[ Page 2405 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Reporting of campaign expenditures. Mr. Howard –– 2405

Criteria for loans to private enterprise. Mr. Stupich –– 2405

Purchase of Maplewood Poultry Processors Ltd. Mr. Levi –– 2406

School Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 20). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2407

Mr. Lauk –– 2408

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2409

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 4). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2409

Mr. Stupich –– 2410

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2410

Trade and Convention Centre Act (Bill 23). Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Howard –– 2411

Division on section 1 2411

On section 2.

Mr. Howard –– 2411

Division on section 2 2411

On section 3.

Mr. Hanson –– 2411

Mr. Barber –– 2412

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2412

Mr. Barber –– 2412

Mr. Hanson –– 2414

Mrs. Dailly –– 2414

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2415

Mr. Nicolson –– 2415

Division on the motion that the committee rise –– 2415

Mr. Barber –– 2415

Mr. Howard –– 2417

On the amendment to section 3.

Mr. King –– 2417

Division on the amendment to section 3 –– 2417

On section 3.

Mr. Barber –– 2418

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2418

Mr. Barber –– 2419

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2421

Mr. Barrett –– 2422

Mr. Barber –– 2423

Mr. Hanson –– 2424

Mr. Lauk –– 2424

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2424

On section 4.

Mr. Howard –– 2424

On the amendment to section 4.

Mr. Howard –– 2424

Division on the amendment to section 4 –– 2424

On section 4.

Mr. Levi –– 2425

Report and third reading –– 2425

Forest Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 17). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2426

Mr. King –– 2426

Division on the motion to adjourn debate –– 2426

Mr. Barrett –– 2427

Division on the motion to adjourn debate –– 2428

Mr. Howard –– 2428

TUESDAY, MAY 13, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In the gallery today we have some special guests, 45 grade 10 students from York House School. In introducing these students to the House today, I'd like to ask them if when they go back they will pay particular attention to see if they can find among the archives at York House the picture of Dixie Wolfe as having graduated — or did she graduate? I'm not sure. Would the members please welcome these students.

MR. MACDONALD: While the archives are being searched, I wonder if they would search for the name of Christina Macdonald, who taught me all the manners that I have.

MR. BARRETT: What a terrible thing for a father to say about a daughter.

Mr. Speaker, I don't normally have the opportunity of introducing too many guests from outside British Columbia, but we have been honoured today with a visit from a group of 14 Japanese citizens who are on a pre-conference tour of North America for the forty-fifth anniversary of the atomic bombing disaster. It is a Pacific conference against atomic and hydrogen bombs. These Japanese citizens, who will be returning to Vancouver, are in the vanguard of people all over the world who are concerned about the threat of nuclear weapons throughout all nations regardless of politics.

I ask the House to welcome the following: Mr. Suzuki, Mr. Hayakawa, Mr. Konno, Mr. Fukuda, Mr. Kataoka, Mr. Dei, Mrs. Yazaki, Mr. Hiraki, Mr. Sumiya, Mr. Kishio, Mr. Maruyama, Mr. Morioka, Mr. Nanjo and Ms. Ota. May I say, on our behalf, that we appreciate the effort they care making in their struggle against nuclear weapons, and we wish them every success.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: It is my pleasure to acknowledge the presence of 46 students from BX Elementary School near Vernon in the buildings today. They are here with their teachers, Mr. Wally Steinke and Mrs. Dorothy Hunter. Mr. Speaker, as you know, it is not possible for them to be in the Legislature at this time and witness the opening because they are grade 6 students, but I'm sure you'd like to know they've had a very interesting tour of the building. They are out on the lawn now, and I would ask the House to warmly acknowledge their presence.

MR. LORIMER: I would ask the House to join me in welcoming a group of 30 students from Moscrop School in Burnaby who are with their teachers, Mrs. Marj Lernmen and Wayne Axford. Along with them are 30 exchange students from the city of Montreal, with their teachers Frank Caranciy and Yolande Beaugard. Also in the precincts are a group of students from Sussex Elementary School, with their teacher Mr. G. Slark. In addition to that I ask the House to welcome two of my constituents, Margaret and Dale Lawrence.

MR. REE: With the young ladies from York House is the daughter of a very old and dear friend of mine, who is also a partner in my law practice. I ask the House to welcome Judy Anfield.

MRS. WALLACE: in the gallery today we have a visitor from Australia, a young gentleman who is a graduate in political science from the University of West Australia. I would like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Jeffrey Kaye.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to you that in the precincts today is a group of students, with their teachers and other staff, from Yermadon Elementary School in Maple Ridge. I wish the House would make them welcome.

Oral Questions

REPORTING OF
CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General give this House and the people of B.C. an assurance, at this stage of the investigation into unreported campaign fund expenditures on behalf of the Social Credit Party — which funds were operated out of the Premier's office — that no campaign fund contributions were made and no undue influence exerted on the government by Cargill Grain Co. Ltd?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the member seems to be under some misapprehension as to the nature of the work which is going on in my ministry with respect to the matter of alleged failure to comply with the provisions of the Election Act.

CRITERIA FOR LOANS
TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if someone could identify himself or herself as a member of Treasury Board. The chairman and the Premier are missing, and I just don't know to whom I should address the question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have no indication, hon. member.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, it would seem that nobody over there knows, but someone on this side identifies the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) as a member of Treasury Board. I would like to ask.... The Minister of Education shakes his head. Well, nobody over there knows who is on Treasury Board. I'll ask the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) then: what arguments were considered by Treasury Board and what criteria were used when they approved $2.5 million of financing for an American corporation to finance the jetfoil service and turned down financial help to B.C. producers who wanted to purchase the Hambley operation?

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Have I got your attention, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Undivided, hon. member.

[ Page 2406 ]

PURCHASE OF MAPLEWOOD
POULTRY PROCESSORS LTD.

MR. LEVI: This is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can the minister inform the House what action he has decided to take in assuring consumers that they will not have to pay increased prices for chicken as a result of the impending Cargill monopoly?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt the sincerity of the question. The Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has no way of assuring any consumer that the price of any commodity will not rise or, occasionally, fall — particularly chickens.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, in the discussions that presumably have taken place in cabinet in respect to the reversal of the decision regarding Cargill — the discussion in respect to pricing and the effects of a monopoly that Cargill could bring to this province — did the minister not offer any protection or warning about what could happen to consumers if this went ahead?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, again I don't doubt the sincerity, but obviously the question is out of order.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister may take the question as notice; he may decline to answer; but he may not indicate the question is out of order.

MR. LEVI: Well, can we ask this question, then? Maybe it will be out of order and the minister will put it in order. Did the minister make any defence on behalf of the consumers of British Columbia in respect to the impending purchase of this turkey operation by Cargill? Has he had any input at all into protecting the consumer from the effect of what's going to happen if the Cargill acquisition goes ahead?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I don't know whether the member is speaking about the cabinet discussions to which he referred earlier, but the role of minister within the cabinet permits any minister to discuss with other cabinet colleagues opinions on any subject. Indeed, such a matter could have been discussed with reference to Cargill but, Mr. Speaker, I'm out of order, I'm not telling that member what happens in cabinet.

MR. LEVI: I appreciate the minister's instructions to us about what cabinet ministers can do. Let me ask him this. The minister is responsible for the protection of the consumer. Now what action has he taken since he's been minister, particularly with respect to the Cargill acquisitions, to protect the interests of the consumer against a monopoly like Cargill? Has he said anything at all? I'm not interested in what went on in cabinet, but have you been doing your job, as the minister, in protecting the consumers?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm glad the member clarified that he's not seeking information from a cabinet meeting — which he indicated earlier. The answer to his question is yes.

MRS. WALLACE: I have just one question for the Minister of Agriculture. What I would like to know is when he got his instructions from the Premier to sell yet another B.C. company to another multinational corporation?

HON. MR. HEWITT: While I appreciate the opportunity to respond to a question — not the one that was raised by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), which is facetious, but the one that's raised by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace)....

Let's just deal with the Cargill purchase of Maplewood. I want to tell the member for Cowichan-Malahat that my staff, myself and the turkey producers of this province have worked long and hard to resolve this very important issue. The member for Cowichan-Malahat should know that the Maplewood plant is the tip of the iceberg. What is under the Maplewood plant and its future — if it opens — are 50 turkey producers and poultry producers, broiler producers and egg producers that face possible financial ruin if that plant doesn't receive their product in this province.

MR. STUPICH: Cargill blackmailed you.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Cargill did not blackmail me. Mr. Speaker, I ask that member to withdraw. I find his remark offensive.

Interjections.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The minister has asked for a withdrawal of a remark from the member for Nanaimo. As custom dictates in this House, if the member would withdraw any imputation he may then proceed.

MR. STUPICH: I'll withdraw it in here, Mr. Speaker. I'll say it outside.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: For the record, the member withdraws. The minister continues with his answer to the question.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I would also advise the members of this House that Pan Ready Poultry indicated to me by telegram some weeks ago that they were prepared to make an offer on the Maplewood plant. After they investigated the Maplewood operation they withdrew their consideration to make an offer. Since that time we have worked with the turkey producers and other parties to attempt to resolve the matter of a Canadian purchaser for Maplewood. Unfortunately we were unsuccessful. I don't think there is any question in my mind that I would have preferred to have seen a Canadian producer purchase that plant.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I would say to the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) that since that time I have had correspondence, telegrams and phone calls from turkey producers, the Turkey Association, the B.C. Turkey Marketing Board,

[ Page 2407 ]

the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board, the B.C. Broilers Growers' Association, the Vancouver Island Egg Producers Association, the union of the employees of the Maplewood plant, and the mayors of Abbotsford and Matsqui, indicating that a serious problem was developing, that a decision would have to be made, and that they supported the purchase of Maplewood by Cargill.

Mr. Speaker, I find that the comments that have been raised in this House this afternoon by the members for Nanaimo, Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) and Cowichan-Malahat indicate the level of debate in this House. I have worked long and hard hours and this government has attempted to assist in resolving this problem. I would advise this House that my concern, as Minister of Agriculture, is to ensure that we have a turkey industry in this province and that that industry survives. In order to do that I have had to reverse a decision that I made.

MR. BARBER: Shame! That was your decision all along.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The first member for Victoria says: "Shaine!" It's amazing that he would rather have those union employees in Maplewood out of work.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. HEWITT: He'd rather have them out of work. He'd rather have the turkey industry fall down and collapse in this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You know, Mr. Speaker, what he would really like is a government-owned turkey plant, and this government is not going to own any turkey plant.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, just as questions must not be argumentative, the same applies to responses in question period.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture. The minister has informed the House that he has been working long and hard to resolve this problem. Would the minister not admit that the problem would not have been created if the sale of Panco had not been allowed to go to Cargill in the first place?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In response to the Leader of the Opposition, as I have said in this House, I am not here to defend Cargill, but I would like to make....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Isn't it amazing how they respond?

The purchase of Panco by Cargill had a five-year management plan for expansion of turkey and broiler kill and for the further processing of poultry products. Since that time, because of the community plan in the district of Surrey, they were not able to proceed. They then approached Maplewood with an offer to purchase. The offer was accepted subject to FIRA. Their plan, which has been indicated to me in writing and indicated to FIRA as well, is that they will make one plant for turkey processing, further processing of turkey products, and for spent fowl products, and the other plant for processing of broiler chicken. In order to do that they will spend something like one and a quarter million dollars.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I say that I'm not here to defend Cargill, but when the Leader of the Opposition indicates that the strategy all along was to move in that way, I can just advise him that that is not the reason for this movement into this field. I would also say that, in meetings that I have had with Mr. Hayward, they are quite prepared to reduce their amount of turkey processing in this province, but in order to upgrade both plants and to make efficient operation both for broilers and for turkeys, they require the second plant because of the community restrictions in the Surrey area.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

MR. LAUK: If members have points of order, they should rise in their place instead of speaking from their seats.

Everyone who has taken an interest in schools in this province knows that the Ministry of Education has had the Evans report for some time; they've been reviewing the public schools act; many members of the civil service in that ministry have been working long and hard hours — and this thin little bill is the most that this minister can come up with? It's a scandal! When he comes into this chamber and says, "Well, I'm a new minister," that kind of ego investment in a portfolio is also a scandal.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I cannot accept that. We have Bill 20 before us.

MR. LAUK: Have you read it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Latitude is allowed in second reading.

MR. LAUK: Have you read the bill?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please don't lecture the Chair, hon. member. I would just ask you to maintain parliamentary language and to speak to second reading of Bill 20.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking directly on the bill; I don't know what the problem is.

You know, for a new minister to come by and say, "All right, I don't have much experience in this portfolio and I'm going to hold public forums and visit school districts and so on," is fine for a few short months. But has he talked to his ministry officials? Has he read the Evans report? Has he talked to the B.C. Teachers' Federation and the school trustees? He says he's visited only 10 school districts. Good heavens, in less time I visited 17 and spoke to more people than the minister has spoken to in the whole area. I'm not the minister, he is; and he hasn't even spoken to his officials.

I don't think it's funny, Mr. Speaker, for the minister to sit back arrogantly and bring in these pitiful amendments after four or five months in his....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member!

MR. LAUK: What is your problem, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would ask you once again to please observe all the courtesies of parliamentary debate and to speak to the general principle of Bill 20, the bill that is before us now.

MR. LAUK: I realize you're smiling, Mr. Speaker, but you're wrong. I'm speaking to the principle of this debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair cannot allow that statement, I'm sorry. Would you please stick to the principle of Bill 20, the bill before us.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the principle of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Well, why is Mr. Speaker interrupting me then? Could the Speaker explain?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair found your remarks unparliamentary.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, which remarks? I'm entitled, as a member of this House, to know what you're talking about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The word "arrogant" is considered unparliamentary, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: The word "arrogant" is considered unparliamentary? Good Lord!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue on Bill 20.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 20, Mr. Speaker.

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

HON. MR. SMITH: In explaining the purpose of this bill, I can say that it's a collection of amendments, many of which were asked for for some years, particularly those that deal with the teachers' grievance procedures involving transfers of teachers from one school to another, and also involving the dismissal procedure that is followed if a teacher is suspended or loses his job. These changes modify that procedure in keeping with a recommendation made by Mr. Stan Evans, long-time assistant general secretary of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, after a considerable number of interviews with the teachers' federation and also with the B.C. school trustees. He made recommendations which informalize and make more flexible the procedure of these appeals, and which also provide school boards with more discretion in the way in which they can ultimately resolve these difficult matters.

I should say that generally the other changes in the bill are ones that have been asked for by school districts and by the B.C. Teachers' Federation and BCSTA, one or the other. There are changes there that bring into line the period of office that a school trustee takes, in keeping with the period of office of elected municipal officials. There is, of course, the provision that allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make alterations in the stipends for school trustees.

I will be speaking to the individual rationale of those sections when we move into committee. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that rather than engage in some wholesale revision of the School Act, as it is now called, when I became

[ Page 2408 ]

Minister of Education I thought that to introduce into the Legislature some wholesale revision of this act would be premature, and that I should first of all try to get around to the educational institutions of the province and talk to teachers and the people who are involved in education — parents, trustees and students — and learn something about the public's overall perception as well of education before I embarked upon a wholesale revision of an act which many people thought needed some revision — it's 20 years old. I felt that when the revision came it should be an informed one and a comprehensive one. So all that we have introduced into the amendments to this bill are the long-overdue or urgent ones that were requested by various sections of the educational community. It is not a particularly controversial bill, I don't think, but the individual sections and the rationale of them I will be delighted to deal with when we move into committee.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I have tried, in the limited time available to me in mornings and on weekends, to get around and visit as many schools as I can, to have informal visits in schools and to meet with teachers; I have done this in approximately ten school districts in every part of the province, and I am continuing to do so on a weekly basis. As I go around the province, I have found that, contrary to some of the myths that we hear in education, there is generally very good work being done under the institutions governed by the School Act.

I would conclude my remarks by moving that the bill be now read a second time.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: The opposition is not opposed to this bill, but when the minister says that it's not controversial, I'm not sure I can agree with him. It's controversial not for what's in the bill but for what's not in the bill.

The Ministry of Education has been moving to draft a new public schools act for years. They've been moving; they've been studying it; they've been drafting.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: If members have points of order, they should rise in their place instead of speaking from their seats.

Everyone who has taken an interest in schools in this province knows that the Ministry of Education has had the Evans report for some time; they've been reviewing the public schools act; many members of the civil service in that ministry have been working long and hard hours — and this thin little bill is the most that this minister can come up with? It's a scandal! When he comes into this chamber and says, "Well, I'm a new minister," that kind of ego investment in a portfolio is also a scandal.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I cannot accept that. We have Bill 20 before us.

MR. LAUK: Have you read it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Latitude is allowed in second reading.

MR. LAUK: Have you read the bill?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please don't lecture the Chair, hon. member. I would just ask you to maintain parliamentary language and to speak to second reading of Bill 20.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking directly on the bill; I don't know what the problem is.

You know, for a new minister to come by and say, "All right, I don't have much experience in this portfolio and I'm going to hold public forums and visit school districts and so on," is fine for a few short months. But has he talked to his ministry officials? Has he read the Evans report? Has he talked to the B.C. Teachers' Federation and the school trustees? He says he's visited only 10 school districts. Good heavens, in less time I visited 17 and spoke to more people than the minister has spoken to in the whole area. I'm not the minister, he is; and he hasn't even spoken to his officials.

I don't think it's funny, Mr. Speaker, for the minister to sit back arrogantly and bring in these pitiful amendments after four or five months in his....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member!

MR. LAUK: What is your problem, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would ask you once again to please observe all the courtesies of parliamentary debate and to speak to the general principle of Bill 20, the bill that is before us now.

MR. LAUK: I realize you're smiling, Mr. Speaker, but you're wrong. I'm speaking to the principle of this debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair cannot allow that statement, I'm sorry. Would you please stick to the principle of Bill 20, the bill before us.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the principle of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Well, why is Mr. Speaker interrupting me then? Could the Speaker explain?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair found your remarks unparliamentary.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, which remarks? I'm entitled, as a member of this House, to know what you're talking about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The word "arrogant" is considered unparliamentary, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: The word "arrogant" is considered unparliamentary? Good Lord!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue on Bill 20.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, it is not enough for the minister to say that he is a new minister. It is not enough for him to say that he's trying to get out of the House to visit school districts. He's done less of that than I have, and he is the minister. What he's trying to do is delay the essential and

[ Page 2409 ]

necessary amendments to the public schools act, which have been overdue for 20 years. We are now in a society that has evolved since the war into a totally new way, a totally new perspective, with technological advancement, with new skills required, with new attitudes and skills developed by the teaching profession, with new attitudes in school districts and among communities. The public schools act is totally out of date. He doesn't need to do a tour of the province to find this out. Yet he comes in with this pathetic effort after four or five months in office and claims: "I'm a new minister."

We know the minister; we know he's very well educated, articulate — he tells us that every day. He is perfectly capable of discerning what is required, and required immediately. All of these amendments in the public schools act have indeed been requested and demanded over the years by both the school trustees and the Teachers' Federation; he's picked out the most innocuous and the bare minimum to offer by way of amendment to the public schools act. That's just not enough.

What's going to happen this fall if the minister does his tour in his public forum, travels the province on some sort of public relations exercise? And what if he is not the minister a year from now? Is there going to be another public tour, another public relations exercise? It's not enough for the minister to personify his office. When he accepted responsibility to be a minister of the Crown for education, he took on the responsibility to deal in a timely and seasonable way with needed reforms to the public schools act, and to schools generally in this province. These speeches, these handshaking tours and these say-nothing remarks of the minister for the past five months are an excuse for total inaction in the Ministry of Education. We've got to start pressuring this minister into action as far as reforms in the schools are concerned.

I Many, many questions are now arising. The minister has had a honeymoon period. The press have been good to him. The teachers have been sitting back and watching his performance. They've given him a chance. And now he introduces practically the thinnest bill in the history of the Legislature on public schools, which have one of the largest statutes of the province. I say that's too bad, and it's not enough. The minister better get to work and stop making excuses.

As far as the bill itself and its actual sections are concerned, most of them are required. We're going to vote for them, as quickly as possible, and we hope that the minister's colleagues will allow him to get out of this place and get to work — get to his office and start drafting a total revision of the act before this session is over. We'll give him plenty of opportunity to do so.

AN HON. MEMBER: Plenty of time.

MR. LAUK: He'll have plenty of time, heaven knows.

As far as public forums are concerned, certainly have public forums; those are fine. But any changes in the attitude of the ministry with respect to revision of the School Act that come about as a result of those forums can be made in the next spring session. The Evans report is there, the recommendations of his officials are there, and his excuses are no longer going to be accepted by the people of this province and by the people involved in education.

Mr. Speaker, I heartily urge the minister to get off his seat and to do something up-to-date with education, to meet these vast changes that have occurred in the community. We haven't got time for him to learn his job. We've only got time to see a reform in the School Act.

HON. MR. SMITH: I want to thank the first member for Vancouver Centre for his kind words and for his studied disagreeability, which really smells of the lamp; he worked hard all morning to get so angry. I'm really quite surprised that this tiny'bill and these measures of reform would elicit such a response. But in any event apparently they have.

I'm also amused to see that attempting to go around the province and listen is now denigrated as a public relations exercise. About the thinness of the bill, I will say that unlike the member I don't believe all the ills of the world or the province of education can be cured by legislative volume, but that a lot of the problems that face us in government are best solved by attitudinal changes and by working the system and the legislation, as it now is, in a harmonious way. That's what I'm trying to do.

Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 20, School Amendment Act, 1980, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

CORPORATION CAPITAL
TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of Bill 4, the Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1980, I have a few remarks and will attempt to keep them brief. As members of this House know, the corporation capital tax was introduced in 1973 and imposes a one-fifth of 1 percent tax on capital used by a company to carry on its business within the province of British Columbia. The base for capital taxable under the act is generally share-capital: surpluses, reserves, advances or loans by shareholders and all indebtedness evidenced by bonds, mortgages, lien notes and other securities issued by a company.

Two significant changes to the Corporation Capital Tax Act will be accomplished by this amending bill. The first is a change effective January 1, 1980, retroactively removing the banks, trust companies and loan companies accepting deposits from the public from the taxation base applicable to all other companies. These three types of companies now will have a separate taxation base and, because this base is much narrower than the normal base, they will have increased rates of tax to ensure that revenue to the province is not diminished as a result of the amendment. This change is being introduced primarily because, although the banks, trust companies and loan companies receiving deposits from the public are similar industries — if I may Use that word — competing for the depositor's dollar, the existing legislation is not able to be applied equally to them, so their resulting tax burdens are disproportionate in comparison to their operation.

These new taxation bases and rates [illegible] tax will provide more equitable treatment for these companies, reflecting a better balance in the revenue from this source. There will be approximately $100,000 in additional revenue to the province on an annual basis. The proposed taxation base has the

[ Page 2410 ]

advantage of simplicity of calculation both for the province and the taxpayer. The rate of tax for this group of companies is also identical to what is now being imposed by and in the province of Ontario. By adopting similar legislation, we are, therefore, removing the need of these companies to do separate tax calculations for British Columbia taxing purposes, which, as a result, obviously would make their administration more costly and more difficult. The companies affected have indicated, since this bill was introduced, that the Ontario base is acceptable to them.

The second change is the requirement that all companies with a tax liability in excess of $25,000 pay quarterly instalments to the province. Previously, as all hon. members would know, corporations were required to pay their tax in full within six months of their fiscal year-end. This amendment will now require the larger corporations, commencing in the 1981 calendar year, to make a prepayment of one quarter of their tax liability 15 days after the close of each quarter, with the balance of the tax to be paid within six months of the fiscal year-end. Then for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, it's anticipated that this adjustment will accelerate the provincial revenue from this source by about $6 million. When the instalment is fully implemented, the accelerated revenue will be about $20 million per year from approximately 250 corporations.

Mr. Speaker, I commend these amendments to the House as a further refinement of the Corporation Capital Tax Act, and I now move second reading.

MR. STUPICH: The opposition will support these amendments to the Corporation Capital Tax Act and indeed would support even further amendments. As a matter of fact, we'd support amending it out of existence, if that were possible.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you agree with that?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I think I heard an aside from across the floor asking whether or not I would agree with that. That's what I said. I said that we would support an amendment which would legislate this particular legislation out of existence. I think it's worth recalling just how this started in the first place.

HON. MR. GARDOM: How did it come in?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm being invited to tell you when it came in and that's exactly what I would like to do. I was afraid that I might be challenged and that I was getting beyond the scope of the bill by doing that. But let's just take a few moments to remind ourselves how this came into existence. The NDP administration did feel that corporations should be bearing a larger share of the cost of government services and looked into the possibilities of getting more revenue. It was recommended to us that we follow the route adopted by Ontario; that is that rather than increasing the corporate tax rate by one point we introduce a new tax, the corporate capital tax. We followed that route.

However, our experience with that was anything but satisfactory, and certainly there were a lot of objections from the people who were obliged to make the calculations and the payments. Indeed, in some cases it was not a tax on income but a tax on debt, on money borrowed even to finance inventory. We became increasingly aware of the unfortunate way in which this tax was applied, and the tendency was to reduce it during our administration. As I say, now we've come to the point where we'd like to see it eliminated altogether.

I believe in corporations paying their share of tax. A one-point increase in corporate income tax would bring in a little less revenue than the corporation capital tax is bringing now, but it would certainly reduce the cost to government, reduce the cost of administering the....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They brought the damned tax in.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development is saying we shouldn't have brought it in. In the light of today's knowledge, be's right. We should rather have increased the corporate income tax by one point, and that's what I'm saying fight now. We know now; we profit from the experience. Surely this government would also like to profit from the experience of the last eight years. It now has the opportunity to do what should be done now. Now the government have an opportunity to correct what the minister says should not have been done. Indeed, if the government will support the amendment that I propose to move in committee, then we can achieve that. There is an amendment on the order paper that would achieve exactly what the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) are saying should be done. The opportunity is there.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I asked you a question; I didn't say anything should be done. Don't twist what I said.

MR. STUPICH: The opposition will support the legislation before us as being just a piecemeal way of dealing with this legislation, of going part way. We're looking forward to the day when the government will get rid of this legislation completely.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think we will have an interesting discussion in the Ministry of Finance when we review Hartsard a few days from now and determine possible future courses of action. At least the government has taken its position. I will not speak of the amendment at this point; that is only appropriate in committee stage. The member has indicated the position of the official opposition on this bill at this particular time, and I thank him for his comments. I move second reading of Bill 4.

Motion approved.

Bill 4, Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1980, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 23, Mr. Speaker.

TRADE AND CONVENTION CENTRE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 23; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

On section 1.

[ Page 2411 ]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, if you would bear with me a moment, it doesn't particularly flow.... You may not find an immediate connection between what I am about to say and section 1, but it is there. The other day we were provided with a listing of bills which we were informed were going to be dealt with on second reading in that order, and we're prepared accordingly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I appreciate the fact that you advised the Chair that it would be with some difficulty that I might see the relevance to what you are addressing. You were correct. As you are aware, it is not in order to discuss inside the House the arrangements that are made outside the House. I appreciate the member's concern, but I must ask that we go back to section 1 of the bill.

MR. HOWARD: I fully expected what you just said, Mr. Chairman, but I had to take the occasion to point out that it is a very poor way to conduct the business of this province, to hop, skip and jump all over the place, to give one set of suggestions about the order of business and at the last minute adjust them to suit the convenience of who-knows-what. We are better off to have no suggestions about the order of business and take it as it comes, rather than be misled in the fashion in which we were misled.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must ask you to withdraw the word "misled." It is not in the best parliamentary tradition at all. I ask the member to withdraw.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to. It was my understanding that it is unparliamentary to say "deliberately and consciously misled." But I have no hesitation....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member does make the point, but in regard to something that takes place outside the parameters of the chamber. It greatly aids the Chair, and I thank the member for his withdrawal.

Section 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 49

NAYS — I

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 2.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, on section 2 I think it would be appropriate if you follow the same course of action and identify how people are going to vote on it by having a division.

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 49

NAYS — I

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 3.

MR. HANSON: I want to indicate my support of the convention centre in Victoria. However, I do want to register on the record my objection to the lack of leadership by this government in the process by which this proposal has been put forward — for public land and public money. The public should have been involved and some leadership should have been exerted by the government to allay the kinds of apprehensions that now exist here in Victoria.

The history of the Reid property was outlined by my colleague yesterday. It is clear that public money is going into this convention centre, and my objection is to the process of setting up paragovernmental bodies that bypass locally elected councils, locally elected representative groups and exclude people from participating in what could have been, from the outset, a structure that could have had public input into design, and public needs expressed through its architecture, and through its use of space and public property, and so on.... I think it is indicative of this govern-

[ Page 2412 ]

ment. They have been characterized in their recent actions by going to private organizations, looking for people sympathetic to their views in the community, at the expense of the broad-based community input that could have been a part of this structure.

MR. BARBER: I'm surprised the bill is here today. We were given a very different commitment by the government Whip yesterday. Nonetheless, I recall debating yesterday in second reading a number of specific criticisms which I wished to put forward, and a number of general remedies — positive remedies — that I hoped the government would consider.

I would like now, if necessary, to restate every one of those criticisms. But if it is not necessary, perhaps the Deputy Premier could simply reply to each of those criticisms and tell us whether or not the government is prepared to consider the proposals put forward, in order to ensure that what we want comes to pass.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: What you want?

MR. BARBER: Yes, that's right, what we want — what we in Victoria want for this convention centre in our city, which is that when it's built, it be something which the whole community can take pride in, which the whole community can feel responsible for, and in which the whole community has a say. That's an important principle.

If the minister has forgotten the remarks made yesterday, I'll restate them today. But if that is not the case, I would appreciate a specific reply to each of those eight areas of criticism, and a specific agreement or statement of nonagreement to the three positive proposals that I've made. That will, I think, retrieve the convention centre in Victoria from the current controversy and disrepute in which it finds itself because of the actions of this government.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the only disrepute that surrounds the Victoria trade and convention centre is that which has been created by two defeated NDP candidates in the past federal election. It has been stirred up by them. It is interesting to note, in the concerns regarding public input, that when the plans for the Victoria centre were put on public display, all of four people turned up to see them. Now I hope that will not be the case today, this evening, and in the ensuing days, when that public display will be there at the McPherson theatre. The first blush of that public display has certainly not bolstered the argument put forward yesterday. There has been a great deal of public input needed; yet it seems that the public input has already been received. The public are quite convinced that there is a good plan for this trade and convention centre in Victoria, and that it will go ahead. It is because of the leadership of this provincial government that it is a fact of life in this province today.

Mr. Chairman, there were some points which the hon. member made part of his address in the second reading debate yesterday. But may I say that some of those really do not fall within the purview of my bill, which is before the House today. They more likely refer to the management of the capital. region's commission, and the opportunity to debate that comes within the estimates of the minister responsible. I'm sure it will be possible for the member to avail himself of that opportunity in the future.

In terms of public input, I am quite convinced.... I'd like to assure this House that there has been considerable input, as was expressed tome by members of the city council, and there has been no indication to me that the city council of Victoria does not represent the people of Victoria and their wishes.

I also would like the member to understand that, although the residents of Victoria will have a very personal, proprietary interest in this centre, it is also a centre for all of Vancouver Island. It is also a centre for all of British Columbia and the leadership that is shown by the government will be carried out, I'm sure, by the local city council, which along with the provincial government has combined to undertake the project. If the member would like that assurance, I'd certainly be pleased to give him that assurance, and if that's what he's asking for today, there is no difficulty for me to give this at all — it has been demonstrated by the city council heretofore.

MR. BARBER: Well, Mr. Chairman, by my standards public consultation has not been authentic or adequate; by my standards a group of businessmen who meet in private to determine in private the allocation of public funds does not provide for adequate public consultation. Maybe that does by Socred standards, but not by mine. By my own standards, a capital commission that meets in private, that closes its doors deliberately to all of the people who have a right to be there, to have a say and a share in determining the outcome of those deliberations, is not meaningful or adequate public consultation by any stretch of the imagination.

The minister correctly reports that she's not specifically responsible for the Capital Commission. That's certainly true; however, this act in section 3(2) and (3) makes specific reference to the Capital Commission and other agencies with which the government may care to enter into a contract for the planning, the management, the construction and the operation of a Victoria trade and convention centre. So it's not good enough to say, "talk to another minister," because this is hot water for me. In fact, this minister is responsible for negotiations with Pan Pacific and with the Provincial Capital Commission. I made some specific proposals about that and I'll restate them now.

In my judgment, for what it's worth to the government, Pan Pacific is not a credible public operating authority for the convention centre. Why is that? Because at the moment it is composed exclusively and entirely of business friends and associates of the Social Credit government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. As the member is aware, in the committee stage we must strictly stay to the specific section, and we are presently debating section 3(1), (2) and (3). For the member to re-introduce the broad discussion that he engaged in previously under the second reading would be very much out of order, and I would ask the member to very carefully restrict his discussion to the specifics of section 3, and not go into the broad debate that was carried in second reading.

MR. BARBER: I certainly will. And what I'm looking for are specific commitments, the centre and heart of which may be found in section 3(1), (2) and (3). Why is that? Well, it's because "the Provincial Capital Commission may ac-

[ Page 2413 ]

quire land...for the purpose of constructing on that land a trade and convention centre and...do all necessary things for the purposes of planning, developing, constructing, maintaining, managing and operating a trade and convention centre...." I'm referring specifically to this proposed bill. It also says that "the commission may enter into agreements with other persons to carry out the duties and exercise the powers of the commission under this section." The Chairman knows that in law a person is a corporation, and the corporation that the government has been dealing with and apparently intends to deal with under the authority of section 3(2) is a corporation or a person called the Pan Pacific Society. So I think the Chairman will find my remarks are specifically and clearly in order.

What I'm asking the minister to recognize is the fact that Pan Pacific has done a very, very good piece of work representing the business interest of Victoria. After all, that's who they are. They've done a very good job of putting together business opinion about the trade and convention centre, but in my opinion, referring specifically to section 3(2), Mr. Chairman, which allows the government to enter into a contract with persons for the management and operation of the centre, Pan Pacific is no longer an appropriate public operating authority. I think the government would be well advised to thank Pan Pacific for the very dedicated work they have done in the last couple of years — especially in the last eight months — to dismiss them, and to establish in its place a body composed broadly and not narrowly in Victoria of persons who are concerned with more than just the business point of view, but also have something to say about downtown development in the Inner Harbour and about community use of this facility who have another point of view to offer than that simply of downtown business people.

This section we're debating now, Mr. Chairman, gives the minister the power to enter into an agreement with Pan Pacific. I want to know if that's her specific intention. If it is, I want to know whether or not she's prepared to reconsider on any basis whatsoever; if she's not, I'd like to offer a warning that the continuing controversy and conflict — to call Peter Pollen a defeated NDP federal candidate is amazing, and only from the author of the secret police stories, without assuming any credibility....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: Nevertheless, I'd like to warn the minister that if they are not prepared to broaden the base of this public operating authority, they will inevitably continue to bear a tremendous public criticism in Victoria from a very broad range of people, many of whom have nothing whatever to do with my riding or yours, Madam Minister, but who have a lot to do with public enterprise in Victoria, and who have a profound commitment to the belief that public enterprise and public money have got to be spent in public by people appointed from the broad range of public opinion, not from just one small range, which is business opinion. Pan Pacific has done a good job representing business opinion, but that's as far as it goes, and that no longer goes far enough.

At this stage in the public debate and the public participation in the design, site, management and operation of the centre, the government would be darned well-advised to reconsider entering into such an agreement, to thank Pan Pacific for its dedicated efforts, and to go on to create another body that represents a, far broader and more sensitive range of public opinion than can ever be represented by simply a group of business people meeting in private, as they've been doing, to determine in private the one and only proposal that would be put forward to the people of Victoria.

The minister correctly comments that it's a centre for all of Vancouver Island and all of the province. Of course it is, but that's not what's in dispute. What's in dispute is the way it's been handled in this riding, in this city, by that government. If this government had been brave enough to take the people into their confidence from the beginning, to open the meetings of the Capital Commission, to open the meetings of Pan Pacific, to open all of that business to public scrutiny, they wouldn't be in this trouble today.

It's a matter, I think, of public knowledge in Victoria that the mayor of our city and an alderman proposed at a recent meeting of the Capital Commission that the meetings be opened to the press and the public. Congratulations, Mayor Tindall! Congratulations, Alderman McElroy! That was a good motion. But what the government has got to know is that the motion failed; the Capital Commission wouldn't agree. They have the power to open their meetings but they seem not to have the inclination. That's darned foolish from their point of view, or at least it should be. It's foolish from the government's point of view to continue to try to defend secret meetings of the Capital Commission, an agency specifically named in this section. It's just foolish. It's mindless. It serves no purpose.

I want to say again what I predicted yesterday. As we've discovered with meetings of the advisory planning commission and of hospital boards, once they are opened up to the people, lo and behold, there's no longer any great mystery, and lo and behold, there's frequently no controversy at all. People then learn for themselves what goes on behind closed doors, and they're often relatively pleased. So from both points of view, surely there's no good purpose served by continuing to deal in private with exclusive clubs of businessmen and with allegedly public agencies which insist upon doing their business in private. What possible gain is there to continue operating on such a basis? Your government doesn't gain, Mr. Chairman. In the long run, the business people won't gain either. And the public support that could be created for a convention centre will be significantly denied because of the process.

May I say it again? We support a convention centre in Victoria. The idea is good and necessary, sound and worthwhile. But we object to a process which again and again, for no reason or rational purpose, pointlessly and stupidly excludes the public. I suspect that if the meetings of the Capital Commission had been open all along, this dispute today, if here at all, would be insignificant. I suspect that if the Pan Pacific Society were representative of labour, of ethnic groups, of other than business interests, of community groups and all of the other legitimate spokespersons for community opinion in Victoria, this controversy would not be here today, or if it were, it would be much diminished. But for some reason that the minister has not yet explained, this government is prepared to continue to allow both the society and the commission to meet in private, to do their business in private and thereby to exclude the people of Victoria. There is no reason for it.

So the specific criticism is obvious. Don't do it in private; it's the public's business. With the exclusive exception of personnel matters and the specific purchase of land, neither of which are issues here, there is no good reason to allow Pan

[ Page 2414 ]

Pacific or the Capital Commission to do their business in private. None! There's not a single good reason. Again to the credit of the mayor of Victoria, I"m reliably informed he attempted to open up the Capital Commission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, you are now canvassing precisely the same matters that were canvassed by the same member yesterday in....

MR. BARBER: Well, it was a good speech; it's worth hearing twice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That may be the member's opinion...

MR. BARBER: Yes, it certainly is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...but unfortunately it's not shared by the Chair. I must ask the member to come back to the specifics.

MR. BARBER: The specifics are these. Will the minister reconsider entering into an operating agreement with Pan Pacific? Will she attempt to re-establish, on a genuinely broad and representative base, whatever public operating authority is created in order to manage the affairs of the centre? Will she give an undertaking to this House that she will ask the minister responsible for the Capital Commission, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) — who is about to get to his feet — to tell the people of Victoria that starting now and forever after, the Capital Commission is open, because it's all public business and public money? I'd appreciate those commitments. Upon hearing them, I'll go on to a few more points and then be happy to vote in favour of this section, as we voted in favour of the others. Those are important commitments. I think they're modest and reasonable, and because there is nothing to hide or fear, there's no reason for the government to deny them.

MR. HANSON: I think probably the article written on the Victoria convention centre that characterizes the attitude of this provincial government more than any article was an article in the Victoria Times on April 16 which recounted an advisory planning committee meeting that was held the previous evening, at which time the local businessmen living within one block of the Reid property were allowed to speak. No one else was allowed to register their point of view on what should be a public structure and a public facility.

Let me just recount to the minister some of the items that were covered in the reporting of that evening. A dozen downtown Victoria property owners and merchants "having an interest in property" within a block of the Inner Harbour commercial zone were allowed to speak. That phrase became the key issue when several neighbourhood activists were not allowed the same privilege.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, as I just finished advising the previous speaker, when we are in committee, and particularly as we are specifically on section 3, the only comments the Chair can permit are those that are strictly relevant to the item or the clause under consideration. The Chair is having some difficulty relating the comments of the member at this point specifically to the clause-by-clause examination as we are in section 3(1), (2) and (3).

MR. HANSON: Your comments are well taken, Mr. Chairman. What I am trying to ask — as my colleague has been conveying before me — is that the minister reconsider the general approach that has been taken. Our objections are primarily based on the processes that have been in place. I think I am specifically addressing the clauses which give the authority to the Capital Commission to carry out the administrative functions that will bring this convention centre into fruition. I'm recounting that particular evening because it characterizes the attitude which I think has been passed on to local people, committees and paragovernmental bodies that have been excluding the public and alienating my constituents from this process. They are asking to be heard. They want to register their complaint, and I am doing it on their behalf.

The minister made a comment about defeated New Democratic Party candidates. One of the main objectors at the meeting to allowing the public to speak was a former Social Credit executive assistant, who is a local businessman here in Victoria. I think the record should show that that person who probably was....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: You'll build it right away up in Fort St. John.

Mr. Chairman, we have a community here in Victoria that happens to want to participate in public decision-making. As my colleague has pointed out, we're not afraid of that. We think that more voices bring a variety of views and in the end result we have a better facility. It's something that everyone is happy with and can live with. Here things are done in secret — the way this government provides the leadership. It's done in secret and then later on they have to back off. They got away with it on the jetfoil. They pushed that through very quickly. But here they tried to do it again, and they've been stopped. I think some of the principal people have recognized that the jig is up; that the public wants and demands a say and they should have a say. That is the point that we're trying to make. I don't know whether I have the ear of the minister, but I would like her to reconsider and take seriously the proposals that were outlined by my colleague that would remedy the situation — open it up and allow the fresh air in.

Mr. Chairman, I would like just to summarize by saying that public projects in the future should be opened up to allow the public — community groups, ethnic groups and trade union groups — to participate. Let everyone have their say in the open light of day. Let them come out of the dark holes which they're hiding in here and there in Victoria and other places in this province and let their skin get a little colour.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I have just one question on the clause we are debating at the moment, and that is to do with the reference in the clause, as we find in the other clauses, to the words "the minister." I'm asking the question out of some concern if perhaps the government is aware of the fact that, to my knowledge, this is the first time a bill has ever been presented before this House with "Deputy Premier" at the top of the bill. I'm just wondering what constitutional validity there is to presenting a bill before this House, brought in by the Deputy Premier, and yet references throughout the whole bill are to "the minister." Why is the

[ Page 2415 ]

bill not brought in by the Minister of Human Resources? I think that this is a rather interesting question, because in the years I've been in the House I've never seen a bill brought in in this fashion.

I think we're all concerned; those of us who did support the bill, with many reservations, would not want to find out that this bill cannot be proclaimed because of an error. I wonder if it could be explained to me, through the minister, why the bill does not state at the top: "Minister of Human Resources...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. If I may just interrupt briefly, the part of the discussion that the member is now engaging in is not relative to section 3. The name at the top is the sponsoring member, and it is not a part of the bill itself. But certainly this is not in relation to section 3.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: If the member will refer to the Interpretation Act she will have an explanation of the terminology in the section to which she is referring.

MRS. DAILLY: I wonder if I could beg the indulgence of the minister to explain to me just what that means.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, while the information would be greatly appreciated by each side, it certainly doesn't fall within section 3 of the debate that we are currently engaged in. If the minister chooses, she may wish to answer, although it would be most irregular. But possibly for the purposes of accelerating the progress....

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member refers to subsection (3): "The minister may make and carry out an agreement...." The Interpretation Act gives capability to a minister to enter into an agreement, and by order-in-council one can designate the minister. It would not necessarily, be me, although I am sponsoring the bill. It could be a minister who is in charge of the Capital Commission, for example, in dealing with the principals that be on the Victoria centre. I think the member can understand that.

MR. NICOLSON: The member for Burnaby North has brought up a very good point. As I would see this, the entire bill up to this point is out of order, introduced as it was by a minister who is supposedly the Deputy Premier. Standing orders 66 and 67 say that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Again, with all due respect, it is not for committee to determine whether a bill is or is not in order. That must be done in the House proper at second or third reading.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, it would seem that there is a great deal of time to be wasted. Of course the matter must be brought up at the first opportunity. The member having brought this to our attention, I believe we should definitely examine this point, because it would appear that a bill has been brought before the House which can only be brought before the House by a minister of the Crown. I'm not aware of any portfolio having been created called "Deputy Premier."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has already advised hon. members that the wording at the top to which the member is referring, "Deputy Premier," in fact has nothing to do with the specifics of the bill. That advice was given to the member preceding the hon. member who is now addressing the matter.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, it's also in Votes and Proceedings and in Orders of the Day, Mr. Chairman. Really, at this point we do not know who has conduct of the bill. In other words, when the committee rises to report, who shall report referral of the bill for action?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must advise that in committee stage we can only consider the wording. Whether the bill is or is not in order is not for the committee to determine. We are going through section by section, and this is the sole function of the committee — not to determine whether the bill is in order, although the Chair has indicated that the wording that the member is referring to is not of major consequence.

MR. NICOLSON: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS 20

NAYS 28

Mr. Howard requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 3 pass?

MR. BARBER: It shall not pass yet, Mr. Chairman. I am asking the minister to make four commitments to the people of Victoria.

Firstly, I am asking her to undertake to create a genuinely public operating authority to act on behalf of all the people and not just a few, to manage and administer the affairs of the Victoria trade and convention centre.

Secondly, I am asking her for a commitment to influence those responsible for the Provincial Capital Commission, which is named in this section, to give an undertaking to the people of Victoria and the province, for that matter, that with

[ Page 2416 ]

the exception of personnel in land acquisition matters their meetings shall be held in public. That is the second undertaking I am asking for.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer's no.

MR. BARBER: The answer's no. What have you got to be afraid of, Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing? What public inquiry might be made into your affairs that you don't want them to have access to?

Thirdly, I'm asking for a commitment that the minister establish a community rate for community use of that building during the off-hours and the off-season. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) made a statement some time ago, I gather, that he would like to see the trade and convention centre used for a variety of public and cultural purposes as well as for trade and business purposes. I agree totally; we are agreed entirely. However, that minister will know that many of the community and cultural purposes to which he and I agree the building should be put cannot afford a commercial rate. Accordingly, if a reduced community rate is not offered, the practical fact of access to that facility will be denied because no one can afford it.

I agree with the Minister of Finance: make it available for community purposes during the off-hours and the off-season. What I ask is that it be made affordable as well. If the minister will give that undertaking I'd be very pleased to report it to the people of Victoria, because it would be a good and worthwhile undertaking. The three buildings will not be used every hour of the day, every day of the year. It's understandable; I don't complain about that. I would just argue that when it's not being used for commercial purposes it be available for community purposes at a reduced rate.

The fourth commitment I would like the minister to make is to reconsider the design itself, because I think it has several major flaws. I referred to them yesterday and want to refer to just one again today. Last night I went, as did many others, to the foyer of the McPherson Playhouse. I looked at the latest drawings, although I'd seen earlier drawings; they're not significantly different, although better rendered. The government continues to insist that a parkade will be built. I myself don't see the sense of it. I think the government would be well advised to abandon any commitment whatever to significant private automobile parking at the convention centre. It would be just as well advised to make an equally important commitment in favour of public transit here. I want to point out one more time that when a thousand realtors from Vancouver and points east show up in their Cadillacs for a convention at our centre in Victoria they're not going to have a place to park anyway, because the parkade will be used by people who park downtown — by businessmen who work downtown and by others who are passing through.

AN HON. MEMBER: Park them in the Gordon's Towing lot.

MR. BARBER: Gordon's Towing is no remedy for this problem either.

The traffic congestion on Wharf Street, if the private automobile is pandered to with this design, will be worsened beyond even the dreadful point it reaches at certain hours day in and day out. I want to point out again that the Kingdome in Seattle was planned by people who understood the importance of public transit and who had the guts to stand up and say no to the private automobile.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the chair has great difficulty in relating the Kingdome and public transit to the section currently before us. I must ask the member to return to section 3 of the bill.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I expect you have great difficulty following it because you've forgotten what subsection (1) says, which is that the Capital Commission "may acquire land...for the purpose of constructing...and...the purposes of planning, developing, constructing, maintaining, managing and operating a trade and convention centre...." I'm talking about the planning aspect. The planning at the moment includes planning for the private automobile; it includes a parkade. Thus I think you'll find my remarks are entirely in order.

What I'm asking the minister to do is reconsider this commitment, which will cost the people of Victoria a couple of million bucks, to build a parkade as part of the planning for the convention centre. The parkade will be in the basement of the convention centre on three levels. I'm asking the minister to consider that perhaps this latest public planning commitment to the private automobile just might be mistaken. I'm asking the minister to wonder whether or not it's possible that public transit would be a suitable replacement for the two and three levels of parking in the basement of the trade and convention centre in Victoria. I'm asking her to recognize that, at the Seattle Kingdome, public transit works and private transit is not available. Because we have precedent and because some people have imagination, it's possible to conclude that a parkade at this site is a mistake, a $2 million mistake that will add to the traffic problems of Wharf Street and do nothing whatever to enhance the viability of the convention centre itself.

There is an additional benefit. If the parkade were abandoned, as I think it should be, according to the designers in the employ of the Capital Commission with whom I spoke last evening it would be possible to lower the profile of the building so that it no longer blocked the view of the harbour and the hills. Many people in Victoria are bitterly resentful, because it will be lost with the current high-profile design on Wharf Street. This, which some of us are proposing, seems to me a possibly happy combination: abandon the parkade; abandon this predictable but naive commitment to the private automobile; replace that need for public transit with public transit that works, and not a bunch of cars parked in a basement — and while you're doing all of that, save the city $2 million on the cost of the parkade; and while you're doing all of that, lower the profile at that site — if the Reid Centre site is going to be where it's built — so that the view, which is most important and an extremely — to say the least — vigorously prosecuted public issue in Victoria, a view which for a lot of important esthetic reasons must be maintained and enhanced, shall not be denied. At the moment this design denies that view, and a major access and visual entrée to the Inner Harbour and the Sooke Hills is lost. However, if you scrapped the parkade, you could lower the building, and then you would have the view and you wouldn't have the private automobiles. I think that's a pretty sound combination. You would also save $2 million, and that's a pretty good idea too. So those are the four commitments that I asked the minister to consider and, if she's willing, to make today — or, at the very least, to reply to today.

[ Page 2417 ]

In summary they are — in order: (1) a commitment to a broadly based and authentically representative public operating authority to manage the place, that's composed of a great many more people than just businessmen; (2) a commitment to open up the affairs of the Provincial Capital Commission to all of the people all of the time; (3) a commitment to establish a preferential community rate for the use of that building for community purposes; (4) finally, a commitment to reconsider the design and to consider the possibility of abandonment of the parkade altogether, the lowering of the building's profile and the saving thereby of $2 million and an invaluable view. Those are four commitments that I hope the minister will consider and, if she's prepared, enter into this afternoon.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the ideas advocated by the first and second members for Victoria about the need to have public participation and involvement in the development of the trade and convention centre make tremendously eminent sense. It seems to me that, coupled with the great emphasis that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) gave to the tourist aspect of the trade and convention centre and how it will aid in tourism — putting those two together — one should come to the conclusion, pursuant to section 3 here, that the appropriate "minister make and carry out an agreement with the government of Canada, the city of Victoria and the Provincial Capital Commission respecting a trade and convention centre...." It would more appropriately be — and probably should be — the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), and I think it would be incumbent upon this House to so identify her. Accordingly I would like to move that section 3(3) be amended as follows. Insert between the words "minister" and "may" the words "of Tourism," so that it would read — if the amendment went through — "The Minister of Tourism may make and carry out an agreement with the government of Canada, the city of Victoria and the Provincial Capital Commission respecting a trade and convention centre to be established in the city of Victoria."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment moved by my colleague makes eminently good sense. I think that it's a real blow to the dignity and the self-image of the Minister of Tourism to have another cabinet minister usurping her function, usurping her ministry and, you know, destroying her self-image as a brand-new Minister of Tourism. To have the trade and convention centre, which is basically designed to enhance tourism, introduced by some one other than the Minister of Tourism is tantamount to a vote of non-confidence in the Minister of Tourism. It is enough of a blow to the dignity and self-image of the Minister of Tourism that she doesn't even receive her ministerial salary. But to have yet another insult of another incursion into her jurisdiction perpetrated by a colleague is absolutely devastating and, I believe, unprecedented in the history of this Legislature. We don't want to see the Minister of Tourism victimized in this way. I wouldn't even mind seeing her get paid.

MR. LEA: It's not bad, though, because they're old enemies.

MR. KING: Yes, they may be old enemies, but I think it is totally unfair, Mr. Chairman, when the Premier is out of the House and out of the province, to have the Deputy Premier usurping the role of the Minister of Tourism, who was presumably appointed to her portfolio by the Premier. I want to support the amendment. I think that the Minister of Tourism, who is a neighbour of mine in the interior of the province, has been victimized and downtrodden and submerged by her colleague, the Minister of Human Resources, for too long. I think it is time she came out and sponsored her own bills and got paid a ministerial salary for doing so. I support the amendment.

MR. BARBER: So do I.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The noes have it, hon. members.

MR. BARBER: Wait a minute, the ayes have it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is a division called?

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear you call for the noes. I'm sorry, you just said that the ayes have it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Chair may call for the vote, have both votes heard at the same time and make a decision. The Chair made the decision in this case that the noes had it. Was there a question as to the....?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe they were louder, hon. member. Anyway, is division called?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, a division.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A division has been called.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 28

[ Page 2418 ]

MR. HOWARD: On behalf of the member for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), I request that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 3.

MR. BARBER: What on earth will the Lumby loggers say about that vote? The government itself denies a vote of confidence in the Minister of Tourism. However, one cannot reflect on a vote already taken, and I won't. But if I could, I would point out that we would like to see the Minister of Tourism responsible for this act. The Minister of Human Resources might not, but we would, and we are disappointed our amendment didn't pass.

I did ask the Minister of Human Resources to comment at least on the four commitments which I have requested that she make. At least saying no would be better than saying nothing. What I've asked is that a new public operating authority be established that represents the whole of the community and not just the business sector. What I've asked is that the Provincial Capital Commission be opened up to public participation and to public involvement in public meetings. What I've asked is that a preferential community rate be established for the non-commercial purposes to which the building should certainly be put. And what I've asked is that the government reconsider the design and consider as well abandoning a parkade, abandoning the usual commitment to the private automobile, enhancing instead public transit and guaranteeing in its place the aesthetic requirement of an open view of the harbour and the hills which would go a long way to meeting a great many of the objections expressed by a great many people in my riding. Those are the four commitments that I've asked the minister to undertake. I would appreciate her comments on each of them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 3 pass?

MR. BARBER: I have asked politely for her comments on those four requests. The requests have been put in a perfectly plain and reasonable way. If the minister wishes to say no to each of them, well, so be it. But saying nothing is not being responsible to this House or to those issues. Once again, politely, I ask for the minister's specific comments on those four requests which I make on behalf of many people in my riding who have expressed them to me directly through the media, through public meetings and through other elected representatives. That is all: just comments on those four specific requests. Yes or no.

I yield to the minister, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: How can you yield when she's not standing?

MR. BARBER: She was indicating that she was rising in her place, Mr. Chairman. That is why I yielded.

The reason that these four provisions are being put forward is that this minister and this government have indicated that they would rather entrust public business to secret societies than actually allow it to come into a truly representative body. That is what those four provisions are about. We are talking about public money; we are talking about a public place. Some cultures do have secret societies — it is a part of the culture — but we don't. We are supposed to be a democratic society. We are supposed to allow truly elected and representative elected people to act and to have business conducted in the open. That is why we objected to the way the Flying Princess and the hydrofoil setup was arranged. It was out of the public domain.

Section 3 empowers the minister and the Capital Commission to carry out public business, but it is not to be carried out in public. That is what these four conditions that we are respectfully submitting to the minister are all about. That is why we keep rising in our place. We would happily yield to the minister to have her deal with those four points. The four points, again, are:

We want to have a governing body that is not a secret society, that is a truly representative body of the constituency of Victoria. That is one of the things we want.

We want changes on the, design. We want changes to allow for public transit as opposed to having thousands of automobiles jamming Wharf Street. This is what we're talking about. I know that some of the Social Credit cabinet and caucus don't have car lots, but many of you do, and there is an orientation for automobiles with the Annacis Island crossing. We want public transit. We don't want more cars.

We want community involvement in this public facility. We want community organizations to be able to participate at rates that they can afford and we want them to have a voice in the design.

We want the elevation lowered.

I was wondering — if the Minister of Human Resources cannot respond — if perhaps the Minister of Tourism could respond to these four provisions. Perhaps we'd get some sensible and creative and constructive movement on these particular areas, because the Minister of Human Resources doesn't seem to want to move on these legitimate grievances. These are real, serious concerns.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: First of all, could I just say that today this bill, which is before us on third reading.... Second reading took place yesterday, when the member who has just taken his seat could have contributed to that debate; all of those points could have been made yesterday. On third reading, let me say that the bill and the clause that is before us gives us the avenue to build a trade and convention facility in two cities in British Columbia — one in Victoria and one in Vancouver. These two centres are not to be designed and built, brick by brick, by a bill on the floor of this House, but have been entrusted to responsible people in the two cities in order to assist those cities in having the very finest facilities. Frankly, I resent having the city councils of Vancouver or Victoria being called secret societies. They're duly elected every bit as much as the two members representing the city of Victoria, who are sitting here in their places. I would suggest that the comments of the members who are attempting to plan a building are premature until this bill is passed. The authority to build and finance the building is before us right now — not only that building, but also the Vancouver trade and convention centre.

The esthetic qualities of the centre are very near and dear to us on this side of the House, and to those of us who've been involved: the hon., Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), the

[ Page 2419 ]

hon. Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), the hon. Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), those members from the city of Vancouver who have been involved in the planning, and the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Hon. Mr. Smith), who has also been involved in the Victoria centre along with his colleague, the Minister of Finance. I'm happy to give the assurance that we are very, very concerned about the esthetics, In fact, one of the things that we had....

My involvement has been more with the Vancouver than with the Victoria centre. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, has had most of the Victoria negotiations, along with his predecessor, Sam Bawlf, as I mentioned yesterday. I can tell you that very, very high priority in the minds of all of us has been the attractiveness, the appeal of these centres, which will have an invitation to the world and, as such, must be worthy not only of the two cities that they represent, but worthy of this province of British Columbia.

We're not here today to debate whether or not Victoria will alter its parking regulations. That comes with the building and the debate on the centre. I think it's really nonsense to delay the business of this House, implying that there is some unfavourable liaison to exclude the public. It's an implication that I don't accept, and I think it's a terrible reflection on those citizens of Victoria; it says something about the members who have represented Victoria that they would cast such aspersions on those citizens of Victoria.

It will be of great interest to the members of the Victoria business community — and others who are represented and involved in the building of this very positive facility — that they are not thought of as members of the public. I'm surprised that they don't think of them as members of the public. Next time they ask to have an invitation to a chamber of commerce meeting in Victoria, at which are many small business people who all consider themselves members of the public, they'll be interested to know that these members don't think of them as members of the general public. I certainly do.

There is no controversy in the city of Victoria, Mr. Chairman. But now we certainly know why we have the support of the New Democratic Party opposition in this House. It's very unusual. It was even noted yesterday in the debate that it was unusual to have such unanimity of thought. I was very pleased with that and I paid tribute to it in the closing of the second reading debate. I see now that the NDP wish to have it both ways. They want credit for an economic plan, which this government has brought forward through the great leadership of the Premier of this province, which provides the dollars to provide a trade and convention centre for the city of Victoria; and at the same time they try to scuttle the project by delay, controversy, and trying to build the straw man of some mythical Victoria controversy. I don't accept that, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, before recognizing the first member for Victoria, I would remind all hon. members that we are here for the purpose of orderly debate, and the respect we show for each other is always appreciated by each member.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. BARBER: The minister who just spoke misrepresents the case. She misrepresents my argument, and she misrepresents the legitimate expression of differing public opinion in the city of Victoria.

I presume she does so naively. I presume she is, in fact, genuinely unaware that there is controversy in Victoria. If she was aware of the controversy in Victoria, she would not deliberately misinform the House to the contrary.

The reason there is controversy is because of the way the government has failed to consult with the people of Victoria about the design, the process and the decision-making related to the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Deputy Premier on a point of order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that the member who has just taken his place withdraw the comments "deliberately misrepresent, misled."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member withdraw if he...?

MR. BARBER: What can I withdraw? I didn't say "deliberately misrepresent." To the contrary, I gave you an out. I said maybe you were naive.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Misled. You said I was deliberately misleading.

MR. BARBER: I said maybe you were naive and weren't aware of the controversy in Victoria.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member withdraws, and continues on section 3. Shall section 3 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. BARBER: No, no. Not yet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Victoria on section 3, in committee on Bill 23.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not have any criticism of, nor did I make any criticism of, the city administration of Victoria.

I do criticize the provincial administration on this issue, I do criticize the secrecy of the Provincial Capital Commission. And I do criticize the fact that the current operating authority does its business in private and is composed of a very narrow spectrum of the community of Victoria.

Let me restate that they correctly and well represent the business point of view at good old Pan Pacific. I don't object to that. They don't purport to represent anyone else, and they most certainly do not represent anyone else. They speak for business and that's fair. But they don't speak for everyone.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not you.

MR. BARBER: No, not me. That's right. They don't claim to speak for me. I don't allow them to speak for me. I speak for myself, as do many others in my community, many of whom are saying precisely this. In order to obtain the greatest possible public support for the convention centre it

[ Page 2420 ]

should be administered in the broadest and most publicly composed way. That's all. Now that may not go over big in the Cariboo, I suppose, where Brother Fraser runs everything like a fiefdom. But in my riding, where public participation means something, the notion of public involvement in the operating authority for the convention centre is an important debate.

The minister may; naively represent that there is no controversy and no conflict. The minister may naively believe that everyone thinks that groups that meet in private behind closed doors have been entrusted by the people of Victoria with their affairs. But that's not true.

The minister also says the debate on the design is premature. With all respect, the minister doesn't know what she's talking about. With all respect, the minister is talking through her hair. In fact, the design is well underway. In fact, today is probably the last legislative opportunity we will have to debate the design. So for the minister to represent the debate of the design as premature is to misrepresent the facts. But I know she does so naively.

MR. BRUMMET: Are you a professional designer?

MR. BARBER: No, I'm not. But I have ideas about what the city should look like, just as I trust you do.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We are not debating the design of this bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All hon. members....

MR. BARBER: It is not premature to debate the design. In fact, now is the time — and this is likely the last time — we will have to do so in this chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we have had second reading. We are specifically on section 3.

MR. BARBER: You bet! And I'm talking about section 3(2) — planning, design, and administration of the centre.

The minister would have us believe that the only proposal for parking at the site came forward as the result of the city's own parking regulations. That's not correct. The minister simply doesn't know what she's saying. In fact, this government has within its command the authority to enter into an agreement which would not provide for private transit, but which would provide in its stead for public transit at the parkade.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Quit playing games.

MR. BARBER: These are no games to the people of Victoria, Mr. Minister. They may be games by your standards, but here they're deadly serious business. The people want access to those decisions. The people want a say in those decisions. The people want a convention centre of which they can all be proud. That's what they want, and we're serious. We're perfectly serious about all of that.

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

MR. BARBER: I'm for it, but I'm for it being done the right way. The right way is public participation. The right way is public design. The right way is public transit. The right way is opening the meetings to all of the people with nothing to hide and nothing to fear.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No faith in the planning department of Victoria!

MR. BARBER: The planning department of Victoria is not planning the building. Don't you understand that? They are not planning the building.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Chair will ask all hon. members to come to order, please. If the first member for Victoria will address the Chair, and if all other members will come to older, then the debate can proceed in an orderly and courteous manner. The member continues.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the information of the minister for Cargill, the plan was not executed by the planning department of the city of Victoria. The plan has been executed by a private architect hired without tender, bid or public competition by the Pan Pacific Society in its relationship with the Provincial Capital Commission. It has not been made by the city of Victoria. Thus I have no criticism of the city of Victoria. My criticism is of a provincial administration which purports to do the public's business in private. Get it? That's all there is to it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: Do you even know the name of the architect at the city of Victoria who designed it? No, of course not. Because there is none. It wasn't designed there; it was designed elsewhere.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 3 pass?

MR. BARBER: Not quite yet. The minister would further have us believe that the business community is solely representative of the whole community. She's wrong. The business community represents an important segment in Victoria. But it does not represent the trade union movement; it does not represent the religious community; it does not represent the ethnic community, or the very old or the very young; it does not represent the neighbourhood groups or the environmental groups; it does not represent the professional groups; it only represents itself. I don't object to the fact that it represents itself. I do object to a government which would have us believe that it represents everyone else as well. It doesn't. Business represents business. That's fair, fine and good, as far as it goes. But the problem with Pan Pacific is that it doesn't go far enough, that's all. We want it to go to such an extent that it represents all those other diverse points of view, each of whom legitimately and truthfully have a right to have a say.

AN HON. MEMBER: A vicious attack!

[ Page 2421 ]

MR. BARBER: It's not a vicious attack; it's a positive proposal. Open it up. Open the meetings, the membership, and the debate. Be unafraid of public participation, and you'll be a better government for it.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: The mayor doesn't claim to be the only voice in this. The mayor, to his credit, wants public opinion. Don't you understand that either? To his credit, Mr. Tindall wants public opinion. To his credit he pushed through the public exhibit currently underway at The McPherson Playhouse.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we must come to order, please. The first member for Victoria is speaking in committee. Hon. member, I will remind you that we've had much discussion about the principle of this bill during second reading. We are now in the committee stage discussing section 3. If we could speak relevantly to the section, that would be most appreciated.

MR. BARBER: Yesterday we debated the principle of the bill, and I voted in its favour. Today we debate the execution of the bill, and I have questions. I question whether or not a private society can do the public's business in the administration of this centre. I question the necessity that the Capital Commission do its business in private. I question the design, at least in regard to its provision for private parking, and suggest as well that a design in which the government has enormous influence and which excluded the parkade might serve the three simultaneous purposes of reducing the cost by a couple of million dollars, of thereby enhancing public transit, which could be better provided at the site, and of reducing the profile in order that the view of the hills and harbour be properly maintained. Also, supporting the principle but examining the execution, I ask for a commitment from this government — in concert with and on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), let me say — that the community purposes that he and I and everyone wants the building to be put to in the off-season and the off-hours be affordable. This, of course, means a community rate. That means a community rate reduced below the commercial rate. Therefore, examining the particulars and the process, and no longer debating the principle which we supported unanimously yesterday, I ask the minister for four commitments: firstly, to reconstruct the operating authority in order to include a much broader base of public opinion than simply business opinion; secondly, to reform the Capital Commission so that it is required to do its business in public, as some of its members would currently like it to have been done; thirdly, to establish commercial and community rates and to make the community rates the more affordable; fourthly, to reconsider at this point the design, and to contemplate abandoning the parkade — abandoning that further investment in private transit — and instead committing funds for public transit. I would observe again the successful precedent of the Seattle Kingdome which made that decision some years ago. Having made that decision, they've benefited tremendously from it.

That's all — four commitments. They are modest, reasonable, prudent, and in total cost cheaper than the government's current package. I think those commitments are fair to entertain. The minister has yet to reply to even one of them. I'm asking for specific comments on those specific proposals. If the government would do no more than give us the courtesy of saying "no, no, no, no" to all of them, at least this part of the debate could be ended quickly.

HON. MR. CURTIS: We've had some hyperbole from the first member for Victoria, but that....

MR. LEA: What does that mean?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, I'll look it up. As soon as I find out I'll send you a note. But it seemed like a good word at the time.

Some members are going to watch a hockey game in a while. We have a play here, Mr. Chairman. It's called "Blencoe to Brewin to Barber," and that's precisely where we're at.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I will now address myself to the section. The member has repeatedly asked this afternoon for four commitments, and I don't think the government is in a position to give those commitments. In fact, Mr. Chairman, being in the chair is always a difficult problem. I suspect that occasionally — more than you have indicated — the debate has strayed from this particular section of Bill 23, the Trade and Convention Centre Act, 1980.

MR. BARBER: Don't lecture the Chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: If the member wishes, we can debate this more appropriately, perhaps, in estimates, when the Provincial Capital Commission comes forward under the Ministry of Finance — as I am the minister responsible.

However, speaking specifically to this matter, Mr. Chairman, I have already indicated to representatives of Pan Pacific Society — this indication went forward some time ago — that I would seek an expansion of representation from the community at such time as an agreement is signed. In the argument which has been advanced today — I didn't hear the member speak yesterday — it is assumed that there is a signed, sealed and delivered agreement between what we know now as Pan Pacific — the organization which has done a great deal of work and which I certainly thank for the work which has been done with respect to the Victoria conference centre.... However, I realized last year and indicated some time later, and have repeated that indication, that the organization, should an operating agreement be arranged, would have to be on a much broader base than is the case now. In saying so, I don't indicate that every single representative group that the member opposite has enumerated for the committee today will be accepted; but we want broader representation.

I think that it's unfortunate — if I heard the debate correctly today — that there's been reference to a secret society, a closed organization, an organization meeting in private, because, indeed, the bulk of the discussion and debate which has gone on for some time with respect to the Victoria conference centre has gone on at the level of the Victoria city council. Some members of that council have agreed with the direction in which the project has been moving and others have disagreed; that's fair enough. They are duly elected, as my colleague, the minister sponsoring

[ Page 2422 ]

this bill, has indicated. I hope that the member opposite is not being critical of the members of the Provincial Capital Commission, which is specifically referred to in this bill, because certainly that's not some business clique — and the member knows that. If he was developing that theme, it isn't a business clique.

Who is the chairman of the Provincial Capital Commission? Mr. J.E. Brown — Ev Brown — known to a number of members of this House, a former Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs and a citizen of very high esteem in the greater Victoria area and throughout the province. He's not a businessman — not that there's anything wrong with a business organization, Mr. Member. I happen to believe that business has a great deal to contribute; perhaps we could debate that some other time.

The chairman of the PCC is J.E. Brown. Then we have the municipal representatives: Mayor Tindall of Victoria, Mayor Hill of Esquimalt — I don't think Mayor Hill is a businessman in that narrow sense — Mayor Couvelier and Mayor Watts, who is another very highly regarded public servant in British Columbia. Alderman McElroy of the city of Victoria is a member as well. He's not a businessman in that sense. Mr. Philip Holmes is indeed a businessman here, but what a fine record the Holmes family has in greater Victoria in concern for the environment and concern for the quality of life.

MR. BARBER: Open the meetings.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'll come to that point. Mr. Chairman, I listened to the member quietly. Sir, you do not have a monopoly on concern for this community.

Carrying on with just two more members of the Provincial Capital Commission, there are Mr. George Giles, Deputy Minister of Public Works earlier and now the chief executive officer of the Provincial Capital Commission — again, a distinguished servant of the public of British Columbia, and I'm pleased to have him on the commission — and finally, Mr. G.K. Patton, who serves as secretary but carries a professional status as well. That is the Provincial Capital Commission. I may have missed one member, but that's essentially the Provincial Capital Commission.

MR. BARBER: You missed Mike Young.

HON. MR. CURTIS: And Mr. Michael Young, former mayor of the city of Victoria. Thank you very much.

With respect to the possibility of opening meetings of the Provincial Capital Commission — and here I wonder if you might not call me to order, because I think it's more an estimates matter, frankly, than it is one of committee stage — the government will certainly give that most earnest consideration. That is an undertaking, and I can say no more than that.

The design of the conference centre. Individuals will disagree. I believe that in the general stage of design that we are at now — and there are some refinements further to be developed — we are going to have a conference centre in the city of Victoria for the people of this area, for the people of Vancouver Island and for the people of the province in which we can all take pride.

As I said earlier, while I did not hear the comments, I do understand that yesterday the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) made reference to a mass of concrete roof or, if I may paraphrase, essentially a sea of concrete. Well, Mr. Chairman, it's just not going to be possible to see that roof from anywhere with the possible exception of the upper floors of the Dogwood Building, and not too many visitors or greater Victorians are in that particular location — the fourth, fifth or sixth floor of that building. From Bastion Square you will not see the roof expanse of the conference centre; from Wharf Street one will not see the expanse of the roof of the conference centre; from the Inner Harbour certainly one will not see the expanse of the roof of the conference centre.

With respect to the community use of the facility, of course in that regard I share the member's interest, and I certainly will attempt to see that that is.... We discussed this in estimates last year. I believe that the conference centre in Victoria, which is unlike the one in Vancouver — in terms of mass, in terms of size and in terms of the kind of conference it's going to attract — will present an opportunity for lower cost community cultural activities. But that's not news, because we canvassed that very thoroughly in estimates in the summer of 1979, and nothing has changed in that regard — community purposes.

I want to see this bill passed. I want to see the continuing discussion at the city council level...the discussions and the comments which have taken place this week and which conclude very soon. I want to see the building under construction in order that it may be enjoyed. I also would remind members opposite that this city could use the construction activity which will flow immediately upon the commencement of that building. That is not to suggest that we should just put up any kind of building so that jobs are provided. I believe that we are going to have a conference centre, the official opening of which all members of this House will want to attend.

MR. BARRETT: I have sat through this debate on this section because of a particular interest as a British Columbia citizen. I want to thank the minister for a very good, very thoughtful and, frankly, calming statement to the House. As the minister said, no one has a monopoly on concern. But no one has a monopoly on knowledge and desires either. I want to thank the minister for assuring the member for Victoria, who is only trying to do his duty. As much as it's difficult for some backbenchers to understand, there are rare moments in this House when agreement on a bill in principle doesn't mean an automatic "yes" in committee. Committee is an exchange of information and opinion.

Some of the rancour could have been avoided. And I may respond this way on the same basis as the members carrying the bill responded, by making some editorial comments. Some of the rancour could have been avoided had the minister herself responded as calmly and rationally in assuring that member what he was asking for, instead of getting up and suggesting that somehow we are an anti-businessmen's group. I thank the minister again for explaining the wide group who are already on there. It's a matter of public confidence. After all, we are talking about elected officials in this city who are doing a magnificent job and who in many instances are voluntarily serving on this committee. But I'd like to point out to the minister concerned — perhaps it escapes her attention — that it is obvious that Victoria feels that, in terms of this Legislature, sending Social Credit members is not the best route to go, and it has elected two NDP members to speak and fight for that particular point of view here in this chamber. If you don't like the results of an

[ Page 2423 ]

election, you can't gerrymander every part of the province, Madam Minister. Those two members have a legitimate reason to be here and to make the suggestions.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Political! My dear friend, the only absence of politics this afternoon were the four questions asked by that member and a thoughtful statement made by the minister that it's long overdue. I think, quite honestly, that the motion made — which I won't reflect on — to have the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) bring this bill through was a mistake; it should have been the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who seems to have intimate knowledge and a deep awareness of the concerns. This city belongs to every citizen of British Columbia. This is our capital city. Everything we have here, every bit of our history, every bit of our heritage — as short as it is — is right here in this city. In our lifetime those heritage aspects of this city should be protected.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Deputy Premier on a point of order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In his remarks the Leader of the Opposition said — and I believe I'm quoting correctly — "You cannot gerrymander every constituency in the province." Mr. Chairman, I'm asking the Leader of the Opposition, if he is suggesting that I have at any time gerrymandered any part of the province, to withdraw that imputation.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, on this point of order I would like to point out that it is normally appropriate to wait until the statement of a member is over. However, since a question has been brought up by that member, I make it very clear that she is asking if there is a particular interpretation. I say interpret it the way you want — the statement stands. You interpret it, and if you interpret it on a basis of guilt, so be it, but my statement is within order.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me complete my remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition, if he has imputed any unparliamentary conduct to a member, to withdraw it.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I have not imputed any motive; I have raised a question in my mind. That is all. How it's interpreted is a matter of guilt — let that be the record. Mr. Chairman, I have not imputed any motive; I've made a statement.

I would point out too that that minister reveals, in interrupting my speech, that same rigid political approach to what should be a most mature debate this afternoon.

In conclusion on my remarks on section 31 would like to share with the House the observation that one of the reasons why these points are raised is that we do have some memories of attitudes and approaches in this House. May I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that had the roles been reversed and the New Democratic Party been in power, and had we named all trade union leaders to a committee to deal with this, guess who would have been up in the House screaming about secret guns and armies. Three guesses: the first two don't count, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister of Finance has given an assurance that has been rightly asked for by the two members for Victoria, and if they hadn't asked for that assurance, I would have been publicly criticizing them. In response, I want to thank both members, in spite of somewhat unnecessary political comments, for standing up and fighting for other points of view that the Minister of Finance understands in terms of building a better city that will last a lot longer than any one of us. That's really what we want to leave; that's really what we're here for. We want to make sure that when taxpayers' dollars are spent, there is an exchange of points of view, an exchange of information and in some rare instances, an exchange of knowledge.

If I may make one analogy before I sit down, if this calmness in terms of response that we had from the minister today had been applied to the Heroin Treatment Act, we would have saved $14 million of taxpayers' money in this province.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief. The Minister of Finance has made some important commitments here on the floor of the House. I'm very glad he's done so. He has agreed that the membership of the operating authority shall be broadly expanded to include a wider cross-section of the community of Victoria. I thank him for that. This is an important commitment, and I'm glad it's been won. I believe he said that the government has under review the possibility of opening the meetings of the Provincial Capital Commission.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I said we would consider it.

MR. BARBER: It's under consideration. I thank him for that as well, and this too is an important achievement in today's debate. I did never say — for the benefit of Barney and Fred — that the Provincial Capital Commission is a closed circle of businessmen. I never said that; I was referring to the Pan Pacific Society, which has been accused of being composed exclusively of businessmen and representing consistently and uniquely the business point of view. I didn't say that and I resent that any implication is made to the contrary. The Provincial Capital Commission, a different body, should do its business in public, and I appreciate and thank the minister for his commitment to reconsider whether or not they should do their business in public. If they do it in public, I will congratulate him again, because that too will have been an important achievement of today's debate.

Thirdly, I understand the minister to agree with the proposition that if the building is to be made available for community purposes it must be made available at community rates. I took that from what he said and I'm grateful for that commitment, which has also been won as the result of today's debate. Those three commitments are very important. I thank the minister for them and I thank him for, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, the perfectly calm and perfectly rational way he made them.

The fourth commitment he's not yet prepared to make, and I appreciate why. That's fundamentally a personal and human disagreement, I suppose, about esthetics: what the building should look like, where it belongs, how high it should reach into the sky, what proportion of the site it should occupy, what view it should amplify or cut out. I myself am disappointed with the design. I think going 35 feet above the street presents a not very attractive aspect to people in Bastion Square, to people further up towards Government Street,

[ Page 2424 ]

to people on Fort Street, to people who walk by and go by on the buses. I just don't find it very appealing. The minister, apparently, thinks to the contrary. That's fine, but at least it should be considered. Contrary to the opinion of the Minister of Human Resources, I share the opinion of the Minister of Finance that these are things that can be debated here and as well in his estimates, but they can be debated here, and that's a good thing. Nonetheless I thank the Minister of Finance very much for these three commitments now expressed formally on the floor of the Legislature. I look forward to their execution and will support this section.

MR. HANSON: I would also like to add my vote of thanks to the Minister of Finance. I think movement in those three areas will go a long way to clearing the air in Victoria over this particular issue. However, I would also like to ask him to consider, if that site has to be built on, that the roof be lowered to allow for access to the ocean front. Clearly, if it's going to be 35 feet it might as well be much higher, because it doesn't matter whether that sea of concrete is above street level or not. What it effectively does is deny the public access to the waterfront, and that is the issue. I would just ask him again to consider the fourth provision put forward and thank him again for the rational way he dealt with our comments.

MR. LAUK: I would also like to thank the Minister of Finance and associate myself with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition and the first and second members for Victoria.

Did you bring in the gold watch? Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister of Finance wouldn't consider taking on Gardom's job as House Leader as well.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, speaking on the section of the bill before us and to the second member for Victoria, no, we cannot give that commitment with respect to the height, because that is a design question, and frankly I think it will be acceptable. The member indicates that it's not acceptable to him, but we will certainly treat that site and that building with the greatest care possible.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I am almost tempted to seek a way to move a motion that the sponsor of the bill be changed to the Minister of Finance.

Under section 3, which we have just passed — and I only make reference to that to move towards the point I want to make on section 4 — we determined that the Minister of Tourism would not be the minister to make and carry out an agreement with the government of Canada and so on. There may have been some logical rationale for the cabinet wanting to do that, but here we are in section 4 talking about a minister certifying that an expenditure is required. This flows after the fact.

Presumably at this point, when section 4 comes into play, the agreement has been made with the respective levels of government and the Provincial Capital Commission and so on, the architectural plans are in place, everything is ready and then they want some money. At this point in time I think quite aptly and appropriately we need to concern ourselves with what's going to occur with that convention centre after it is built and look into the future. That, of course, is where the Minister of Tourism comes into play, I think, more so than was the case under section 3.

I thought the Minister of Tourism should have been the minister to make and carry out the agreement, but the cabinet decided otherwise. They didn't want the Minister of Tourism involved in that kind of activity. I think the cabinet would agree, properly, carefully, that without question the Minister of Tourism is the minister who should certify that an expenditure is required for the purposes of the trade and convention centre, because that trade and convention centre is going to attract tourists. That is one of its functions and purposes.

It would seem that, without any references to what cabinet thinks about the office of the Minister of Tourism, whether there is an authority that has been usurped here or anything of that sort.... I think we are beyond that. We are considering now the Minister of Tourism, and I propose to move an amendment in that regard, Mr. Chairman, to ensure that the subject matter of what I am talking about is properly before the committee. I was just doing a little preliminary lead-up to the amendment which I now move, which simply says to insert on line 1, between the words "minister" and "certifies," the words "of Tourism." As I gave that amendment before, Mr. Chairman, you have it in a formal way, I would take it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order, hon. member.

On the amendment.

MR. HOWARD: I need comment no further about it. I think it's just the most delightful and respectful thing we can do to pay respect to the Minister of Tourism for what a great contribution she is going to make in the city of Victoria and elsewhere in this province.

Amendment negatived on the following division.

YEAS — 19

NAYS — 28

[ Page 2425 ]

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 4.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam. Thank you, hon. member, I didn't see you.

MR. LEVI: I know you didn't. I want you to talk to the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan). He's designed a pair of glasses that will make it easier for you to see me.

I would like to ask the minister, under this section, and it's applicable to both Vancouver and Victoria: what provision was taken into account when estimating the amount of money that would be appropriated — as to whether there would be any contribution at all from the business sector?

I hope the minister is listening, because I would like her to answer.

Can the minister tell us whether any discussions were held with the business communities as to what their participation would be in the construction of this particular convention centre? While we can't....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must advise the member that under section 4 there is no reference at all to what the member is now asking of the minister. While I have the attention, hopefully, of members, I must advise that inasmuch as we are moving in and out of estimates on various ministries and covering, in committee, the sections of bills, there is a distinct difference between what is allowed in the questioning of a minister in his or her estimates and the scope of debate allowed under point-by-point discussion in come. At the committee stage it is not proper to canvass matters which are not specifically and directly related to the sections under discussion. I realize that this will take some adjusting by members, but it must be done if we are to abide by the rules of the House.

MR. LEVI: Let me make my point, Mr. Chairman. section 4(2) says: "The total of amounts paid under subsection (1) shall not exceed $5 million." I think that it is fair to presume, on the basis of that restriction, that you cannot spend more than $5 million — that's what it says. Now, I think, with respect, that it's fair to ask the minister: if in fact the amount of money needed is more than $5 million, where will that money come from?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, with all due respect, I must say at this time, and if necessary rule, that the debate the member is engaged in is not in order, because he is embarking on a totally new subject that is not covered under section 4.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) for his support.

MR. LEVI: I'm being betrayed by the member for Prince Rupert. Now either leave the House or I'll take you in the corridor.

Well, Mr. Chairman, there's got to be some way that we can deal with the question of expenditure under this section...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. As long as it is strictly relevant, any matter can be discussed. But, with all due respect, hon. member, possibly that could have been canvassed in another section of debate of the bill.... .

MR. LEVI: No, I checked, and it couldn't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...or on second reading, but not at this stage in the committee.

MR. LEVI: Well, the section says, "Where the minister certifies that an expenditure is required for the purpose of establishing the trade and convention centre referred to in section 3, the comptroller-general shall pay out of the consolidated revenue fund the amount of that expenditure," and that expenditure "shall not exceed $5 million." We've established that. There's nowhere I can get in here.... But the minister indicated when I was asking the question that she might answer it. Is that all this is going to cost — just $5 million and nothing more? And if it exceeds, there has been no discussion of where that money might come from — not from the business community, or anything like that? Well, that's very unfortunate. Because what I had in mind was to.... I'll wait and see if the minister will get up. Maybe she will get up; she might just sit there and not do anything.

Sections 4 to 7 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 23, Trade and Convention Centre Act, reported complete without amendment.

Leave granted for divisions to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, before committal of this bill, Mr. Speaker, I would like you to consider the unusual manner in which it has been conducted in the House. In Orders of the Day.... It is apparently under the conduct of the Deputy Premier, and I have been unable to satisfy myself that such a portfolio has been granted by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor or proclaimed by order-in-council. I ask you to consider whether a message bill can be conducted under a portfolio which does not exist.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: For the information of members, at the top of each bill there appears the name or title of the sponsoring member. This is for the information of the House

[ Page 2426 ]

and is not a part of the text of the bill. For example, the designated "Deputy Premier" is of the same order as "Mr. Nicolson," if the member for Nelson-Creston had sponsored the bill. The contention that the designation indicates a department rather than an individual is, therefore, without merit.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, in Orders of the Day on page 8, where we list the bills that are in committee, it says Bill 23 is printed under the hon. Deputy Premier. It isn't just the title that appears on the top of the bill that causes me concern, but also the manner in which it appears in Orders of the Day. It talks about the hon. Deputy Premier, which is a portfolio which does not exist. I am sure that the member does not have a framed proclamation on her wall establishing her as the Deputy Premier.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair has, with all due respect, ruled on the matter brought forward by the member for Nelson-Creston and therefore proceeds to further business of the House.

MR. NICOLSON: If HALT challenges this by its slipshod draftsmanship, it's on your head.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 23, Trade and Convention Centre Act, read a third time and passed.

MR. NICOLSON: Have we had the motion?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, he put the motion before.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, there seems to be some very minor confusion. It is a technical point but a very important one. Would the members allow the Chair one moment to ascertain where, if at all, we did leave out a vote which is most important.

The question apparently was not put, and that is my oversight. Shall the bill be read a third time now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And again, it is a bill, the Trade and Convention Centre Act, Bill 23.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 17, Mr. Speaker.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Bill 17 is primarily a technical amendment to the Forest Act, revolving around our decentralization of decision-making and various aspects of the act within the Forest Service. Many decisions which were made at the regional level in the past are now being made at the district level, as we are establishing our 46 different forest districts in the province. This will give the ministry the chance to deal more directly with the people and to be more locally responsive to their needs, and the industry, in dealing with the ministry, to be more responsive to the requests of the ministry.

Mr. Speaker, some 77 clauses in the Forest Act are affected in this way, and it thus appears to be a much bulkier bill than it really is. In addition to this, there are some minor amendments; some are of a technical nature — to more clearly state in the legislation the intent of what we wished to have when the act was originally passed, because there have been some questions in the minds of our legal friends as to the interpretation of some sections.

As an example of other things being done in this bill, we are providing the authority to issue special timber-sale licences over existing areas, to make it easier to provide salvage timber operations for the small business sector in the province. The difficulty we've had in the past is that some of the responsibilities relative to a sale area could not be relieved so that other people could come in and operate in the same area, either before or after a sale was in progress.

This is the general nature of the bill, Mr. Speaker. It's difficult to speak to it in principle, because it covers a wide variety of areas. It's probably best discussed in committee. So with that, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the bill was only introduced, I think, on May 5, and, as the minister has indicated, it is quite a technical one involving a large number of amendments to the existing legislation. I would, quite frankly, like to have a bit more time to study it before I complete my remarks on the bill in second reading. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting.

Motion negatived on the following division:

NAYS — 28

YEAS — 20

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. Shall leave be granted?

MR. KING: I'm not asking leave. Mr. Speaker. I asked for an adjournment, and if that is not granted, I'm not asking

[ Page 2427 ]

for leave. It wouldn't expect it from this government, if that's the nature of their cooperation.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: Do I have the right to speak, or do I not?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm just asking. Shall leave be granted?

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I didn't ask for leave to speak. I'm asking if I have the right to speak on this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In those circumstances, then, if you're asking the Chair directly or if you are asking the House....

MR. KING: I'm asking the Chair, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you're asking the Chair, I am bound by the rules of this House, which clearly indicate that the member loses his place in debate unless leave is asked.

MR. KING: I'm not asking leave. If the government was so ungracious that they wouldn't accept the adjournment, I wouldn't ask anything else of them. That's the standard of cooperation we get in this House — muzzle debate on an important bill. Shame on them! That's the first time that has ever happened in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. GARDOM: First of all, Mr. Speaker, perhaps if the hon. member would have a glass of water and calm down he would feel much better. The hon. member knows full well as a senior member in this House that you lose your place in debate on an adjourned motion unless you request leave.

MR. KING: You know full well that adjournment has never been denied!

HON. MR. GARDOM: The government is fully prepared to give the member leave to speak. Never mind the high-school histrionics — that's all it is.

MR. KING: You're a phony. You won't even tell us what's going on in this House. You're a complete phony! You're the lowest of the low!

HON. MR. GARDOM: Baloney!

[Deputy Speaker rose.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair is in a most perplexing situation. We have a member who wishes to speak. We have leave being granted to speak.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! We now return to the regular business of the House.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am asking a ruling from the Chair. Are you ruling that the member has lost his right to speak because a traditional request for a motion to adjourn has been turned down by the government? That's what you're ruling. Is that right?

That's what you're ruling, okay. Just so we know what's going on with a government that won't tell us day to day what the House business is, and won't give an adjournment....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, when a question is asked of the Chair which is obviously a very vital and important question, it would be appreciated if hon. members would allow the Chair the courtesy of consulting so that the proper and learned decision can be rendered in this case.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Chair. Sir Erskine May clearly states that when a member rises to make a motion and that motion is unsuccessful, then that member does indeed lose his place in debate.

MR. HOWARD: Is that what you are ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is my ruling, hon. member. I have no alternative but to follow the.... The Leader of the Opposition asked the Chair a question. The response from the Chair is that according to Sir Erskine May the member does lose his place in debate.

MR. HOWARD: Brought about by a disgusting act on the part of the government.

Interjections.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Leader of the Opposition inquired of the Chair on a procedural point of very important urgency. The Chair responded. We now — failing to notice any other member standing on a point of order — return to the business of....

The member for Coquitlam-Moody on a point of order.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LEGGATT: I'm wondering if the Speaker could request the government House Leader to advise us what the business of the day will be tomorrow.

Interjections.

[ Page 2428 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: With all due respect, hon. member, that is not a point of order.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The business before the House, hon. members, is now the second reading of Bill 17.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it might be worthwhile if we could ask you, since you've given us this ruling, if you could advise the House as to the role of tradition in the House, before a final ruling is made in terms of the opposition requesting, for the first time, an adjournment on second reading of a bill which the House was not notified was going to be called — in the order that was presented to us today. I ask that the tradition of the House be reviewed by the Speaker. Perhaps we should have a short recess to evaluate the situation we're in and you can advise the House as to a method of coming out of this impasse.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair will undertake to take under advisement the request of the Leader of the Opposition. But again, as I mentioned, we are now at second reading of Bill 17.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when taking this matter under advisement and having listened to the point raised by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), I would also ask that you consider Sir Erskine May's nineteenth edition, page 244, "Leader of the House of Commons," which describes some of the duties and obligations of the House Leader. It says:

"He controls the arrangement of business in that House while the program and details are settled by the government chief Whip. Each week after a program of business has been arranged the Leader of the House states the business for the following week in answer to a question put to him at the end of questions on Thursdays by the Leader of the Opposition, and, whenever necessary, makes further business statements from time to time."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I would call to the attention of the hon. member that that very same point was raised by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) a very short time ago. The Chair brought back a very full and complete ruling on the matter, and this is available for the member's perusal. Again, we are on second reading of Bill 17.

The Chair has been more than patient with hon. members. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor and has been recognized by the Chair, and the courtesy of members is due every member of this assembly.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To restore some semblance of some attempt to debate bills like this in an atmosphere that is traditional in this House, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

NAYS — 28

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

MR. HOWARD: I assume the bill is still before us, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On Bill 17, the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: I do this only because we were deliberately misled by the government into thinking what the business of this House was going to be.

(Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I must ask for a withdrawal by the hon. member. The Speaker is asking the member to withdraw the unparliamentary term "deliberately misled," which is listed. Would the member so do.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: Out of respect for your office, not the party you belong to, Mr. Speaker — and if you had any sense of what was going on in this chamber you would resign from that party.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the last remark by the member to the Chair cannot, under any circumstances whatsoever, be tolerated, in this House or in any House in our entire Commonwealth, and I would ask the member to categorically withdraw those words.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, you're absolutely right. It can't be tolerated. But neither can the action which preceded it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

[ Page 2429 ]

MR. HOWARD: I do without question, which is why I said to you that it should not be tolerated. But it is the action of this crowd over here, this government that deliberately approached us the other day and misled us into thinking that certain courses of actions were going to be taken, that certain bills were going to be followed, and put it in writing and today completely wiped that to one side and then took the unprecedented action, as they did a minute ago, of saying they haven't got the common decency to permit the normal carry-over....

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, while the members may feel aggrieved, the business presently before the House is the second reading of Bill 17. The remarks by the member for Skeena, who took the floor on second reading of Bill 17, are totally out of order, and I must caution the member that if he is not prepared to address Bill 17, he must lose his place in debate.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: If I lose my place in the debate, Mr. Speaker, it will be because of another disgusting act of the government in turning down a motion, which I now put before you, and that is to adjourn the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, just a word to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition: the government business is the business upon the order paper, and the opposition is fully aware of that fact.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: If I may finish without you yelling, I'd also like to inform the opposition that it is the government's intention — as was expressed earlier this week — to proceed on government bills for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of this week. The Whip furnished the opposition — which is not in your knowledge, Mr. Speaker — with a list of the bills yesterday, and the list of the bills that I have is different for today. I'm sorry about that, if there's been a misunderstanding. But I'd like to say this.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I have it here, my dear Mr. Leader. You can go red, blue or purple in the face, have a fit, or do whatever you wish to do, but try to be sensible.

I'd like to say this, Mr. Speaker. The opposition can be informed — which is just fine with me; we're going to carry on with this list — that tomorrow the bills, subject to the minister's availability in the House, will be Bills 17, 15, 2, 6 and 18.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On what does the member for Skeena rise?

MR. HOWARD: To respond to the statement of the minister about the business of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that was not a ministerial statement, and by no stretch of the imagination....

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the other day....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members! The Chair has been most tolerant, but that tolerance is at an end. The member for Skeena has the floor, and I advise members at this time not to interrupt.

The member rises on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The other day I raised a point of order with respect to procedure that might be applied in government announcing the business of the day. Your Honour came in and made a ruling that no such provision existed for that to be able to take place. You permitted the government House Leader just now to transcend your ruling by making an announcement about what government business will be. I think in the circumstances, once Your Honour has permitted that, I should be permitted to comment upon the statement that he made. That's why I rose.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I appreciate what the member for Skeena is saying, but prior to setting a precedent I must ask the member if he will allow me the privilege of reviewing this entire matter, because we are referring to a matter that was raised in this House. A judgment, I believe, hon. member, was brought forward, and not a ruling. I would ask the member if he would allow me the privilege of reviewing this before allowing a precedent-setting type of remark to take place at this time.

MR. HOWARD: I'll gladly do that, Mr. Speaker, because I think with your care and your attention to detail you can find a way around this so that we will receive such information and not be double-crossed like we were in....

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.