? If the Globe and Mail, that wonderful newspaper, can't even get the positions correct, you're not doing a very good job.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Are you criticizing the press?

MR. HALL: I'm criticizing somebody who can't get a story out to the Globe and Mail.... Let me finish.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're saying the press is wrong?

MR. HALL: Let me finish. "...Provincial Secretary Grace McCarthy at a B.C. government reception. The prince was introduced to a string of obscure Social Credit Party workers and adherents." I don't know what an adherent to a Social Credit Party worker is. Maybe that's one of those "Smile" buttons you stick on your collar.

"Learning that one girl was a Social Credit worker, the prince inquired, 'What happened to them in the last election? They were wiped out, weren't they?' " [Laughter.] It seems to me the money you're spending on your advertising programs and your British Columbia Government News is an incredible waste of money! Either get them more money or cut them off at the pass. The Prince of Wales doesn't know you exist! The trademark vivacious smile of Mrs. McCarthy, the Social Credit Deputy Premier and hostess, froze for a moment. You bet your boots it froze! I tell you, the temperature must have gone down in Vancouver overnight at least 10 degrees Celsius.

If that's an example of what we're doing with Mr. Lillico at B.C. House in London, what British Columbia Government News is doing and what all the millions and millions of dollars.... The member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) has been over to the United Kingdom — he tells the people in Kamloops — eight times since he has been a member. Eight times he's been to the U.K.! I don't know how many steam-baths the minister for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has had along Charing Cross Road, but it must have been several. Nowhere have they left their mark on the people who

[ Page 1820 ]

are coming over here to talk about education and colleges. It really is a poor affair. I think we should get this vote through as fast as we can. Let's get them all straightened out.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I felt that I just had to say a few words in this debate on the bill relative to interim supply. I can only reiterate some of the statements that have been made relative to the necessity of having such a bill presented to us.

For many years it was the precedent set by this Legislature to convene in late January. By the time April 1 rolled around, all members of the Legislature had had an opportunity to fully discuss the expenditures proposed by the government, and to have a good debate about the direction in which those expenditures were going to take the province. This government has departed from that procedure. Instead, we find ourselves always in this rather strange situation of having to pass judgment on a vast sum of money before we have really had an opportunity to discuss the various implications that expenditure of that money may entail.

It's interesting to note, in the wording of the bill, the method in which this $1.5 billion is to be expended is strictly at the determination of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. They could, in fact, spend all of it on one ministry. They could spend all of it on one particular item. There is nothing to indicate that that is to be allocated to various ministries, or that it is to be expended in line with any of the discussions that have occurred in these chambers.

One of the things that comes to my mind that causes me a great deal of concern about previous government spending is the point that came up very recently on the floor of this House relative to information that taxpayers' money was being diverted under the Farm Income Assurance Program to a multinational corporation, namely Cargill. In supporting this bill, I am wondering if we in the opposition are being asked to give support to a continuation of that kind of expenditure. It seems to me the reputation which Cargill has built up for itself around the world should certainly make this government and this chamber very wary of giving any taxpayers money in its support. In fact, there was a report done not too long ago by Brian Yaworski.

One of the things he said in his report was that over the years Cargill has become especially adept at tapping public financing. I think we must be very cautious so as not to give support to a money bill which would allow taxpayers' money to continue to go to such a corporation. This is a corporation which controls 25 percent of international grain sales. It makes decisions daily that determine who lives, who dies and who goes hungry. It has 300 plants and offices in 38 nations and employs some 20,000 people. Yet we are supporting their local hog farm by contributing funds from our Farm Income Assurance Program to a corporation of that size. It's the world's largest grain-trading corporation. Although it engages in other activities as well, the greatest portion of its returns do come from the grain trade.

We have a corporation of this size with a very unsavory record as far as being a good corporate citizen goes. In fact, it is a private concern that was started back in 1830, I believe. It's a family corporation, a private concern whose books are certainly not made public. It was quite a shock to a lot of people when the company was trying to buy the Canadian Portland Cement Association some time ago and had to disclose their assets at something like $5.2 billion. They are a company that does $9 billion of trade annually. It's a huge company, Mr. Speaker.

What about their record? Well, their record includes some rather interesting escapades, I might say. They were fined $66,000 by the Canadian Wheat Board for committing over 100 violations. Yet this is the company that this government and this Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) has allowed into our province, not only at Mount Lehman where they purchased a private hog operation, but by selling them Panco Poultry. This is the company that was taken to court in a dozen American states for being part of a conspiracy to keep the price of chickens artificially high. Yet this is the company that this government and this ministry have allowed into the chicken processing business in British Columbia. This was the company that was convicted of artificially driving up the price of wheat on the Chicago commodity exchange. It was the company that set up a curious corporation in Panama which was allegedly used to avoid the taxes and government regulations in connection with the U.S.-Soviet wheat deal. It was the company that was named by India in a U.S. court for short-weighing grain destined for hungry children. Yet this is the company that this government has allowed our tax dollars to go to under the Farm Income Assurance Program.

I am concerned when I am asked to support an interim supply bill without having an opportunity to debate items like this under the specific estimate. I'm concerned that in supporting this bill I am supporting this kind of continuation of taxpayers' money being diverted into the pockets of corporations such as Cargill.

Of course we are faced with this position of having to support an interim supply bill because of the tardy call of the Legislature. We have no choice. But, Mr. Speaker, I do regret that we are in this position, because there is no reason why this House couldn't have met in January and been well along at this point in time. We would have had the estimates discussed. We would have passed the budget, and we would have been assured that the funds being asked for were being spent on programs that had been discussed and debated thoroughly on the floor of this House.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, while I must support this bill, I do have to express my concern at being forced into a position of having to take this stance while we have so much yet to discuss under the estimates of the various ministries.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in support of this legislation, because I know that the community groups have been waiting for some time to get their funding. They've had to wait for many months to find out whether they were going to be funded, and now they've been waiting for some time to get their funding. I certainly hope that when the minister is winding up the debate he will assure us that those groups are indeed going to be getting at least the first quarter of their funding in a very, very short period of time. Some of these groups are living on borrowed funds. They've had to go to the bank to get the money and they've had to pay interest on this. I'm not quite sure whether the government is prepared to pick up the tab for the interest charges, but certainly that is something that the minister should bear in mind and maybe respond to when he is closing this debate.

I would really like to suggest to the minister that there should be a better way of dealing with community groups and with their funding. Because so many of them operate with volunteers, with probably just a handful of paid staff, the amount of time that they have to spend each year preparing

[ Page 1821 ]

their budget, not just to account for the funding which they received the year before but to justify asking for additional funding, is very significant. It might not be a bad idea, once a group's credibility has been established, that departments should be looking at longer-term funding. Maybe they could be funded for two years instead of one year, or possibly even three years.

A number of these groups have been in existence a long time, and this business of having to go through the process each year of reapplying for funds and never knowing from one month to another whether their budget is going to be approved, and whether they're going to have to take a cut in their budget or if there is going to be an increase and to what extent, is very debilitating. It makes it almost impossible for them to successfully carry out their responsibility.

So, Mr. Speaker, in rushing to close this debate, because the member from Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) is breathing down my neck, I hope the minister responsible is listening and in closing the debate will respond to my suggestion that maybe the community groups should be funded on a longer term rather than annually, and say whether the government would be prepared to pick up the interest charges for those who have had to borrow money from the banks to carry on their funding until they receive their cheques.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make some brief comments on it too. One of the things that concerns me about interim supply in the province of British Columbia is that it's becoming the practice rather than the exception. Interim supply in most parliaments of this nation and the British Commonwealth has been a provision to deal with an unforeseen circumstance or indeed an emergency. Rather than being that rare exception in British Columbia, we find that this particular government is organizing its affairs in such a fashion that it is impossible to deal with a proper debate on estimates on a new budgetary provision before the end of the fiscal year. The only reason for that, Mr. Speaker, is the government's unwillingness to convene the Legislature at a time early enough in the year when the proper business of the people can be considered, fully weighed, fully debated, fully scrutinized and passed in orderly fashion.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Interim supply is a device that government traditionally used when for some unforeseen reason, such as the intervention of an election or something of that nature, there was insufficient time. There is no such justification before the House today, it is simply the intransigence of this government in terms of convening the Legislature at a time early enough in the year to do the people's business and to provide for the passage of the new budget with full debate and full scrutiny by the opposition members. I don't like that tendency, I don't like that trend, and I hope the minister in his closing remarks on second reading will deal with the government's intention in this way. The opposition certainly has no desire to be obstructionist, but at the same time we do not want to see the rules of parliament perverted in the way that is becoming the wont of this government.

I'm concerned about passing blank cheque legislation. This particular bill provides for $1.25 billion. It's not too many years ago that that used to be far in excess of the total budget for this province; in fact, I was in this Legislature when the budget exceeded $1 billion for the first time. Now we're passing this kind of money on a few hours' notice and to some extent giving carte blanche approval to the various ministries of the government without their having to come before the House with full accountability. I resent that kind of approach just as a method of indulging the incompetence of a government that either can't get its books in order at an early enough point to convene the Legislature or has such a low regard for the democratic process that it doesn't think it's important. In either event this is a dangerous way to go.

Mr. Speaker, I second the call of my colleague for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who called for a commitment from the minister that, when this provisional interim amount is passed, the government will extend to those agencies relying upon the government for funding — and I refer specifically to the libraries of the province, and various other agencies such as hospitals and schools that rely on funding from the government, so that they in turn can budget appropriately — the same kind of budgetary provision as they demand for themselves through this bill. We have no assurance in the passage of the bill that that in fact will be the case.

This is blank-cheque legislation. It was the Premier of this province who ran around the province shouting: "Not a dime without debate!" Mr. Speaker, although we are obliged to pass this bill expeditiously, because we certainly want the public servants and the senior citizens of this province to receive their cheques on time, we want to do so by serving notice on the government that this kind of sloppy approach to the parliamentary business of the province should not be taken as something that is going to happen automatically in the future,

I want to make one last comment with respect to the bill itself, and that is on the section of the bill which indicates that it comes into force on April 1, 1980. That is yesterday, Mr. Speaker. I submit to you that it is a dangerous precedent and it is contemptuous of parliamentary tradition to pass retroactive legislation. There is absolutely no need for it. It can be justified in unusual circumstances, in emergency situations. But once again, we find this particular government, as they have on many other occasions, flouting the will of parliament and flouting the traditional respect for parliamentary rule. It is a dangerous concept, a dangerous precedent, to write statutory law in a retroactive fashion. If we tried to do that with respect to criminal statutes, I would say that it would be overturned by the supreme courts of this province, and possibly of the nation. It's something that shows a rather contemptuous attitude on the government's part. I hope that they get their act together, and in future convene the Legislature early enough that the people's business can be done in an orderly kind of way, so that, in fact, they don't have to start this tendency toward overthrowing, and showing contempt for, the traditional rights of parliament and the tradition that holds that you don't write retroactive legislation in other than absolute emergencies.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Finance closes the debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I stepped out into the Speaker's corridor for just a moment, but I heard the remarks which were made at that time, and I thank most of the members opposite for their comments. I will deal in just a couple of minutes with the remarks of the last speaker, the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

I think, with respect to members of this House, that a fair

[ Page 1822 ]

amount of the debate which has taken place this afternoon, in second reading of an interim supply bill, belongs more properly in estimates. Notwithstanding the comments which have been made, there is no suggestion, no indication, nor indeed any fear — there need be no fear — that Committee of Supply will not continue. It's a precedent activity as far as this House is concerned at this time, and each minister will take his turn under the gun, as it were, in answering with respect to activities in his or her ministry, and the responsibilities relating to that ministry.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) on his remarks with regard to what might be considered, obviously not for next year, but at some time in the future. We'll disagree on other issues, Mr. Member — through you, Mr. Speaker — we'll disagree violently, but there is no procedure in human activity which cannot be improved, and I will very carefully review your remarks in Hansard. I made notes as you spoke, but I think I will rely to a greater extent....

You spoke about estimates being introduced earlier, and obviously that decision is not up to the Minister of Finance in any government, but at least the idea can be considered and advanced from that particular portfolio. Those estimates might well have to be provisional — that's a first reaction. There might have to be provisional spending outlined; although, in defence of what has been introduced this year — without reflecting on the budget debate, now concluded — I think I would perhaps sell the ministry short if I did not indicate that we've introduced, for the first time in a province in Canada, a medium-term economic outlook, which is the start of the kind of thing that you've spoken of, and which I've spoken about as well.

The three members opposite, I believe, Mr. Speaker, mentioned grants to libraries, community services and a variety of community organizations. With the passage and royal assent of this Supply Act, I would see no reason why each ministry with responsibility for grants of one kind or another would not proceed to distribute the appropriate portion of the total annual grant. To the very best of each minister's ability that money is made available just as quickly as possible.

The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), I believe, asked about the computers. It is my information, Mr. Speaker, that in fact cheques are not being printed and stored. The process is, I think, a very dramatic one and reminds us of the importance of this place. We are obviously paying on 1979-80 accounts. I think those cheques are still proceeding through the system, but clearly under our system — and I hope the system doesn't change — no one has the authority to produce or distribute a cheque until we vote that money. Therefore I have the assurance that in fact cheques are not being produced. I'm sure that some set-ups have obviously been put in place for computer runs a little later on.

Mr. Speaker, in determining an appropriate percentage of the annual estimates, I perhaps erred on the side of caution. I thought that one-quarter was an appropriate figure. If it is necessary, I hope no one among the invisible press assumes that this means that I or the government has the feeling that the legislative session will terminate prior to June 30. It would not be unprecedented in this House, sir, to have a Supply Act, No. 2.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Or No. 3.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Or No. 3 if necessary, as my colleague has indicated.

Mr. Speaker, the auditor-general's report. I again think it is important to state and to restate as often as is necessary that it is this government which introduced the process of auditor-general to British Columbia. We did so knowing that there would from time to time be critical comments with respect to the way in which government handles the public's money. I have already assured this House — I do so again today — and I assure the people of British Columbia that we are reviewing those comments point by point and acting on them. Members of this House will see the results of that in due course.

I indicated, sir, that frankly I don't believe that in interim supply it is appropriate for the Minister of Finance to answer those matters quite clearly within the responsibility and the portfolio of individual ministers. Now the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), who is not in his place at the present time, indicated that this activity today represents low regard for the democratic process, a sloppy approach to government. He used the word "perverted" in financial management terms, I believe. He was very critical.

Mr. Speaker, I like that member on occasion; I find him a reasonably decent honourable member, and we have good conversations. But he was playing to the gallery today. Because, as one example, we had interim supply in 1975 under that party opposite. When was it introduced? It was introduced on March 26, 1975. Interestingly enough, with the exception of one question, which was really a point of order by the member who is now in this government, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), it passed very, very quickly, presumably because the House was in Committee of Supply dealing with estimates. It passed quickly, His Honour appeared shortly thereafter, and interim supply in the amount of one-sixth of the total annual expenditure for that year was granted.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm disappointed in that member again this session, because I can't really feel that he wants to indicate or leave the impression that this is something this government initiated or that this government introduces simply as a means of getting around a more detailed debate on estimates. Surely the member, who is still absent, recalls interim supply when that party opposite formed the government of the province of British Columbia. The Minister of Finance of the day, now the Leader of the Opposition, at some time just around 3 o'clock or 3:30 in the afternoon of March 26, 1975, introduced a Supply Act precisely as we have done today.

It's been suggested that we are here because the session started very late. Well, Mr. Speaker, March 26 to April 2 is not a very significant span of days — the Hansard reference is pages 1050 and 1051.

Mr. Speaker, there may be questions in committee consideration; nonetheless, I thank those members who attempted to be constructive in their comments with respect to this interesting procedure of interim supply. I know that, in the course of estimate consideration in committee, they will have many questions for all of us who hold portfolios.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 11.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

[ Page 1823 ]

Motion approved.

Bill 11, Supply Act, No. 1, 1980, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT, NO. 1, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 11; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, when I was speaking in second reading I asked the Minister of Finance whether he could, within the terms of this legislation, actually pay out the full amount within any one vote. That's certainly the way I read the bill, that as long as you stay within the total limit of the budget, and stay within the votes, you're not constrained to spend only one-quarter of any particular vote. I'm thinking that in some cases there may be an annual grant paid out to some organization.... That's the way I read section 2. Yet when the Minister of Finance responded in closing second reading, he said that in paying out grants the ministers would spend only that portion of the grant. My suggestion is that you are not limited to spend any portion. You could spend any amount up to the total amount of that vote.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry that I did not respond to that specific point at the conclusion of second reading debate. The member for Nanaimo has made a correct assumption. It is a pattern which, I believe, has been in practice in the preparation of a supply bill — interim supply, if you will — for a good number of years.

However, in closing debate I indicated that I thought ministries would follow the intent of what, after all, interim supply is all about, knowing that the full amount of money for the year must be voted upon by this House in due course.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I recall, for example, that during the last election campaign the then Provincial Secretary released the total grants, in many instances, and said these grants were now available, and went around the province handing them out. There was absolutely nothing wrong with that because the Legislature had, indeed, voted interim supply for four months, I think, and in so doing gave the Minister of Finance the authority to pay out the total amount within certain areas, as long as the overall total wasn't exceeded.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, as the member may recall, I was the then Provincial Secretary — if you are referring to the 1979 period. I think in a number of instances that was not the case. The point which the hon. member has advanced was not the case.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 11, Supply Act, No. 1, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it's Wednesday, and the orders of the day are private bills, then public bills and orders, and then public bills in the hands of private members.

Mr. Speaker, we have moved into Committee of Supply and moved out of Committee of Supply. We have fulfilled the priority, and at no time earlier in the day has the House Leader called for public bills without objection, so it would require leave to proceed to public bills and orders at this time.

HON. MR. GARDOM: There are no private bills on the order paper, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON: With respect, Mr. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The House Leader has the floor.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, leave is not required because the House has already been in the Committee of Supply. It's a routine proceeding.

MR. NICOLSON: A point of order. There are private bills — that is the type of bill described in Standing Orders — which must be submitted to this House within so many days and which have been introduced, I believe, and are in our order book.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. There are no private bills on the order paper. While they may have been submitted to the committee, they are not yet on the order paper. But I thank the hon. member for his observations.

HON. MR. GARDOM: As I said, I move we proceed to public bills and orders, and I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 7, Special Funds Act, 1980, The hon. member for New Westminster adjourned the debate.

SPECIAL FUNDS ACT, 1980

(continued)

MR. COCKE: It's the first time I've seen that in the House, where the House Leader tells us who adjourned debate. Mr. Speaker, they're taking away your job.

Mr. Speaker, on adjourning debate on this bill last Friday, I was discussing one or two questions with respect to this particular kind of bill. What we are doing here is allotting large sums Of money, some $188 million, and we propose that the $188 million will not be spent — a great portion of it

[ Page 1824 ]

will just be sitting there in the trophy chest, probably to the tune of $170 million, and it's being given over to ministers who then receive the funds voted by this one piece of legislation and have no further accountability. That is a very dangerous situation, even if you trust the ministers' discretion, administrative ability, and many other attributes that one would hope ministers of the Crown might have.

I talked about the Annacis crossing — I know that the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Davidson) has absolutely no interest in it. I have many concerns about the Annacis crossing, but I notice there are some sums of money here voted toward that likely piece of chaos.

The one that I would just like to dwell on for the moment is the part of this bill that addresses itself to downtown redevelopment — to create and recreate city centres, etc. If, Mr. Speaker, we have as much success in the future with that downtown redevelopment as we have had in the past, let me tell you and let me warn the other districts that are going to submit themselves to this minister of small development, and his B.C. Development Corporation....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The minister asks whether or not I'm against what's happening. I will now say absolutely, without any fear of challenge, I am against what's happening because nothing is. All that's happening is a big PR job. All that is happening in New Westminster is a big PR job for that minister and his minions. When it comes along, heaven only knows. Let me tell you first what they cancelled. First they cancelled the ICBC headquarters down there, and they had to decide what to do with the property, and so they are moving Douglas College down there....

HON. MR. FRASER: We cancelled nothing.

MR. COCKE: That minister should go back to grammar school. How can you cancel nothing?

Mr. Speaker, we had a functional program. It was ready to go. The property was acquired. Don't you tell me, "How can you cancel nothing?" in your words.

HON. MR. MAIR: We were going to.

MR. COCKE: Don't give me the "we were going to." You people spent so much time destroying what we built in the three years and four months that we were government that you cost the taxpayers of this province millions upon millions upon millions of dollars — the most irresponsible government that this province has ever seen. And I go back to Duff Pattullo and a few of those guys.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: They have nothing more to say than all these silly little foolish charges.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the member for New Westminster has the floor.

MR. COCKE: I have in my hand a document: First Capital City Development Co. Ltd. It does a PR trip, as we have had done a number of times in New Westminster around this particular development, around this document and around a number of other programs that have been suggested for the downtown area. Let me tell you what they're doing now besides trying to choke up our city with this Annacis crossing. You go through this report line by line and you find out where the development is to take place: downtown. Guess where they've been doing their first development of housing?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Where?

MR. COCKE: Uptown.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No.

MR. COCKE: Yes. This group did some property trading. They have a piece of the old pen. property and now they're doing a 16 1/2 acre development — which is, incidentally, creating some animosity within our city, but that happens with any kind of development. But the development is uptown. That's the kind of great program that we have for downtown development, and we're setting aside millions of dollars for this minister, whose competency probably ends....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right; I'm going to get to that later. You have spent a large amount of money. BCDC? Well, no, not from funds that are voted by this Legislature, because what we do is hand the minister with one piece of legislation — and he just proved my previous point — millions of dollars to set aside into his B.C. Development Corporation to do the kinds of things they're doing to New Westminster now.

A very good article in the Columbian the other day said this downtown thing might work providing private enterprise — glorious private enterprise — is going to come in and do something about it. From what I understand, to date the bites have been few, even the nibbles few. There has to be a great deal more thought given, and I'm sure that the minister, if he'd put his mind to it, could stay away from some of his travel and do some work within our province.... If this kind of thing is going to be his responsibility, he may become attuned to the fact that development takes place when there is real cooperation going on. It doesn't take place when you rip out a project like the ICBC headquarters, which would have been the real development of that downtown area. It would have provided a catalyst for the proper kind of development, and that proper kind of development is non-polluting, good solid light industry, the development of small enterprise in the downtown area but not particularly devoting itself to stores and other things that a very hilly area does not lend itself to.

Mr. Speaker, I'm worried about Nanaimo and about the other areas that are going to submit to this kind of drill, unless there can be a lot more promise in it for the downtown areas. Don't forget that when a downtown area or a city submits to B.C. Development Corporation and says, "Okay, go ahead, bring in an act and we'll go along with it," they are giving away a lot of their own initiative. In order to give that initiative away something had better be happening. It sure isn't happening in New Westminster; I can tell you that right now.

[ Page 1825 ]

AN. HON. MEMBER: What happened to that courthouse? You supported that.

MR. COCKE: The courthouse has nothing to do with it. The former Attorney-General knows that I supported the smaller courthouse that they brought in rather than the one that was on the drawing-boards. And with that courthouse, incidentally, they don't get the B.C. building which they were going to get. So you cheapen it up.

Mr. Speaker, the kind of development that is required takes a lot of concentration and a lot of cooperation from this government, and it's not occurring, or certainly not occurring in our area. Couple that with some of the other areas that I'm really concerned about: the accountability question and the question of allocating funds forever and a day to a minister, which may or may not be spent, funds he doesn't have to come back and report on. Once he's got it in his hot little hands it's there until a period ends, and then it may go back into general revenue but will never come back here.

I am quite concerned about this whole bill, and I would sure like to hear some of the ministers tell us what they're going to spend this money on, how they're going to spend it, and what the time-frame may be.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult for the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to have to debate a bill that shows by its structure that it's strictly an exercise in Social Credit propaganda and public relations.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: I refer to the structure of the bill. Unfortunately, I don't think the members are listening with great care, Mr. Speaker. We know that the projects specifically mentioned in the bill are worthwhile projects, and we'll be debating those. But the point is that the structure of this bill is still basically a propaganda structure, so the Social Credit members of this House can leave this floor and say to the public of B.C.: "Look, we have just put a bill through the Legislature of B.C. that is in the amount of $188 million. Aren't we great?" Yet we all know that this is really a phony bill.

The majority of the funds in that $188 million are not even going to be spent. As a member who comes from the urban riding of North Burnaby, where one of our most urgent needs is assistance in urban transit.... We look at this phony bill that allows $55 million for urban transit; but in looking through the back pages of the budget we find out that nothing is going to actually be spent for urban transit. That's why it's a phony bill, and the members on this side intend to let the public know that this bill may have worthwhile projects, but we completely reject the whole structure of the bill, which is, I repeat, simply another public relations job of the kind that this government has been involved in in almost every piece of legislation they've presented to the House. I consider it an attempt to fool the public. We intend to make sure that the public will not be fooled by this bill.

I'd like to get down to some very specific areas in this bill which do cause me concern. I've mentioned urban transit. Here again we have the local taxpayers of British Columbia, who have been told they're going to have an easement of their school taxes.... We'll discuss this in a later debate, because it basically isn't an easement. We know that that school tax burden is there in dimensions in which it should never have been placed by that government. At the same time, the people of the lower mainland are having to pay through other means to support an urban transit system. This government is doing nothing to assist them, yet they're trying to suggest in this bill that they are. Mr. Speaker, how can anyone trust a government that would present such a bill to this House? I know some of those members will actually go out and try to suggest that that money is being spent on urban transit. As I said in the beginning, it makes it most difficult to have to stand here and take part in this PR exercise today.

The other area in this bill that really concerns me is the Premier's monument, B.C. Place. The Premier, once again, was finding himself in great political difficulty and so decided it was time to make another announcement. So he had a huge press conference and announced the government support of B.C. Place.

I'm sure that all the members in the House have today received, as I have, a brochure put out by a group called HALT — Human Action to Limit Taxes. It's quite obvious in reading this report that this group, whoever they are, certainly are not socialists. If anything, I would say their sympathies would be with that so-called free enterprise party sitting across from us at this time. That's why I am going to quote some things from it today; I want to get it in Hansard. In prefacing those quotes, I want to reiterate that this is obviously not a Social Credit propaganda sheet. Apparently these are people who are very, very concerned with the building of B.C. Place. They make some very valid criticisms. I'm sure the members on the opposite side, whom I think would be more closely allied to them politically, would certainly want to pay attention to some of the points made by this group.

They refer, first, to the fact that in the conclusion of the Manning-Bell report it was stated: ''Projects of this nature are expensive and risky undertakings on the part of a government. The more open the process the better." What kind of an open process did we see before the announcement was made by the Premier? We saw a lot of PR; we saw these famous Socred breakfasts; we saw a lot of words coming forth from the Premier. But how many people in the province of British really had an opportunity to take part in this process? To date most of it has been done behind closed doors. I understand there has been a committee set up to work on B.C. Place; I don't recall any member of the opposition being part of that committee.

Mr. Speaker, as this report says: "After a review of the Manning-Bell report and such information as is available, this particular group — HALT — "conclude that the B.C. government's decision to 'take the lead in this project' can only be one of political pragmatism." This is from a group which, I would say, should basically be — by ideology — supporters of the Social Credit Party. And here they are saying, quite bluntly, that this whole project can only be one of political pragmatism. You know, when your own supporters — and perhaps this is unfair to this group, because I don't know whether they're all supporters.... But when people who are perhaps more ideologically allied with the government than we are make statements accusing the Social Credit government today of political pragmatism, I would say that that government is getting into serious trouble.

"The contradiction has led them to propose a monument like B.C. Place, a monument which will saddle taxpayers with an unacceptable financial burden." And they go on to say that "our greatest fear is that an irreversible process is being set into motion which could have severe effects on the

[ Page 1826 ]

future of British Columbia." So here again we have a Premier and a government who are in serious trouble with the public, who try to defuse that trouble by making a grand announcement about B.C. Place, with no accountability to the rest of the citizens of this province, with no real rationale for such a project. Here we have them going along merrily on their own, and the rest of us are all going to have to suffer financially in order to help the Premier sustain a better public image.

Mr. Speaker, they have posed some very good questions. They say: "What is an amphitheatre anyway, and how does it really differ in structure, function or purpose from a so-called sports-only stadium?" Now I'm posing this question.

I have to pose it to the Minister of Finance, and the very fact that I have to do it to the Minister of Finance instead of the Premier just points out how ridiculous this bill is. The Minister of Finance has to feel through the House this mixed bag of different projects which should really be under the individual minister's estimates. The Premier is not here to discuss B.C. Place with us, and I suppose if he were, he would not answer; he would simply say: "It does not come under me; it comes under the Minister of Finance." Well, we have no choice but to pose these questions to that poor Minister of Finance, who is already overburdened. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there should be some opportunity for this Legislature to get to the person who has really pushed for this, and that's certainly, from what I can see, not the Minister of Finance, whose interest, I'm sure, would be more parochial with reference to the Island.

Perhaps the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) could give us a little background on this particular B.C. Place, as that minister seems to be involved in almost every project that the Social Credit government has proposed or wishes to propose or will propose for the lower mainland. We're never quite sure who is really calling all the shots in the cabinet today, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. MAIR: I am.

MRS. DAILLY: The Minister of Health just said he was, Mr. Speaker, and I'm glad we know. We know where the power is. We've been waiting to hear. It is the Minister of Health who admits right here, with his due modesty, that he is the real power in this government. So perhaps he will take it upon himself to answer some of the questions that have been posed to the Premier of the province, who has not been able to answer them. If he is now the real power, we will let him take over and answer the questions that the Premier of this province has left unanswered.

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple more points on the matter of B.C. Place. This group also makes the point that the government has stated that this project will attract tourist dollars; and they make the point the government has actually failed to substantiate that statement; and that regardless of that, it is the role of the tourist industry to attract business for itself; and that, even if the claim is true, it simply means that the taxpayers are again being forced to subsidize the tourist industry.

They make one more point which I'd like to make here. They say: "We have noted that many of those interests that have been most vocal in complaints of government regulation, excessive taxation, bureaucracy and its stifling effect on business are the very groups, when it comes to B.C. Place, which are very happy to accept government intervention."

It's always interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the people who talk about the heavy hand of state socialism and government intervention are the ones who often have their hands out first to get assistance from the government. But they never would admit that that was accepting government assistance — they seem to accept the fact that it is their right to have this money.

I think that the complaints of this group are expressions of great concern among the taxpayers of B.C. At a time when that Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), who claims to be the real power behind the whole government in British Columbia....

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: He is the power. At a time when that minister has already suggested to the public of B.C. he's considering raising hospital premiums, we have this kind of money proposed to be spent on a B.C. Place which nobody quite understands. We've had no accountability from the Premier. Today there are so many problems in this province that require immediate financial attention. Not only does this government sock its money away in so-called surpluses; they also present phony bills to us. They present some projects which I consider to be very questionable.

I'm concerned about many other areas in this bill. Before I close, one more area I'm concerned about is the money for libraries' computerized services. I also want to reiterate, as fellow members have, that that $3 million is not in any way going to assist some of the smaller libraries throughout British Columbia. I hope you can tell us that.

The Minister of Finance has said to me that it is a start. The problem is through that when we talked this matter over with a library group they were somewhat disenchanted. I'm sure that they expressed that disenchantment to the present minister in charge of libraries, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). When his estimates come up we'll be discussing it in detail. I will conclude my remarks by saying that as a member of the opposition I find it most unsettling to debate a bill which I consider to be hypocritical and deceptive.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Prior to recognizing the Minister of Human Resources, I would remind all members that the word "phony" is on our list. It was on our list in 1973, 1974 and again in 1975.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I can't tell you how disappointed I am to hear the remarks of the past two speakers from the socialist opposition regarding the act which is before the House for debate today. Having heard those remarks from the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the remarks from the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), who has just taken her place, I would imagine, then, that the opposition will vote against this bill. I think it's unfortunate not only for the people of British Columbia but for the reputation of the once-proud party these people claim to represent — the old CCF. There's no question in my mind that those people who built the CCF — which has now become a far more radical and socialist political party represented by the NDP today — and who contributed to building this province would look on this act and that which it would build for the city of Vancouver and for the province of British Columbia as one of the most exciting developments presented to this House. Because of their expressions, I take it that they will vote against this act.

[ Page 1827 ]

I'm disappointed to see that, because as a Vancouver member I think that this B.C. Place, which is mentioned in the act, will give to Vancouver — the third-largest city in Canada and the greatest city on the west coast of this continent — a brand-new look and an exciting future.

As a matter of fact, I can't think of any decade other than this decade of the eighties which will show the leadership and the great, exciting concept of growth and opportunity that will be enveloped and encompassed in just two projects in the city of Vancouver. Downtown Vancouver will be completely revitalized because of this government's initiative in building British Columbia Place and the trade and convention centre in the city of Vancouver.

As a matter of fact, I was recently reading some comments by a downtown business organization. They made the point that because of those two initiatives Vancouver, British Columbia, was the place to be in the decade of the eighties for business and for social opportunities for the people of our province. It is really British Columbia Place, downtown British Columbia — it is not just for Vancouver city. But as a member from the city of Vancouver, I'm very pleased to see it.

You see, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia Place is going to be one of the two areas in British Columbia where we can host international shows, international conferences and international visitors. It will be the place which will give, at long last, a home to professional sports, a home where we can be proud to compete on the North American continent — as the city of Vancouver surely is worthy of doing and as the province of British Columbia surely is worthy of doing.

It seems to me that it's a bit petty to look at British Columbia Place as a public relations concept for the Social Credit government. Let me just say this: if it's good public relations to serve the people of British Columbia with imaginative programs and ideas, we will continue to have the best public relations on this side of the House. I am surprised, too, that the members can look at this exciting Special Funds Act.... Isn't it interesting that they should be a little picayune about British Columbia Place, just give passing mention to the lower mainland stadium fund and completely ignore the other exciting things which are in the Special Funds Act? In fact, I would say the Special Funds Act provides opportunities for the 1980s which I just can't imagine them not standing on their feet and being very excited about.

I would question the member who has just taken her place, who was at one time the Minister of Education in this province, who tells us that someone in the libraries network does not feel the computerization that has been undertaken for the libraries is a very forward step, nor has it been heralded by the federation of libraries, because it has. I have documentation in my office, as a matter of fact, from the provincial organization which brought that program to government and asked for it. I have documentation that lauds the government for that. I wonder if they are going to vote against it.

One of the things in this act which I think we should all take a look at is the Energy Development Fund and the Northeast Coal Development Fund. I have said this before, but I would like to repeat it for this House in light of this act which is before us. We cannot have development in this province without energy opportunities. In this province we have the greatest opportunity for energy supply and self-sufficiency of any place in North America. These two initiatives alone will give to us a capability of self-sufficiency which will, again, pay tribute to something else....

The members on the other side of the House continually talk about those who are disadvantaged, those who are poor and those who need more money for social services in this province, as if they were the only ones who pay tribute to that concept. It is because of the initiatives such as the economic initiatives contained within this act that we are going to be able to provide even more social services and opportunities for employment in this province.

I can't say, in addressing this act today, that even the Barkerville Historic Park Development Fund is less, in comparison to the nine projects listed in the Special Funds Act, because it is, for the north, one of the greatest tourist attractions that this province has. In fact, it is for British Columbia one of the greatest historic parks and attractions that this province has. If they are against that, then we should go around the north of the province and talk about that.

I would like to say too, in terms of some of the remarks that have been made against the Fraser River Crossing Fund.... I think one has only — at this time of night, 5:05 — to travel across that lower mainland area and be in the bumper-to-bumper traffic to truly understand why we need this act before this House today: to get on with that crossing and the alleviation of the problems that are there today, at this very hour, as we sit in this Legislature debating this act.

This Special Funds Act is only before us because of good fiscal management by the Social Credit government of this province, I am pleased to be able to support the act, Mr. Speaker. I will be proud to stand in my place and vote for it. As I watch the opposition vote against it I will be saddened, because it would be too bad if this were not a unanimous vote in this House for the progress of British Columbia and for opportunities for our citizens.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, the last remarks of the Minister of Human Resources were most interesting. She claimed that this is possible because of good fiscal management. I'd like that minister to look at her own public accounts in her ministry, albeit before she took over as minister, and just look at where some of these surpluses were created. When one hears that there were surpluses created in the Ministry of Human Resources, some people might say that's good and others would say it's bad. I know in the fiscal year ending 1978 that ministry was underspent in every single vote. When we see that it was underspent in the minister's office, I suppose we all agree that that's good. When we see that the amount for GAIN was underspent, there might be some difference of opinion around this House. Certainly I would say in terms of some of the people whom I have met and talked with about needs — senior citizens trying to get assistance for hearing aids and various things such as that, and being turned down and put through an appeal process and a whole gamut of things, people who've been red-circled at the same figure since 1975, getting social assistance in that 55-60 age group and 60-65 age group — I think it's pretty bad.

I think it's particularly bad when, in a specific vote that I mentioned to illustrate a point earlier today but which I think is also germane to pointing out how these surpluses were generated.... When the handicapped people and the budget of $3.8 million for activity centres in this province, has underspent by $800,000 of a $3.8 million budget, then to have money to burn.... I think that particularly is some-

[ Page 1828 ]

thing every member in this House should be ashamed of. Those votes were brought into this House. Not one of us voted against it, yet that vote was underspent by $800,000. That was the money going toward providing sheltered workshops as part of a program to start people on the way toward learning life skills, to make them more independent and self-sufficient, to get them out in the community. That area has been a catchment area for the mental patients we've sent out all over the province and then very largely forgotten about, but for the efforts of volunteer groups that have picked up the slack, and for those people born with mental retardation or with such profound learning disabilities that they have not been able to this point to fit into the mainstream of the educational process and have required special confidence building in a sheltered workshop environment. We have generated funds in this vote that we're now going to spend on the backs of those people. Let there be no mistake about that. So to say that this was done by good fiscal management just grates a little bit.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, let's all recognize where these funds came from. I wouldn't propose to go down chapter and verse, but I could show you many very worthwhile votes that have been underspent in the last three fiscal public accounts.

We do have this surplus, and we would do well to look at where it is being spent and where perhaps even this government has had some judgment in spending surplus funds in years past. The expenditure for B.C. Place and the premature announcement of the concept of B.C. Place when the land has not even been acquired from Marathon Realty....

This government has hyped up expectations about the building of B.C. Place and a downtown amphitheatre — that is, a stadium — for football, baseball and sports, because when you get a 60-seat facility such as that it might be used for some kinds of expositions. We're also going to have a trade fair centre further down the road and a lot of facilities out at Pacific National Exhibition. One might wonder what some of those facilities are going to be used for after this is in place.

The government has gone out and committed itself to this concept of a B.C. Place, and it hasn't decided how it's going to acquire the land from Marathon Realty and at what price. Now, of course, the government has come up with a brainwave. They said: "Well, we've got lots of other land around the province, so we'll trade it. We can trade other Crown lands to Marathon Realty." Now what are they going to do? Are they going to take Crown forest lands and give them to Marathon Realty so that they can create a CPR tree farm? You know Marathon has been selling off its tree farms in various parts of Vancouver Island for the past few years, selling off some of its Crown granted lands and making a great deal of money. Now perhaps we're going to give that back to them. Or are we going to take certain lands such as some of the waterfront land right in downtown Kalso which the community wants for park purposes? Or is that part of the barter? I want to tell you that this is the dumbest thing that this government has done, and that really exceeds some exceedingly dumb things that the government has done since 1975.

Mr. Speaker, to go out and propose to start negotiating with Marathon Realty, once you've tipped your hand, is really very naive and unbusinesslike, and it is going to eventually be very expensive for the people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that perhaps the members.... It's the first time I've bothered to respond to that inane remark the Premier has been promulgating, giving me the nickname of "Nick the Nuke." If he would read the speech that I made, he would find out that he has been misleading people in his caucus who then get up and recite. I called for a study at that time. That study did start to take place under the Bates commission, and it was prematurely curbed. I would recommend that members read that speech. I think it was given in moving the reply to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor's speech in 1973. They might do well, before they go around attributing actions to other members of this House, to take the trouble to read what was actually said, and not listen to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, in looking at these various proposed expenditures, it becomes very evident that this $198 million, almost $200 million authorization, should, in fact, be split up. Because this is an omnibus bill proposing on the one hand to spend $5 million for the Barkerville Historic Park Development Fund; to set aside $15 million for B.C. Place, in addition to other funds which have already been set aside for a stadium; the downtown revitalization fund.... When looking at $25 million, perhaps one should look at legislation which is in place in the province of Saskatchewan which is certainly not as sketchy as what we have put forward here. There are programs in other provinces for downtown revitalization. I think the areas that most need this type of funding now are the small village municipalities. Probably that should be the first priority. There is nothing set forward in this bill, so that this bill is just a very blank, hollow document. It does nothing more than give the government the right to do almost anything that it wishes with this money. It absolutely subverts any of the traditional practices of a legislature or a parliament in the British parliamentary system.

One would think that when amounts of this magnitude are being set aside, they would be debated each on their own merits rather than being put together in an omnibus. I note the money to be set aside for the computerization of libraries. Mr. Speaker, there's a great deal more that has to be done with the library systems in this province before any of the libraries.... Outside of perhaps the Cariboo-Thompson-Nicola library system, the regional system in the lower mainland, and the metropolitan systems of Vancouver and Victoria.... Other than those four which I have mentioned, I can't think of any area in the province that is organized on a regional coordinated basis so they could possibly take advantage of computerization.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, the government has for years sabotaged any efforts to allow the coordinated regional concept of libraries to come to its completion. It was started by my colleague the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) when he was Provincial Secretary. A couple of them did get underway. The Cariboo system, which is a prototype, should be followed perhaps by the rest of the province or maybe slightly modified versions of that. Those things have to be set up before this can have any significance to the people of places like Sparwood, Salmo or Dawson Creek.

The Lower Mainland Stadium Fund is $25 million. There's the Fraser River Crossing Fund — all of these

[ Page 1829 ]

tremendous amounts. Yet when I look in here, I see nothing that is really guaranteed to be some payback of the overtaxation of rural people. The Downtown Revitalization Fund might help some of the small village municipalities or it might not. It's hard to say who it's really destined for. Is this destined for the revitalization of downtown New Westminster?

HON. MR. MAIR: Kamloops.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, for Kamloops, is it? I think that a program for the small village municipalities would probably be the one that is most needed in this province.

Mr. Speaker, very noticeable in this bill, which sets out the priorities for spending surpluses, is that for the second year in a row the government has failed to set aside money for water improvement districts. They did when the most analogous bill to this one, which was Bill 5, was put forward by the Minister of Finance in 1978. In that bill there was, I think, about $2 million set aside. That money was taken up in spite of the fact that it came in rather late and that most of those water improvement districts had to act before freeze-up in the winter. Of course, we had a fairly late session that year as well. In spite of that I think there was almost total take-up of those funds. I think that out of the $2 million the public accounts indicate, about $1.9 million of that was actually expended and accounted for. That was really a marvel, and it indicated that there was a need, and that back in 1978 the Minister of Finance of the day did bring in something that met the needs of rural people.

Last year I talked in a very non-partisan way with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and with the Minister of Finance, because I felt that perhaps it had not found its way into the surplus appropriation bill or the special fund act of last year. I thought it might have just been an oversight in terms of the government reorganization and moving Mr. "Red" Ferguson and his crew of people into the Ministry of Municipal Affairs from the Ministry of Environment. Being sort of a small, poor second cousin, I thought it might have been an oversight. So I discussed that with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and with the Minister of Finance of the day in a very non-partisan way. Then, Mr. Speaker, I think I took the responsible and perhaps unique step of addressing myself to all of the rural MLAs who, I felt, would be interested in rural water improvement systems. I sent a letter to them, urging that we act in concert on this in a non-partisan way in order to better represent rural people. I heard back from colleagues such as the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and all these others.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, I certainly did send one to you, hon. member. I made a special point. I said: "Make sure that the member for Kootenay receives a copy."

I also, of course, took the liberty, Mr. Speaker, of sending a copy of that letter to the 280 water improvement districts in the province. We heard back, Mr. Minister of Finance. In fact, I even heard back from some people in your riding. I heard, for instance, back from a Mr. Fred Brookbanks who wrote to the Minister of Finance. He had this to say:

"I find it strange writing to you in support of a policy proposed by an NDP member, since I've always been a strong supporter of yourself and the party you represent. I must, however, strongly concur with Lorne Nicolson in his statement that rural water supplies deserve all-party support."

To further quote from this news release:

"In 1978, $2 million was set aside for rural water improvement districts, but in 1979 the program seems to have been lost in the reshuffle from water rights branch in Environment to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. It seems that the only access to needed funds is through the Capital Regional District, which means turning over our water district assets. That would certainly mean losing local control. This would be strongly resisted by the water users served by water improvement districts on Saltspring Island for the following reasons."

I don't propose to go on and read the entire text of the letter. I also have a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Beauchemin of Ganges, from Mrs. Linnitt and Mr. Leslie Linnitt of Ganges, from Mr. Pike of Ganges, from Mr. Harrison of Ganges, and from the North Saltspring Waterworks District in Ganges signed by Ellen L. Benett. I have copies of letters to the minister. It's really quite galling to see that this government is not proposing to redistribute these surplus funds in an equitable manner.

I want to inform the Minister of Finance that I don't intend to let the matter rest. I don't think people that do voluntary work in water improvement districts should be forced into regional districts as the only way to qualify for funds. In 1978 a similar bill to this one had a provision for people in water improvement districts. Every day government is instructing them that they must upgrade their facilities — they must add chlorination. Because we don't monitor watersheds and because we allow logging to go ahead without having a hydrologist in place.... In fact, the Ministry of Forests has only in the last couple of years hired a single hydrologist. Now, I think, they have more positions for hydrologists in the new reorganization. But up until recently logging has gone ahead without any hydrology study. This places a significant burden on these people.

I want the minister to clearly understand that I have about 30 letters from his riding alone, and I would be more than willing to share them with him. But, Mr. Speaker, I think that we really should look very seriously at the way in which we are redistributing, giving back to the people their own monev. I wonder if the people in North Peace River or in East Kootenay or in my riding feel that these are the things that they want to support. Some people want things that are a little bit more fundamental to life, such as water itself — good, potable water. While we are getting carried away with building monuments — some of these things being monuments, other things being necessary — I think that we would do very well to stop and think about it.

I would hope that the back-bench members and rural cabinet ministers will say: "I don't want to hear another one of Nicolson's speeches about water improvement districts. For goodness' sake, Mr. Minister, put some money in there. He's going too far. He's writing to people in my riding, and they are corresponding back and forth like pen pals." Mr. Speaker, I hope that those members will tell the Minister of Finance, tell the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the treasury benches: ''For goodness' sake, shut that man up. Give the water improvement districts

[ Page 1830 ]

of this province about $5 million, which is what they really need."

We're not talking about little two-bit outfits; we're talking about some irrigation districts in the Okanagan that are right now being forced into million-dollar investments — even in one area — and they're only asking that a part of that investment come through government support — as it goes into cities. Cities get money now for water improvements, and villages and municipalities, and if you're in a regional district and you want to have it done through the regional district, it's available there too — provincial government support, and sometimes federal government support through a joint plan. But there is nothing here for people who want to do things for themselves. If this government wants to continue ignoring volunteers and people with initiative, and simply create things that are going to do nothing but enrich architects and consultants and people who are put on steering committees and the Mr. Mannings of this world, well, that's fine, but they are going to have to account for it eventually, and that'll be at the next election.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, it was certainly again somewhat educational for me to listen to that member talk about and use items that are not in this bill — which is dealing with surplus funds, not the regular funds that are covered in many other areas, but surplus funds for extra projects — to try to build a case that this government is not doing something. I am certainly pleased to support Bill 7, because I believe it does reflect provincial economic prosperity. I think we must keep in mind that this is over and above a regular budget which provides the services to people — many of the amenities that they talk about — that are not provided in this bill. First of all we hear criticism that this bill is too inclusive — it covers too many items — and then the rest of the speech is devoted to what it does not cover.

For that member's information — of course I don't know whether he's aware of it — I see over my desk a number of copies of letters going out of grants to municipalities that have received water improvement. Just last fall, I was able to get a water improvement program going for the village of Taylor for about $1 million. He said $5 million across the province would do the whole thing. I don't know where he's been, but certainly this is happening. We are getting water improvements throughout this province, and it can be done because the money is there to provide it to these municipalities. I can support this bill because I think it shows numerous examples of good financial management.

We have very contrasting philosophies on this side of the floor and on the other side, which, of course, comes as no surprise. But the philosophy there, and the thing that we hear over and over again in criticisms and in suggestions, if you like, is spend it, spend it, spend it. In other words, do things with the money. Whatever you do, spend the money. No thought is given to how to keep that supply going. It must be nice to have the luxury of recommending continuous spending without ever having to concern yourself as to where the money is going to come from to continue that spending program. As a matter of fact, I think we have ample evidence from the three years of what happened when they put their philosophy into action. We saw what happened there.

We've had a lot of criticisms about programs that have not been funded with enough money. I would like to pose the thought as to just where would we be now with any of those programs that they are so prone to support? Where would those programs be if the revenues of this province had gone the way that they did — or the trend that was indicated in the three years? If we had kept borrowing money at the rate that those people would have forced us into borrowing, at today's interest rates we couldn't afford to do anything in this day and age.

So we have, on this side, examples in this bill where this extra money has come into the coffers, it is being used to generate a continuing source of revenue in order that the programs can be continued. I think that is a very important philosophical difference.

Just to use examples from Bill 7 — you note the example on generating more revenue and more funds — we have, in the field of tourism development, the Barkerville expenditure of $5 million, the $15 million for B.C. Place, which they seem to criticize, the Lower, Mainland Stadium Fund of $25 million. All of that money will generate jobs, generate revenue to people. It will generate construction jobs and permanent jobs in the maintenance and upkeep of those facilities, and so you have a lot of jobs created. Not only that, you provide the capacity to give tourists some more reasons to come to this province to leave a lot of money here, and that money does make possible many of the services they like to talk about. I wonder where we would be in the realm of medical services, human resources services, and so on, if we were paying back all the loans they would have had to make, at today's rates.

I'd like to suggest that in Bill 7 we also have programs that will enhance transportation, the type of transportation that people want. They are saying that we shouldn't provide people with what they want in the way of transportation at the same time as they are saying they represent the people of this province. I'm not quite sure how they juxtapose those two points of view. We have the Fraser River crossing of $30 million, the urban transit allocation of $55 million. And these are people services, providing jobs, improving transportation, helping people, lowering costs of travel, and again continuing revenues.

Mr. Speaker, we have energy development programs included in Bill 7. Certainly they talk about no nuclear power, no hydro, yet here we have $10 million put aside for research to develop alternative sources, to try to enhance conservation programs, to try to improve energy. And here they are speaking against it. Now I just don't know how you equate that with what they say they believe in.

The northeast coal development — development of facilities of $20 million. Coal is going to be a very valuable energy source in this province and in this world, and here we have a government willing to put money into that belief and that faith. It will generate revenues and funds from which programs can be improved for people.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

We have jobs, revenues, better energy for an investment from these extra funds, which are not taken from the regular funds. But they try to divert attention from that constantly. We have the downtown revitalization, the $25 million program — again, jobs, better living conditions, attraction for tourists. It helps to continue more government programs.

However, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take a couple of moments to remind you, a lot of members and the general public, if you like, that a lot of people live in far less developed areas in order to produce much of the revenue which makes so much of all these programs possible. I'm

[ Page 1831 ]

going to ask that we not forget these people, because there is no way they can compete for these revenues on a per capita basis; they just do not have the numbers, and heavily populated areas take so much for granted. It is a case, I would say, where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, because every time we talk in per capita terms, more money comes to the populated areas.

Yes, as citizens of British Columbia we can take pride in a major sports facility, in a stadium fund. I could just remind the Minister of Finance and other members that, say, $10 million for the Peace River area — North and South Peace combined — would provide so much in the way of facilities. That's really only one-third of one gas lease sale out of about six or seven in a year. Certainly on a per capita basis we can never justify that. What would that $10 million do? Three million dollars for Fort St. John would provide a library and a community centre, without forcing higher taxation on the people. Because we're supporting this stadium fund and other funds, I would like to think that we will be next in line for some of these funds to provide facilities for the people who produce a great deal of this revenue.

I am very pleased to see Barkerville being further developed; I have been there. I hope the minister will continue to applaud when I say that I would also like to see an historic development in the Peace River country. Let me point out a little bit of history. I think that Barkerville dates back to about 1858. Alexander Mackenzie came through our country in 1793. In 1794 we had the first fort. In 1805 Simon Fraser came through — he was the granddad of our Transportation minister (Hon. Mr. Fraser) — and he set up a trading fort there. I'm not sure about the relationship, but certainly he was also in the transportation business, so I'm just making the connection. I might point out that a fur-trading fort was burnt there in 1823, and others were not built to replace it. So Barkerville didn't come about until quite a few years later. As a matter of fact, Victoria didn't come about until about 1843 or something like that. So we are well deserving of an historic development there.

Interjections.

MR. BRUMMET: I am supporting this bill. I'm also asking for consideration for our area. As I said last year in my first speech in the House, it does take the support of all members of this House in recognizing that we cannot get anywhere with numbers in our part of the country. So we do need support and understanding of our particular position.

Mr. Brummet moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: On the motion, Mr. Speaker, I think that the time of adjournment is most inappropriate. This is our second week now without a night sitting. Are we here to work or are we here to play around? I would hope that the government is going to start considering getting this Legislature to work on its regular schedule — not overly, not going to midnight sittings, just two evening sittings a week, which is a normal.... Let's follow the good work ethic, Mr. Speaker, and let's get some work going in this Legislature.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On the motion and listening to the comments of the member opposite about the second week without a night sitting, I'd just like to say this seems to me about the second month without any opposition.

MR. LAUK: I don't think the Minister of Agriculture's remarks can go unanswered. But what did he say? We've only been sitting a month, Mr. Speaker, but that's in line with his usual observations.

We'd like to make a serious point. There have been many occasions in this House when comments have been made by the Premier about keeping banker's hours, and we'd like to remind him of those comments. We've got a lot of work to do in this Legislature, and I think it's important that we start sitting nights and stop sitting just a few hours in the afternoon. The public are paying good money for our salaries and we should be doing a good job.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.