[ Page 3023 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Cowichan Valley PCP spill. Mrs. Wallace –– 3023

Knowledge Network of the West. Mr. Cocke –– 3024

Northern transmission studies. Mr. Passarell –– 3025

Proposed fixed link between Vancouver Island and mainland. Hon. Mr. McGeer replies –– 3026

Special Funds Act, 1980 (Bill 7). Committee stage.

On section 24.

Mr. Hall –– 3027

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3027

On section 26.

Mr. Macdonald –– 3027

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 3027

Mr. Lorimer –– 3027

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 3027

Mr. Cocke –– 3027

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 3027

Mr. Lorimer –– 3028

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3028

Mr. Hall –– 3028

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3028

Mr. Hyndman –– 3028

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 3029

Mr. Cocke –– 3029

Mr. Lorimer –– 3029

Mr. Barber –– 3030

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 3031

Division on report and third reading –– 3034

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1980 (Bill 34). Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Cocke –– 3034

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3034

On section 2.

Mr. Barber –– 3035

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3035

On section 3.

Mr. Barber –– 3035

Mr. Nicolson –– 3035

Mr. Barber –– 3036

Mr. Lea –– 3036

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3037

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3038

Mr. Lea –– 3038

Mr. Cocke –– 3038

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 3039

Mr. Nicolson –– 3039

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3040

Mr. Barber –– 3040

Mr. Nicolson –– 3041

Division on section 3 –– 3042

On section 7.

Mr. Barber –– 3042

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3042

Mr. Lea –– 3042

Mr. Barber –– 3043

Mr. Cocke –– 3045

Appendix –– 3046

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I have a very distinguished group in the members' gallery visiting us today. They are all members of the Cariboo-Thompson-Nicola Library Board: Mr. Herb George, who is also the chairman of the Thompson-Nicola Regional District; Miss Hilda Barrett — no relation, I understand; Mr. Roger Behn, who is the chairman; Mr. Harry Newsom; and a gentleman who served with me on the Kamloops city council, Mr. Roy Mallach. I'd ask the House to make them all welcome.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm very pleased to have three guests in the gallery today. They are representatives from the rape-assault centre in the Cowichan Valley — at least, we are attempting to get a rape-assault centre there; they are down here to investigate ways and means. They are Jan Meadows, Dorothy Askew and Pat Screaton. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. WOLFE: On behalf of the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) I have very great pleasure in introducing two guests in the gallery from Ladner, Mr. Dana Arnason and his fiancé, Miss Charlene Duncan. Also visiting from North Delta is Mr. Robert Williams. Would the House welcome these guests.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It's my pleasure to introduce Miss Joanne Peck, in the gallery today from Powell River. I ask the House to join me in welcoming her.

MR. SEGARTY: I'd like the House to join with me in welcoming to Victoria this afternoon Mayor Gus Boersma from Fernie. I'd also like the House to join me in welcoming Miss Sherilyn Golley and Mrs. Margaret Troseth from Trail, along with Carl Price and Elmer Verigin.

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's not often we have two days in a row with visitors from Vancouver South, but would the House please join me in welcoming Mr. David Altow, who is here today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'd ask the House to acknowledge a rather significant event today. Our very young Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and his wife Marjorie are celebrating their thirty-second wedding anniversary.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are two good friends of mine, very hard workers on behalf of the Peace River–Liard Economic Development Commission. From Fort Nelson are one of the members on the board, Mr. John Piety, and the commissioner, Mr. Bill Anderson. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I rise to welcome personal friends of myself and our Speaker, Mr. Schroeder, from Chilliwack. They are Cliff and Edith Rouse of Chilliwack, their son and daughter-in-law, Jack and Beverly Rouse, and their children Randy and Becky from California. I will say that Jack Rouse is one of our fine young men who went to the United States and became a citizen of that country. What was the gain of the United States was our loss. However, he's there, and he's glad to be back here.

Oral Questions

COWICHAN VALLEY PCP SPILL

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Environment. As the minister is aware, we have had a PCP — pentachlorophenol — spill in the Cowichan Valley. The minister advised by letter on June 20 that tests had found PCP and that further tests were in progress, but the results would not be available for one month. Is the minister aware that a private laboratory service in Vancouver can provide test results for a fee of $100 per sample within one week?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I haven't been getting competitive quotes from private laboratories in Vancouver. As members will know, the provincial government's environmental laboratory was partially destroyed by fire some four or five months ago and is in the process of being rebuilt. If there is some necessity for even more urgent action, it's a possibility that we'll look at going to outside laboratories.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the stream water looks like that — that's a sample of the stream water that we're talking about — has the minister decided to take some immediate action to speed up the testing?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I might ask the member to table the sample. Maybe the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) could table the sample of water he drank. The answer so far is no.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister appears to think this is a humorous matter, but it's far from humorous for the people who are involved. I would be pleased to table a sample after the question period for whatever purpose the minister requires it. In view of the fact that the cattle which have drunk the stream water have toxic levels of lead in their blood, what action has the minister decided to take to trace the source of the lead poisoning?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think my earlier remarks answer that question. I haven't seen the results of the report. The member has the report. Perhaps the member would also table that with her sample. Perhaps the question would be best addressed to my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt).

MRS. WALLACE: The blood samples from the cattle, taken by the private veterinarian called in by the farmer involved, have indicated lead, and further samples are being tested for lead and other heavy metals. Certainly your staff is aware of this, whether or not you are, Mr. Minister. I would think you would be interested in doing something about this. Perhaps for your information I could ask: are you aware that that same private lab in Vancouver can provide results relative to heavy metals within two or three days, for a sum of $25 per sample?

[ Page 3024 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS: Is the member suggesting that we do away with the provincial government laboratory at the University of British Columbia?

AN HON. MEMBER: It burned down.

HON. MR. ROGERS: It didn't burn down. It suffered some damage through the fire, but it is in the process of being rebuilt. There are a large number of provincial employees employed in the laboratory. I don't know if it's a question, but if the member wants to do away with it I'll take that suggestion as many others I've received.

MRS. WALLACE: I asked if the minister was aware of this alternative way of handling these samples rather than delaying for a month with a very serious problem in my constituency. On my visit to the site on the night before last I picked up some very interesting specimens. This area is along the CNR tracks by the Deerholme station, and there are all kinds of garbage dumps there. There are several of these 80W cartons — that is, 80 percent bromide. This particular carton is a Dupont product, Hyvar Excel, and there are several of these on the site. It says very specifically on the can that they should be crushed and buried after use. What I am asking the minister is: what action has he decided to take to clear up the problem in this area?

HON. MR. ROGERS: First I would ask the member to table that sample along with the other ones. I'll undertake to get an answer for the member as soon as possible, but I can't answer specific questions on various artifacts and cans that you find on the site. I am informed there are people in the ministry looking at the matter. If they are not doing so and the member has been there recently and advises me of that, I'll look into it. I can't go and investigate every spill in the province personally. I am delighted that the member had the opportunity to go out and have a look at it.

MRS. WALLACE: It's obvious that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) thinks that the Minister of Environment needs all the help he can get, and I would be inclined to agree for once with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

I have discussed this matter with the minister's staff, and because nothing has happened I'm bringing it to the floor today. Another sample, which I will also table, is a sample of very oily water taken from the swampy areas adjacent to the creek on the MacMillan Bloedel property where their machine shop is. Inasmuch as that machine shop has a great deal of oily waste — they steam-clean all their equipment there that feeds into swamps which are adjacent to this stream, inasmuch as we have this tank car with the proven quantities of PCP, what I'm asking the minister is: have you decided, at this point in time, to accelerate your investigation?

MR. HOWARD: Say yes.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Now it would appear that other than the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum, your House Leader would like to answer the question for me.

If I were to accelerate every request I got, we wouldn't have enough staff to do the work we have to do. I've taken your earlier question under advisement. I will inquire of my staff today and find out. But I must say, hon. member, that we have persons within the ministry who are charged with the responsibility of looking after the Pollution Control Act and they take the information and evidence that they gather to regional Crown counsel under the Attorney-General's ministry. If charges are necessary, they are laid by the Attorney-General's ministry. At this very moment that same process is happening in other areas of the province. There is a procedure in place, and if you or any other members of this House find people that are violating the Pollution Control Act, that's the proper procedure to go, other than to bring it here. I don't mind; I'll take the matter up here with staff in the ministry.

MRS. WALLACE: I thank the minister for his answer and I hope the fact that I have brought this information to the House today will accelerate the investigation.

One final question, this one to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair). Wells in the area that I've been speaking about are only some 30 feet to 40 feet deep. In recent weeks, since this pollution occurred, water has intermittently appeared that has been brownish in colour in at least three of the wells. Yesterday, at the request of the residents, your Duncan representative came out and took water samples. The residents were told that it would be some two to three weeks before they would know whether or not the water was safe to drink. Now I'm asking the Minister of Health, as the minister responsible for the health of those people, whether or not he can do anything to accelerate those tests.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will try to.

KNOWLEDGE NETWORK OF THE WEST

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have a surprise for you — I have a question for the Minister of Universities, Science and Technology. Can the minister confirm that the law firm of Fraser Hyndman has been hired to do legal work in connection with the KNOW communications authority?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rocke Robertson of that firm drew up the articles for the KNOW authority which were tabled in the House yesterday.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, would the minister also confirm that that same firm of lawyers, Fraser Hyndman — and I'm sure that Mr. Rocke Robertson is an associate — is also doing the legal work for Discovery Parks?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rocke Robertson did the articles of incorporation for the Discovery Foundation. I think that he did a superb job on both those tasks and I would recommend him to the NDP or anybody in British Columbia.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, has the minister decided that in the future one should spread the wealth just a trifle?

HON. MR. McGEER: I would not hesitate, Mr. Speaker, to engage Mr. Rocke Robertson again. He did a superb job. If the NDP know of anybody better, I'd be pleased to learn of them.

[ Page 3025 ]

NORTHERN TRANSMISSION STUDIES

MR. PASSARELL: My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The northern transmission overview study was commissioned by B.C. Hydro to study northern transmission corridors to link potential dam sites on the Stikine-Iskut-Liard rivers with the lower mainland. On page 28 of this report the consultants said they were requested not to contact the following groups, in order of priority: native people, guides and outfitters, fishing camp operators, packers and tourist services. Can the minister tell the House whether or not these exclusions accurately reflect government policy?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be extremely helpful if the member would send that to me, or table it, so that I could study the document that that member purports to quote from. I'd be happy to study it and give an answer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Atlin, on a new question.

MR. PASSARELL: A second question to the minister. From the same northern transmission overview study that was given to seven ministers of the House, a question on page 187....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, the minister.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I took that question as notice and agreed to answer it if I was given the information. It's the practice of this House that when a question is taken as notice, supplementary questions are asked at the time the answer is given.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I prefaced my remarks to the member for Atlin that it was a new question. He said....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Speaker....

MR. PASSARELL: Yes. That's right, Mr. Speaker. And he's just wasting time in here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Atlin has the floor. Until I hear the complete question, hon. member, it is very difficult for the Chair to rule on the point of order raised by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

On the same point of order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, supplementary questions are asked at the time that the answer is given to a question taken as notice. The question is of the same nature and on the same question and the same subject. I'd like to see this House get back to the practice that has been in place in this House as long as I've been here and as long as most of those on the other side have been here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I will still hear the completion of the question. The member for Atlin.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for protecting me from that minister.

On pages 187-188 it says: "Any construction activity in the area is likely to disturb and interfere with game and fur-bearing animals to the detriment of the livelihood of guides and trappers. In some instances the food source of Indian people may be involved." My question to the minister is: can the minister tell this House whether or not it was for these reasons that the consultants were directed not to talk to the people living in the area?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question does refer in a similar vein to the first question, hon. member, which was taken on notice.

Hon. members, yesterday the hon. member for Atlin sought to move, under standing order 35, the adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the rise of water behind a dam near Stewart. On a number of occasions it has been ruled that such a motion is out of order where facts are in dispute, or the matter is hypothetical, or where normal parliamentary opportunity for discussion will shortly occur. I note that the estimates are currently being dealt with, and accordingly the motion does not qualify under standing order 35 so that the ordinary business of the House may be set aside.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could ask the member for Cowichan-Malahat to table the samples and specimens referred to in question period, so that I might have....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As all members should be aware that when an item is placed on the table it is kept indefinitely. That is why we have a very strict procedure on what can and cannot be tabled. Unfortunately, matters such as this cannot be tabled. However, that would not preclude the hon. member from forwarding the material to the minister's office directly.

MRS. WALLACE: This is the third time I've risen to attempt to table these substances, but in view of your findings, I would ask that the Page come and present them to the Minister of Environment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, possibly they could be forwarded to the member's office in lieu of being placed in the House.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a similar point of order. Since the member for Atlin referred to documents and quoted those documents in the House, I'm sure he'll table them. Would he also table the letters and the log of when he came to my office to talk to me about those things in advance? Could those things all be tabled this afternoon?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. minister. The matters referred to may be tabled. They may not be instructed to be tabled.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could reply today to a question asked some days ago by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

Leave granted.

[ Page 3026 ]

PROPOSED FIXED LINK BETWEEN
VANCOUVER ISLAND AND MAINLAND

HON. MR. McGEER: I've had the reply for some days. but it's very difficult to get the member when he's in the House for question period, so I thought that I'd give the answer today rather than hold it back any longer.

The member asked questions with respect to engineering consultants on the proposed fixed link between Vancouver Island and the mainland. He asked the criteria that were used for selecting engineering firms that are doing some pre-feasibility studies for the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications. The criteria for selecting these consultants were, firstly, their technical competence and, secondly, their ability and willingness to provide some guidance on the engineering feasibility of a fixed link within a short period of time and at a minimal cost. The engineering consultants that have been engaged are Willis, Cunliffe, Tait and Co. of the Victoria office; Fenco Consultants, who are primarily in eastern Canada but have a Vancouver office; and Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas of New York, San Francisco and Seattle.

A formal contract with Willis, Cunliffe and Tait has been engaged upon. The contract value is $10,000. They should be producing their report by the second week of July. They were asked to select a route which they believe would result in the lowest-cost connection between Highway 99 on the mainland and Highway 1 on Vancouver Island; to gather data on forces due to wind, waves and tidal currents; to prepare a conceptual design and sketches of a floating bridge to withstand these forces; and to give an estimate of the cost of the floating bridge and the total link.

Only telephone agreements have been entered into to date with Fenco and Parsons, Brinckerhoff. Written contracts are expected with them once the mails deliver the necessary contracts. It's anticipated that their reports will be prepared by sometime towards the end of July or perhaps early in August.

A further consultancy agreement has been concluded with Garth Edge International Inc. of Vancouver. Their task is to provide an independent assessment of the economic feasibility of the project and to act as the coordinator on behalf of my ministry of an in-house government review of the project.

Among the ministries joining in the study are the Ministries of Transportation and Highways, Environment, Industry and Small Business Development, Municipal Affairs, and Finance.

Further economic and financial assistance is being given by Professor Alan Abouchar of the University of Toronto, who is investigating certain specialized tariff and financial matters.

Parsons and Brinckerhoff will be paid $24,800 for their study and reports, and Fenco will be paid $10,000. The reason for the higher payment to Parsons and Brinckerhoff is because of the former's acknowledged experience in the long-bridge design and particularly because of their current work in designing and constructing the replacement floating bridge across the Hood Canal near Seattle. The contract with Garth Edge will be for $11,300.

MR. HOWARD: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, which relates to the information given to the House yesterday by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). He had a lengthy reply ready to a question which he had taken on notice, posed earlier by my colleague from North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). My point is with respect to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Schroeder on March 26 of this year: "if the question is of such a nature that it requires a lengthy answer, perhaps the best way of a return is to have the answer on the order paper as though the question had been a written question." I wonder, with respect to that, Mr. Speaker, whether you might not draw that to the attention of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and suggest to him, if not direct him, to file that particular answer that he has ready.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The identical point was raised yesterday. The matter was discussed at that time and I believe it was disposed of at that time. Nevertheless, the information that the member gives again to the House will be taken under consideration. There should be no debate on the matter, hon. member.

The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing on the point of order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the ruling by the Speaker read by the member for Skeena. It said "perhaps" that might be a procedure to elicit certain information if the information is of a lengthy nature. I want to say that I pointed out to the member for North Island at the time he asked the question that the information he was seeking was technical in nature and lengthy in detail. Based on that I suggested to him that it would be more appropriately put on the order paper. Yesterday I gave him an opportunity again. If he really and sincerely wants the information, he'll put the question on the order paper. I also offered him the opportunity to have the reply during the oral question period. So he has a choice of either receiving it during the oral question period or putting the question on the order paper. It'll be written out to him in that way.

MR. NICOLSON: I rise to ask leave of the House to withdraw motion 14 standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 7.

SPECIAL FUNDS ACT, 1980
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 7; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 19 approved.

Section 20 approved unanimously on a division.

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

Sections 21 and 22 approved.

Section 23 approved unanimously on a division.

[ Page 3027 ]

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

On section 24.

MR. HALL: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services. In this section, which sets up the fund to assist the public libraries in the province related to automated cataloguing and circulating systems, could the minister tell me if any money has been expended on this program to date?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'm not aware that funds have yet been expended. Proposals have been requested and received from firms capable of framing this computerization formula, and a firm has now been allocated to present such a proposal, but I'm not aware that any funds have actually been expended to date.

MR. HALL: When you say firms have been contacted, do you mean computer companies to set up a program, or are you talking about companies in the library science field to make recommendations in library science? Perhaps I could ask a series of questions rather than have the minister up and down, and proceed more tidily that way.

I'm wondering if the minister has got any research done into this already — whether he's contracted at all with any research or consulting group already, in effect, to expend some $3 million. I'm given to understand that there's $2 million for the lower mainland and $1 million for Victoria, and that's about it, period — all gone. I may be wrong. I hope I am wrong, but that's my understanding of what has happened. Has the minister anything to tell us already in terms of the retention of any consulting companies or any expenses to date? At this time or later on perhaps he could let me know, as a member of the House, any names of companies or consultants he may have retained specifically to do with this $3 million loan.

HON. MR. WOLFE: This is probably a matter we could deal with in more detail during estimates. But I have in front of me the names of firms approached, which may interest the member. This is simply to provide consultant information on the basis for this computerization program. The names I'm referring to are: Systemhouse, Vancouver; L.M. Warren Inc., Vancouver; Woods, Gordon; Comstat-West Ltd.; J.A. Speight and Associates; and Library Management Group Inc., New Westminster.

MR. HALL: May I then finalize my questioning on this section and come back to it during estimates. The minister is not aware of having retained any consultants in the library field to advise on the expenditure of this $3 million.

HON. MR. WOLFE: To be clear, a commitment has been made to contract a firm but no funds have been spent.

Sections 24 and 25 approved.

On section 26.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. We're voting $55 million in a special transit fund — not nearly as much as we are for Annacis Island. When is this likely to be spent?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As minister responsible, I'm extremely pleased that the government has shown the lead. It has shown that it's willing and prepared to take a position in the provision of light rapid transit and other transit facilities in the urban areas of British Columbia. This is only a beginning; there are great things to come. I have meetings scheduled with the GVRD and the CRD in the very near future, at which time we'll be discussing programs. I'm sure that these regional districts will willingly become involved in assuring that British Columbia will have a transit system second to none in the whole of Canada.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, there have been discussions, as the minister says, for a very long period of time. You're now going to have other discussions. You've set up here what is, in terms of total transportation needs in this province and highway budgets, a very minimal sum for light rapid transit. and the minister has no idea as to whether or when it will be spent.

You have no schedule. You're not ready for an action program at all, or you would have told the House in answer to my question: ''We expect to spend $30 million of it in 1981; we have a plan." But you don't have plans yet. Go back to your cabinet colleagues and get an action program and get a proper budget for transit.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, I know that the minister is unable to answer my colleague's questions. I can answer them. For five years there has been nothing spent on transit by this government and there isn't going to be anything spent now. This is for the newspapers, not for action, and there will be no money spent under this bill in the very near future.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, the timing of the meetings with the regional districts has been established, basically towards the end of next month — at their request. They have only recently reviewed the studies they had commissioned. and they will not be prepared to meet and discuss all the things they wish to see discussed until approximately the end of July. I have responded to their request, and I will be meeting with them. But let me remind all hon. members on all sides of the House, and let me say for all British Columbians to hear, that no government in the history of British Columbia has made the commitment to the provision of transit that this government has made.

MR. COCKE: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if we can sort this thing out a little bit, and we can probably sort it out by the minister answering the following question: how much of the $55 million set aside in this section does the minister anticipate spending this fiscal year?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, prior to committing these funds, we agreed to place an order for the purchase of a large number of trolley and diesel buses — that's number one. Aside from that, however, we have a formula in place, which we will apply to the program once it is agreed upon by all of the bodies involved. It is not our intention to try and impose, if we can work out a good agreement with the various bodies involved to ensure that there is a transit system developed for the lower mainland,

[ Page 3028 ]

the Capital Regional District and the smaller communities throughout British Columbia.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, is the minister aware that in the government's proposed budget and the proposed spending this fiscal year it is anticipated that nothing will be taken out of this fund — in the government's own fiscal undertaking?

MR. LORIMER: Well, I was going to let this section go through, but after listening to the minister I just felt it was necessary to say something further.

He states that there has been no government that has had such a commitment to transit as this government. There has been nothing done except a lot of speeches being made, a few statutes....

Interjections.

MR. LORIMER: That new streetcar, as you call it, would have been in operation today if the New Democratic Party had been re-elected in 1975; by this time — a period of five years — there would have been a light rail transit system down as far as Newton; there would have been a light rail system to Richmond; and there would have been partial tunnelling in Vancouver and New Westminster by this time. But since that time, since 1975, there has been nothing done in transit. There are now fewer vehicles owned by this government or by the Authority or by Hydro than there were in 1975. The 10-minute service is now a 15-minute service, the 15-minute service is now a half-hour service, and so on. The whole system is falling apart. The repairs to the vehicles are falling down.

The whole performance in transit under this minister and the previous minister has been disgraceful, and that minister gets up and tries to make the public believe — he knows himself that it's not true — that there is some action in transit. He makes statements to the press quite frequently, making some announcements, each one a little different; but nothing ever happens. And he'll undoubtedly be doing that in the months to come.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, prior to recognizing the next speaker I would call to all hon. members' attention the fact that we are now in committee. Having gone through second reading, discussing the principle of the bill, we are now discussing the section and we must be strictly relevant to what is contained within that specific section.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I will attempt to restrict my remarks to the section which is presently before the committee. The members opposite, particularly the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), my old associate in this House, know exactly what is provided in this appropriation clause. It is $55 million to cover the capital cost of equipment and associated works acquired by the Urban Transit Authority, which was created by this Social Credit government and is administered through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and my colleague (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). What is so important about this section is that the money is provided before it is required rather than after it is required. That's the essential difference between the philosophy of the members opposite and the philosophy of this government.

For a first year, with the UTA now in position, with decisions being made regarding transit at the local level rather than in a minister's or a deputy minister's office, as may have been the case in the past, instead of having to go to the national or international money markets; the money is provided by this clause by this bill in advance. That's the attitude of this government and this government is in the position to provide that money for transit. The members opposite know that. Ideas are great, but you need some money to back up the ideas.

MR. HALL: Would the Minister of Finance kindly give us an estimate on how much of this money will be spent in the next 3 months, 6 months and 12 months?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think the second member for Surrey understands, and I alluded to it a moment ago, that essential to the development of transit in British Columbia is the decentralization of that decision-making process. In answering the question we have to stray from the appropriation clause, but, very briefly, the member knows that there are transit committees and that the regional districts are seized with the responsibility. Where the local decision-making process should be in terms of fair level of service and a variety of other matters.... The Urban Transit Authority comprises elected representatives from the local and regional levels of government in British Columbia, so it would be difficult for any minister to accurately predict the amount of money that would be spent, but the money is there to be drawn on as the local decision-making process calls upon it.

MR. HALL: Is it not a fact, Mr. Minister of Finance, through you, Mr. Chairman, that your own figures prepared and delivered in the budget speech, which you distributed to the taxpayers of this province at some cost to this government, show that at the end of the fiscal year in 1980-81 exactly $55 million will remain unspent in this fund?

HON. MR. CURTIS: With the final approval of this bill and royal assent being given to it, the money is available to be called upon as the decision-making process requires. I've explained it as carefully as I can and I'm quite sure that the hon. member who asks the question understands precisely how it is to proceed. As soon as the respective transit organizations and the UTA make their decision and place the order, such as those to which my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs has referred, the money is available to meet the provincial share of that cost.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, by the minister's own finest estimates, remaining in this fund one year from now will be exactly the same number of dollars that have gone into the fund. It's my suggestion that the municipalities are not going to be able to afford the kind of moneys required, and the money will be there one year from now.

MR. HYNDMAN: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs or the Minister of Finance. With respect to the Urban Transit Fund, into which the $55 million referred to in this bill will be paid, and with respect to the obligations of regional, municipal or local governments to pay into that fund, have any of those regional or local governments yet fulfilled their obligations to pay in current amounts due or,

[ Page 3029 ]

alternately, is the $55 million here the first of the contributions into the fund? I would like to hear from whichever minister is most appropriate for the answer to that. Perhaps between themselves they can determine that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, the answer is no. There's been no money set aside by local government, nor have they been able to really agree upon the formula — or the program, I should say — that they would wish to see implemented over the next number of years. That's why we've scheduled these meetings in the very near future.

I'm very pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon of speaking about transit for the urban areas in British Columbia. I hope there will be a great deal more discussion on the topic, because it's one area where we've certainly shown a great deal of leadership and one of which we can be extremely proud.

The member for Burnaby-Willingdon made mention of the fact that somehow they had done more, or that he felt they could have done a great deal had they been left to implement some sort of program. I think we only need look at the evidence, the legislation, the programs, the negotiations that we've had with the various bodies, and the agreements that have thus far been reached. That was a first. We were able to do that over this last year. We have set aside $55 million in advance of a program having been decided upon. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon really was involved in transit as well when he was minister during the NDP time. Right now, other than perhaps the normal purchase of buses, which they did, which we've done — that's an ongoing program and will continue to be — the only evidence — and note this, and keep it in mind always — where it was done by that minister and that government, with respect to providing transit for British Columbia, is a train from Germany that won't fit the tracks.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised at the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who was mayor of Surrey when we were government. He noted that at that time Surrey, particularly, benefitted from our government by virtue of bus line after bus line that had never been there theretofore. As the member for New Westminster at that time, I watched Coquitlam, which had absolutely no bus service, become bused and taken care of. I was so proud when I would go by the Lougheed Mall and see dozens and dozens of buses with....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm replying to the minister on this particular question. He's defending the government's position with respect to this $55 million that the Minister of Finance pretty well admits is not going to be spent this year — or any part of it. I'm telling you, Mr. Chairman, that minister's so up to his eyeballs in trouble in terms of finance that this $55 million could very easily find its way back into the government coffers to be spent elsewhere. He knows that forest revenues are down; he knows that gas revenues are down, and they're in deep trouble. But that's not the point. The fact is there is nothing spent yet and until that minister arrives at the conclusion of his negotiations, which might be a good long time from now, the $55 million sits.

It is very difficult for us to sit here, having put together the first real thrust in transit when we were government, and having watched nothing happen for the last four years, and now suddenly the....

AN HON. MEMBER: They've taken buses out of service.

MR. COCKE: That's right, they've taken many lines out of service. Now suddenly the world is opening up again, with $55 million set aside but not to be spent this year. What absolute significant rubbish.'

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

You know, Mr. Minister, I think that you should really sharpen up your behaviour with respect to your charges, talking about the articulated bus. You know, now Mayor Volrich has announced he's going to use it. Isn't that interesting? And it's only going to cost him $100,000 to put into our new track. Don't forget, we were investigating new track sizes at that time. But he's going to be able to put that articulated bus to work, and just for $100,000, and it's going to pack a significant number of people. Hopefully its type will find its way out into Surrey, which might benefit some of your constituents.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On section 26, the minister defers to the member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. LORIMER: I intend to answer the minister's remarks, which were not factual in any way, that didn't deal with this particular section too closely. I will spread myself along that route of being somewhat remote from the section. But I really believe it's my right to reply to the charges that were made.

The minister indicated that the DuWag was basically a poor vehicle for the purposes required in the Vancouver area. I wish to advise the man that anyone with the slightest knowledge of light rail transit and light rail vehicles realizes that the DuWag company probably sells more light rail vehicles in the western world than any other company. The vehicle was stored on the tracks in the Big Bend area for some months — to the knowledge of this government because they stored it there. The track sizes were apparently all right. However, he doesn't realize that in any placement of trackage all new tracks have to be placed. The rail that is presently in existence in Vancouver will not pass standards to carry high-speed vehicles. I won't continue with that until we get to his estimates. I'll give him some more information then that might be of some use to him as minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall...?

MR. LORIMER: I don't want to be hurried, Mr. Chairman. I'll sit down when I'm finished.

I want to answer the question which was asked by the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman). He asked the minister a question and didn't get an answer. He was wondering about the UTA. He is not here at the moment, but I'll answer the question. The UTA was formed because they would not be able to produce money for transit and this government would not have to proceed with the transit program.

[ Page 3030 ]

MR. BARBER: I resent the continuing falsehood...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if you are implying that of another hon. member you will certainly have to withdraw. The member is not referring to a member of the House?

MR. BARBER: Certainly not. I haven't finished.

...in the form of statements made by some persons who allege that the New Democrat administration bought a light rail vehicle for which there were no rails. I resent the continuing claim made by some, who shall be nameless until they apologize, that our administration bought a vehicle that wouldn't fit any tracks. The statement is patently false and any person who makes it should now know better. I would remind the committee that in 1976 the then Minister of Municipal Affairs and now Minister of Finance, on the basis of misinformation, made certain claims as to vehicle purchases made by the previous minister, Mr. Lorimer. The minister, to his credit, subsequently said publicly that he had been misadvised by B.C. Hydro and repudiated those false claims.

I don't know why B.C. Hydro would be in the business of misinforming people about our transit purchases, but it is a matter of public record that the first Socred minister of transit in 1976 corrected the false claims that had been made by some persons, which would have naive people believe thatMr. Lorimer purchased a vehicle that couldn't fit any track. It is just not so. That record should be clearly corrected, and any person who further engages in promoting that absolute untruth should be called to account for it. The vehicle would work, it was appropriate, it did fit the tracks, and Mayor Volrich recently announced that it is going to be used on the tracks where it belongs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: At this point I would remind all members in the House that we are on section 26. I understand there has been some latitude allowed with respect to this section, but if we could now confine ourselves to section 26, that would be in order.

MR. BARBER: I expect to have the same latitude that other speakers have had. Just because I wait until the end doesn't mean the rules should change.

We will be supporting this section because $55 million is better than nothing; we are in favour of some progress and this is better than nothing. But it is important that this House and this province realize what a very small sum this is in comparison to the investment we make in other forms of transport, especially in the private sector, and in comparison to the real need, especially in mass transit. It is important as well that this Legislature realize that this is a very small investment in the whole field of rail transit for greater Vancouver. Fifty-five million dollars will go almost nowhere to providing an effective heavy or light rail or rapid transit system in greater Vancouver. That is the centre and the source of greatest need. The $55 million will go nowhere near to meeting that need. We vote for it because it is better than nothing. But we also observe where the real spending priorities of this government lie. When you compare this amount of money with that which the government would propose to spend through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways on the private automobile or when you compare the $55 million here to the $120 million-plus that the Annacis crossing will cost, then you have to wonder whether or not this expenditure, unfortunately for the government, reveals its true level of priority in regard to expenditures generally for transit. I have a few questions about the expenditures as well.

Does the minister propose to build a monorail system out of the $55 million? If so, can he demonstrate any support whatever from any quarter, planning or engineering, public and political, for a monorail scheme in greater Vancouver? Since the minister has been flying with this number, I've had the opportunity to hear from the people I consult with regularly in the GVRD as the Municipal Affairs critic for the official opposition. Every time the minister stands up and says, "Let's build a monorail system" — presumably with this $55 million, Mr. Chairman, if he's serious — he gets laughed at. He may not realize he's being laughed at behind his back, but he should.

Monorail is a system of extraordinary limitation. It has some special use in special circumstances. But the problems with turnaround, the problems with construction generally and the physical limitations of that system are very precise. All of the mechanical aspects of switching in monorail system, by and large, tend to answer the question: why don't you build a monorail, if it works so well elsewhere? Well, it's not built elsewhere either, for the same reason that it probably will never be built here. However, I want to know — contrary to all the expert opinion and contrary to all the reasons that have been offered elsewhere as to why we do not have any significant investment in monorail anywhere in North America or anywhere at all, excepting, of course, world fairs, which hardly count — whether or not he intends to use any of this $55 million for the monorail that he and he alone is currently promoting. I have a few other questions.

I refer to sections 9 and 17 of the Urban Transit Authority Act. This particular bill is a bit of hoax, Mr. Chairman. The government would have us believe that this is the only way they can commit funds to the Urban Transit Authority.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No one said that.

MR. BARBER: Oh, now, now.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You weren't listening, Charlie.

MR. BARBER: I listen much too closely for your interests, apparently. I've understood all along why the government does it this way rather than the way they could. Why? Because there's a bit more mileage this way. Why? Because when you introduce a separate bill, you get another round of credit. Why? Because if you're publicity conscious and your government is unpopular, you find any device you can, however unnecessary in law, to try to take credit for doing something which is far too small to begin with and long overdue in any case.

If I may read briefly from the Urban Transit Authority Act, section 9(l) says: "The government may, out of money appropriated by the Legislature for the purpose, grant to the Authority on terms and conditions it considers appropriate the amounts required to enable the Authority to carry out its powers under this act." What does that mean? Well, the parliamentary tradition is, of course, that with that authority in law we would then in the next year find in estimates a vote to make a grant under the Urban Transit Authority Act, section 9(l). That's the usual pattern, Mr. Chairman, when a government has its house in order and isn't desperate for

[ Page 3031 ]

every ounce of publicity it can wring out of every announcement they make 15 or 18 or 21 times in a row. No, this government chooses to do it a different way. Instead, they choose to go the absolutely unnecessary route of trying to take credit for the umpteenth time for one decision. They've established a pattern for that.

How many times have they announced the northeast coal deal? How many times did they announce the Annacis Island crossing? How many times have they announced denticare?

They're doing it again, and it's unnecessary. The authority already exists in law, to be paid for in the usual way through estimates, that moneys may be granted to the Urban Transit Authority for this purpose; section 9(1) makes that clear. But if it's not clear enough, section 17 makes the same point in the same act. So it's just a bit of a hoax. For political purposes, not for legislative ones, we're debating a section that is not required in law. They already have the authority in law to spend the money. They could do it through estimates if they want, but apparently they chose not to. Maybe they recognized that in greater Vancouver they have been so heavily criticized for the cuts in the Hydro routes and the cuts in the bus service.... They have been so heavily attacked by user groups in the transit system in greater Vancouver that it is politically necessary to find some new device, no matter how unnecessary or redundant, to make the case that they're going to spend $55 million for whatever for transit. It's not necessary; it's redundant. It's not required by law; you have the authority in law. You don't need to do it this way, except for obvious, blatant, crass political purposes.

The former Attorney-General smiles. He shakes his head now, but he smiled before. He knows it's true. That's why....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at this point let me tell you that we have discussed the principle of the bill in second reading, and we are now on section 26. The committee is empowered to debate the detail of section 26. That is all the committee is allowed to do — not to debate whether or not the principle is acceptable or not acceptable. The second reading has been passed.

MR. BARBER: The principle is acceptable — we supported it then and we'll support it shortly — but the execution of it is questionable, at least in the hands of that minister. I want to know if he's going to fritter away money on monorail studies that no one wants. I want to know how many more engineering firms are going to be hired for how many more unnecessary studies by this government — for tunnels or any other purpose or, in this case, for a monorail. I wonder how much money is going to be spent from this fund on a monorail scheme which the minister alone in the whole world of transit in British Columbia is promoting — or in the whole world, I suppose. I have a few other questions of the same minister.

He said fairly clearly — so far at least — that the principal moneys to be expended here will be for diesel buses. I want to know whether or not there is a commitment to spend money on electric trolleys in greater Vancouver. My colleague the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) has indicated a problem with the safety of the overhead wiring systems and of the supporter mechanisms, the poles and the rest of it. My colleague for Vancouver Centre has made a good point in the interest of public safety to determine whether or not the transit fund could be expended — this $55 million or any other — to allow the riders of electric trolleys in Vancouver to feel sure that the poles aren't going to come snapping down on their heads. Evidently in the last year for which Hydro reported — I'm working from memory — I believe more than 140 such incidents of wires failing or poles snapping were recorded by B.C. Hydro. They're very old; they're brittle; they're not entirely safe. So on his behalf, I ask whether or not there is a commitment from this $55 million to upgrade the electric wire, the overhead and the pole facilities, for the electric transit system in Vancouver city. It's an important issue of public safety and good planning.

Another question I have in regard to the expenditure of the $55 million is this. Precisely because we expect that whenever it is spent the majority of these moneys will be attached to diesel systems, can the minister tell us what proportion of this S55 million, if any, has been set aside for light rapid transit on rail? Now I know there is always the traditional argument that light rapid transit includes buses. Fair enough. Let's talk about light rail. What percentage of this $55 million, if any, will be spent on rail transit, say, in the next year or, if you can took forward, the next three or four or five? Because I suspect that, in fact, this $55 million represents no more than an investment in diesel, which is well and good enough and long overdue — and I don't object — but at the same time I wouldn't want anyone to get a false impression that this $55 million is going to be spent on a rail system if that, in fact, is not the commitment the government is specifically making.

A light rail system in Vancouver using the existing corridors and rail is long overdue and will be, when new construction is required, tremendously expensive. It's been the case again and again in any great urban community in North America. It's certainly proving to be the case right now in Calgary where half the city is ripped up and where they're going to live like that for the next two years, because they delayed too long. I want to know whether or not there is a commitment here, within section 26, of any share of this $55 million for light rail transit in greater Vancouver. If so, what is that commitment and what is that share? After the minister answers those questions I have a few more.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Speaker, the first member for Victoria says that many politicians and experts are laughing behind the back of the minister because he has suggested that perhaps there could be options to light rail. I'm well aware that certain politicians, the moment they get elected, deem themselves to be experts, so I can appreciate him putting the two in the same category, because the first member for Victoria certainly has all of a sudden become an expert on many issues. But getting back to the questions....

MR. BARBER: Are you wasting money on monorails here or not?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Section 26.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again, Mr. Chairman, the expert calls across the floor: "Are you wasting money on monorails?" I want to answer this question. It was posed and I think it should be responded to because the member feels that perhaps some of the moneys might be spent for that purpose, so I think it's a legitimate question.

MR. BARBER: Now give a legitimate answer.

[ Page 3032 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The first member for Victoria says that the whole world is against all the alternatives that might exist and everybody should somehow follow the rule that because certain experts have called upon what has been historically a means of moving people, we shouldn't consider whatever else there might be, though we're now going to the moon.

MR. BARBER: A good point. What was the point?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The message I get from the people generally is that we should consider all of the options. We should look at what opportunities are available before a decision is made which will set us upon a course that we must follow forevermore.

So, yes, Mr. Chairman, I do intend to look into monorail; I'm doing it and I intend to continue doing it. I intend to look into various other methods of light rail; I'm doing it, I intend to continue doing it. I do intend to discuss all of these things with the regional districts and the municipalities, because we do not, as the NDP did, run transit out of a bureaucrat's office. We want the people involved in the process; it's a major decision affecting all of the people for all time in British Columbia, and it should be well reasoned. Yes, the moneys could be spent on light rail transit if it were decided that that was the better approach. We have committed moneys to diesel buses, and those moneys, incidentally, were not from this specific fund.

We have small communities throughout British Columbia which, contrary to what the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said.... While we perhaps should be grateful because transit was extended back in 1974 to Surrey and Coquitlam, there are 13 small communities — and many others considering throughout the province — now taking advantage of the transit formula which was developed by my ministry and which has led to an agreement between 13 municipalities and the Urban Transit Authority. We must consider those other parts of British Columbia too. We can't always be thinking only of Vancouver and Victoria. There are other places in British Columbia that need to be considered for transit, and just because the NDP has done no good in rural B.C. is no reason to ignore it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, section 26, please.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, the question was asked: why diesel buses? Diesel buses are needed as a part of the overall system.

We have ordered a large number of trolley buses, contrary to what the first member for Victoria said. He obviously was not listening. It's been pointed out time and time again: we've ordered those trolley buses. This government, again, has done that. The member asked: will some of these $55 million be used for wiring trolley buses? Sure it's important — we must maintain that existing equipment, and that is being done. But it's not being done through the $55 million fund. We have within my vote a very large sum — many millions of dollars — for transit in the province. Not everything is going to come from the $55 million. That $55 million, hopefully, will be used to develop a good system of transit, to pay for the capital parts of that program for British Columbia. Again I say, Mr. Chairman, all British Columbians should be grateful for and proud of what's happening in B.C., because now the lead's been set and we're going to be first in Canada.

MR. BARBER: Well, if they were grateful and proud you would have done a heck of a lot better in the last provincial election. It was the administration of Mr. Barrett that first pioneered the small communities transit program.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Where is Mr. Barrett?

MR. BARBER: He's out doing the people's business in Japan.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Doing the people's business in Japan?

MR. BARBER: That's right. It's more than Phillips was ever able to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, for the benefit of the assembly I will read section 26: "The Minister of Finance shall pay from the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $55 million to establish the Urban Transit Fund." If we can contain our debate in committee to that section, that will be in order. The first member for Victoria continues and the Minister of Municipal Affairs will remain in order.

MR. BARBER: I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs has been chewing daffodil bulbs again; he's behaving very strangely today.

I asked a number of questions about the relative proportions to be committed under this fund. The minister, I note, omitted any reply whatever to our criticism that this device is totally unnecessary in law. He knows full well he could do it entirely through estimates. The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is smiling again. He knows too that it's totally unnecessary, except for politics, to do it this way.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: No, I'm not finished, because it's an important issue, as the minister says. Although not every member of the House may be interested in transit, some of us are. My colleague from Burnaby-Willingdon and I, on this side of the House, most certainly are.

I didn't want another false impression to be left uncorrected — the impression that our only interest in transit is in transit in Vancouver and Victoria. The minister, I'm sure only unintentionally, would have left that impression; but now that it's been corrected he won't repeat it, I'm sure. In fact, the great pioneering work in the field of transit in small communities occurred during the administration of Mr. Lorimer as Minister of Municipal Affairs. That's where it all started.

But it's equally the case that the principal capital costs for light rail transit will obviously occur in greater Vancouver. What I've asked the minister to do — and he's yet to do it — is indicate what commitment, if any, apart from his wide-eyed monorail schemes, he is making of this $55 million for light rail construction or equipment.... He's being distracted. Are you listening? All right. What I'm asking again is: what percentage, if you can calculate it, of this $55 million will be spent on light rail transit in greater Vancouver? I

[ Page 3033 ]

wouldn't want another false impression to be created by Social Credit. I wouldn't want anyone to think that $55 million has now been committed to light rapid transit in greater Vancouver, for instance. Because, you know, Mr. Chairman, strangely, that's the impression that was attempted to be conveyed when this was first announced. I remember reading the Vancouver papers — which I read very closely — and I remember quite clearly the impression given by government spokespersons who would have the people of Vancouver, who are sometimes naive about Social Credit, believe that the car dealers had finally repented and were prepared to spend significant sums on LRT.

Well, I ask the minister a second time to tell us what share of this $55 million.... Surely they wouldn't simply put it in a pot and wait for it to be called upon; they must have some idea of why it's required. Why $55 million? Why not $45 million or $75 million? The figure has been set, it must represent some planning and some analysis of need. Don't you think so, Alec?

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Oh, you don't think so. Well, maybe I'm the naive one. Maybe it's just a political figure. Maybe I am naive. I freely admit it. After two elections I remain the youngest member of the Legislature. I turned 31 last week. Maybe I'm still naive about Social Credit too.

Nonetheless, unless the government is going to admit that they simply invented a figure of $55 million that doesn't represent any planning, strategy or direction — unless they're going to admit to that embarrassment — surely they could, to the contrary, say: "Yes, there's a plan, the $55 million represents something, and here's what it represents, Mr. Member for Victoria. It represents this percentage commitment to light rapid transit." I want to know what that percentage commitment is. I want a straight answer from the minister. What's the figure? If you don't have it, you may be embarrassed on another ground: for not having any figures, and only a pile of money for political purposes.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, if I might illustrate it very simply, through an example, how wonderful it would have been if during 1974, when they were government, they could have passed a similar bill and provided a fund like this, so that when 1975 came about and they were in no position to provide any moneys for transit or whatever else, they could have used this sort of fund. We can't say at this moment, until our negotiations are complete and until we've been able to discuss programs with regional districts, what amount of money will be required for what part of the program. These are the sorts of things that we wish to discuss with the municipalities, because the municipalities — and I remind the member time and time again — must be, if at all possible, very much a part of the decision-making process. I don't know why that member can't understand this. It is necessary that they be a part of that process. I will be meeting with them in July and again in the fall, or throughout the summer, to discuss those things that they have gained from their studies.

MR. BARBER: There's a bit of sleight of hand going on here on the part of the government benches.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if you're imputing any improper motive, I'll have to ask you to withdraw that.

MR. BARBER: No, in B.C. it's absolutely conventional, apparently.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that comment is unparliamentary.

MR. BARBER: Well, then I certainly withdraw it. However, the gambit appears to be this: the government would have us believe that they're establishing a kind of perpetual fund here, like the old man used to do. Remember, Mr. Chairman? Old W.A.C. used to set up these perpetual funds, and the interest from them would be spent on various good purposes in Christendom. Well, that makes sense, I suppose, if you have so little planning ability that you have to set up piles of money and then spend the interest on whatever comes along. If that's the best level of planning that you can obtain, I suppose a perpetual fund then makes some sense.

But in transit surely the planning issues at stake are tremendously more important and far less spontaneous than could ever be provided for by some kind of perpetual fund. When we ask the minister to describe how the money is going to be allocated, he says basically that they've established a pile of loot; they'll put it in the bank, and when someone comes along with a good idea, they'll negotiate, and on the basis of the negotiations they will spend. Well, on that basis, what do we need this money for? You already have legislative authority to appropriate under sections 9 and 17 of the Urban Transit Authority Act. You have that authority. You could put a figure in estimates that represents the minimal figure you require, and if later in the year a good case is made by a competent authority to spend more, you then of course have the further authority by special warrant to spend further money. That's constitutional and proper. That's how it works when a government's house is in order. But the minister is clearly and inadvertently admitting that his house is not in order and that he has selected a sum of money that has a nice round ring to it — not $54.8 million or $62.3 million, but $55 million, which sort of rolls off the tongue, at least if you have a Scots accent. The sound of that apparently will be enough to persuade people that they're serious about transit.

Well, if they were serious about transit they'd be able to indicate clearly and in advance what their commitments are to the following transit programs — they would name them, detail them and tell us what their share is: and on the basis of those programs, consistent with their policy, they are prepared to spend this amount of money. But what the minister is clearly admitting is that they have no plan at all. By their silence they confess that this is a political gimmick, because they already have the authority to bring in the money via estimates. Instead they create a fund. He can't tell us what's going to be spent from the fund: he only says it’s up to the negotiations. If that is the case, you can spend it via consolidated revenue from time to time throughout the year and, when the House isn't sitting, by special warrant. You know you can. That's how the law works, and that's how the Financial Control Act reads. That's what it does. They've done it for political reasons, because they're in political trouble as a government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I hate to have to keep correcting you, but we are in committee. During second reading we have had ample opportunity to discuss the princi-

[ Page 3034 ]

ple of this bill. The operative verb in the bill is "shall pay," and the committee has to deal with detail section by section. If the member could contain himself to our standing orders that when we're in committee we deal with sections in detail, then that debate would be in order.

MR. BARBER: The total inability of the minister to describe his policy, predict his spending and define the terms of reference under which this will be committed, and the complete inability of this government to make any significant commitment at all, even verbally, to light rapid transit give rise to great disappointment.

We'll support the $55 million because it's better than nothing, but it's nowhere near what it should be. The government should be on notice from this debate and in every debate in the future that the transit-users of British Columbia and the opposition members of this House will be watching very, very closely to see how you spend this money — to see whether or not you spend it within a reasonable period of time and for a good purpose and whether or not it is spent consistent with the best interests of transit. Frankly, we're skeptical, and we have some doubts that you're really serious about transit.

The Minister of Finance will shortly jump to his feet to defend his record. After he's done that I call a division.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Section 26 approved unanimously on a division.

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

Sections 27 to 32 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 7, Special Funds Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 19

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 34.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 1), 1980

The House in committee on Bill 34; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. COCKE: The auditor-general has been given the responsibility for auditing the books of the Assessment Authority. I ask the Minister of Finance whether or not that will be a special report that we will have access to, or whether it will just be a report to the minister. It says here: "...report to the Authority and to the minister." How does the Legislature...?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I didn't ask the minister of know-nothing energy. I asked the Minister of Finance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could explain in this section and in a few others that the acts about which the auditor-general wishes to comment are dealt with here. This is the first one. Certainly I don't see anything in this which would suggest that the report comes to the minister only. Indeed, in discussing the expansion of her authority, my conversations with the auditor-general have suggested that she clearly expects to be able to report to the assembly on those which are dealt with here.

MR. COCKE: I want to thank the minister. I know that she will report to the assembly if she finds something amiss or if she has some criticism. I would wonder, however, whether or not it's implicit in these sections that she's being asked to report beyond the minister. It seems to me that the auditor-general is a person whose position is to report to the Legislature. So I just wondered if there would be some section that she would feel obligated to report to the assembly in each of these areas. It seems so specific in terms of this act. I was just wondering what motivation or direction is behind these sections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The intention is that in the filing of a number of reports of the Assessment Authority — to deal with section 1 — the Assessment Authority annual report must be filed. It's the intention here that her comments would form part of that report; that's clearly the intent. It's broaden-

[ Page 3035 ]

ing the accountability to this assembly, with respect to a number of agencies and so on.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, looking through Bill 34, there are very few ministers left out in this kind of act. As we go through it, we're going to be wanting to ask questions, I would think, of a number of those ministers. I wonder if you could ascertain from the government House Leader whether those ministers are going to be here; otherwise we could go to another act and come back to this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the committee has been struck. We are now in committee, dealing with the bill section by section.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Section 1 approved unanimously on a division.

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

On section 2.

MR. BARBER: Section 2 adds two new members to the Capital Commission of Victoria. Section 2 is a welcome section if the persons whom the minister proposes to add represent the community broadly. I wonder if the minister responsible could tell us whom he proposes to add.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I have no members in mind, pending the authority through this bill. It is felt that there should be representatives from the community at large and I trust that all members of the assembly will be pleased with the selection when it's ultimately made. It's to expand the commission.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. BARBER: Well, now Pat gets paid. Hurray! This section exists because the government couldn't count, apparently. The government didn't have the political courage or wit to say in January of this year what they only admitted in May, which is that they then, in January, had no legal authority to pay her salary. Why did the government get into trouble on the issue? In part because the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) apparently didn't know whether or not she was being paid a salary when I asked her during question period in May.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Again I must remind the hon. member that we are not talking the principle, we are talking the specifies, and the member is now....

MR. BARBER: Have you read the section?

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, it has long been the practice of this House that statute law amendment acts are never debated in second reading on principle and therefore the debate is allowed to go into principle because the sections are so diverse. Now certainly the opposition could never ever again allow a statute law amendment act to pass in this House if we are restricted on the sections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member makes an excellent point. The Chair takes that point.

MR. BARBER: All along the official opposition has looked forward to an opportunity to allow the Minister of Tourism to be paid. It is a shame that the government didn't say in January what they knew in January, which was that there was no lawful way to pay her. They chose to keep quiet until the day we found out. No statement was made at the time; no press release was issued when the minister was appointed; no minister stood up and said: "The Minister of Tourism also has an AAA rating and deserves a salary." We didn't hear any of these things. Rather, we heard only silence and, four months later, embarrassment from the government benches when first of all the Minister of Tourism said she didn't know whether or not she was getting a salary — as lame an excuse as that one could never imagine — and secondly the now Attorney- General (Hon. Mr. Williams), smiling all the way. said: "Don't worry. We'll correct the situation as soon as we can." Well, it's here today and I'm glad the Minister of Tourism will be paid her salary. However, there are certain other problems implicit in this section which will now be referred to by my colleague for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: A year ago the government opened up the number of persons who could serve on a board of directors — I believe it was of ICBC — and left it open-ended. Again, we see that by this amendment, section 10 of the Constitution Act will now become open-ended, a blank cheque to government to appoint as many members of cabinet as they might desire. If this power is abused to the maximum, it will leave one lonely backbencher in the government benches who will have to remain there in order to serve as Deputy Speaker when the House has to go into committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who will it be?

MR. NICOLSON: I am asked who this lonely backbencher might be. It can't be the most incompetent of the back bench. It does take some competence to be a Chairman or Deputy Speaker. So it will mean that some others will go into cabinet, and it almost guarantees that the least competent member of the back bench will eventually find, I guess, his way into cabinet. [Laughter.]

It is really a very serious thing! I think that some of the speculations about the potential abuse of this section are perhaps humorous when one does consider the material and the permutations and combinations made possible by this amendment to the Constitution Act. But what this amendment does is amend part 1 of section 10, which refers to the executive council, by omitting the words "not exceeding 23." Therefore it says that the executive council should be composed of persons the Lieutenant-Governor appoints, including the Premier of the province, who shall be president of the council. Without this amendment, part 1 says that the executive council should be composed of persons the Lieutenant-Governor appoints, not exceeding 23, including the Premier of the province, who shall be president of the council. It also eliminates part 2, which says that not more than 19 of those persons appointed shall receive a salary under this act.

[ Page 3036 ]

That is the offending part which has prevented the Minister of Tourism from receiving a salary to this point. Had this part, and perhaps part 4, which is also to be omitted, simply been deleted, that would be all that would have to be done to amend this act and, indeed, to even allow three more persons from the back bench into the cabinet. But there appear to be no limits to which democracy is to be savaged by this government in terms of opening things absolutely wide-open, being totally permissive, and encouraging reckless abuse of the objectives of this House.

I think that in a House that is limited to having 57 members, the potential abuse of this House could be with some government with a future majority of, say, 38 or 40 members — as has happened frequently — and there could be 35 cabinet ministers appointed very easily in this House without some limit being put on here. I cannot imagine the present Attorney-General allowing this kind of legislation to come into this House. There must surely be some kind of limit that should be binding upon not only the present government but upon future governments.

Mr. Chairman, in hoping that this has been merely an oversight or a drafting error, I propose a remedy. I propose to move the following motion: that Bill 34, intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1980, be amended as at section 3, line 2, by inserting after "not exceeding 23" the words "; and substituting the words 'not exceeding 20'. " The actual physical effect of the amendment would be to place where presently we see the words "not exceeding 23" the words "not exceeding 20." This would permit the payment of the minister, and I move the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before ruling on the amendment, hon. member, we'll continue with debate, and I'll reserve on it pending.

MR. NICOLSON: Just in terms of the amendment, I might refer, Mr. Chairman, to debate in Hansard of April 17, 1973, in which a similar amendment was moved. The effect of this is not to put an impost on the Crown to require more expenditure; the only effect it could have would be to actually reduce potential expenditures, if anything.

A similar amendment was proposed in 1973 and I would commend to members the words of the mover of that amendment. He said:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, page 15. The amendment is to reduce the number of people who can be appointed to the cabinet from 23, as it now stands in section 3, to 19.

Mr. Chairman, the reason for making this amendment is that it would be absurd for a province the size of British Columbia to create a cabinet comparable in size to the whole country. We've got 29 cabinet ministers in Canada; to have 23 in British Columbia would be just a fantastic absurdity. It may soon be, Mr. Chairman, that the smallest group in the House will be not the Liberal Party or even the Conservative Party, but the number of backbenchers in the New Democratic Party who haven't been elevated.

I wonder who moved that excellent amendment and spoke so eloquently to it. Well, it was none other than the present Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). I would hope that he was on the cabinet committee reviewing legislation and reviewing this bill.

I would also perhaps ask the Clerk to take this amendment over to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) so that he might peruse it, so that he could consider setting some limits. I think that if some reasonable limits are not set here.... I think that the practical limit for today is 20. If government should find that that is too restrictive, I'm sure that, maybe in another year's time, if they felt that one more position needed to be created, members would consider creating a little bit of leeway. What we have with this amendment is the freedom to create, within that limit of 20 members, ministers without portfolio or with portfolio. If this section were to pass as amended, we would be able to have complete flexibility. The other proposals will remove the limitation in terms of how many members can hold the full portfolio. It would be set at 20.

I think that the government, if it is to pretend to have any modicum of sense and taste in terms of opening up a potential watershed of abuse, would accept this or would perhaps get up and move the committee rise and then perhaps bring back their own number. But to have this absolutely open-ended, as something that we've already embarked upon, as I say, with one Crown corporation, is, I think, a bad precedent. It is something that, if this province continues to be a two-party system.... If we were tempted to do the same thing, we'd say: "Well, you did it." I think the time to stop it is right now. I can see that with the Crown corporation it's one thing; but to do this — to make the cabinet numbers open-ended — is, I think, absolutely.... I'm not going to use strong language; I'll just say it would be very regrettable if we were to allow this to go ahead.

MR. BARBER: Hansard is a wonderful thing, Mr. Chairman, and it's a shame that the Minister of science and technology and satellite receivers isn't here to enjoy his own comments. He said a great deal more. I suppose all that one need do is refer each member of the House to page 2972 of Hansard for April 17, 1973, in order to hear extremely cogent remarks made by a now member of the government in favour of the opposition's current amendment.

The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, were he here, might also want to quote from Politics in Paradise, a book in which he also set out certain other interesting political principles which have recently been used in committees of this House in order that we be better reminded of the high principles of the given member.

If it's necessary, Mr. Chairman, I'll read into the record the entire statement of the minister now, who, as a member then, made a very similar motion. But in order not to do that, I wonder if the government might simply give an indication as to whether or not they are prepared to accept an amendment which was moved in virtually the same language some short while ago by one of their own colleagues.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the motion has not been ruled in or out of order at this time. We will permit debate to continue.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I think that the House should understand the gravity of this proposed change to legislation.

Can you imagine some of the appointments that could be made, should this pass? For instance, can you not see the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), after this passes, sitting in this House as a minister? Let's say he's the Minister of Labour. The minister from Omineca....

Interjection.

[ Page 3037 ]

MR. LEA: No, we're going to give you the Ministry of Labour, Mr. Member, because I think you'd do a great job in there after your speeches about right-to-work.

Now we could put the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) into the cabinet in a new ministry created called the Ministry of Mortgages. That would work out quite well. I'm sure the people of British Columbia would be very pleased to see the second member for Vancouver South in charge of mortgages in the province. That would be good.

What are some of the other appointments that I think would frighten the people of British Columbia? What about the member for North Peace (Mr. Brummet) in Education? That would be a good portfolio for the member for North Peace.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: You get music. You're okay there — you get music.

But seriously, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this is unnecessary legislation. Surely the province of British Columbia, through its government, knows at this time the number of cabinet ministers that they want to appoint. Surely they don't want to appoint more than 23 members with pay, but we have to assume, because of this legislation, that they are going to do that.

There's another danger. The danger is that as we approach election time, there could be members who are considered to be weak in their ridings, where the Premier, in his wisdom, could say: "Let's put this person in the cabinet for a short while, just for the election, and then we'll take him out." I'd say that me saying that before this year could be considered a wild charge. I think people would say: "What's the member for Prince Rupert saying? Would this government resort to these kinds of dirty tricks?" That's what they'd say. They'd say: "If all that happened hadn't happened...." If I got up and said, "Maybe the Premier's going to use this act for political purposes that could be termed a dirty trick," everybody would say: "Oh, the member for Prince Rupert is making a silly charge." But after this year's revelations, after seeing what this government and what this political party will do, it makes this amendment a sinister amendment, because we know that as a political party they're not above using this Legislature and the power of government to help them politically. We know that, and I believe that if this thing goes through, with an open-ended cabinet for the Premier to appoint, prior to the next election we will see appointments to the cabinet that are done for no other reason than to help someone in their back bench who may be in political problems in their own riding. That is what's going to happen.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: It doesn't sound like anything, Mr. Member. What it sounds like is that a government that gave us Lettergate and thousand-dollar bills contrary to the Election Act, a government that has slush funds going into the Premier's office from Toronto and Vancouver and not through their party, is now prepared, in my opinion. to use this act for the same purpose that they've used every other thing in government: to enhance their political party, and for no other reason. This act is sinister for that reason.

If, Mr. Chairman, we had seen a Premier who was beyond political morality or beyond using politics for immorality in a political sense, then we could let this go through and say we know that the Premier is going to act according to political morality. But knowing that the Premier hasn't used his office in that way, we have to, as an opposition on behalf of the people, be suspicious of an open-ended cabinet, because we are convinced, on this side of the House, that the Premier will use this not to serve the people of British Columbia but to serve the Social Credit Party. That's what we're afraid of. That's why we've put forward this amendment — so that the people of British Columbia will not be used by the Social Credit Party in order to get them re-elected through public funds. We know they'll do it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, you set a good example. Nunweiler seemed to be in that position.

MR. LEA: In other words, the Minister of Agriculture is confirming what I said. He said: "You did it, so we're going to do it." We didn't do it, but you intend to do it, Mr. Minister. That's what you intend to do. I'll be willing to put some money....

MR. KEMPF Where your month is?

MR. LEA: Yes, I'll be willing to put some money where my mouth is. I'm willing to bet any one of you ten bucks right now that before the next election the Premier will use this act, if it's passed, for political purposes in bringing backbenchers into cabinet for a short period of time for no other reason than to enhance the Social Credit Party in a desperate bid to maintain power.

HON. MR. MAIR: This is a very interesting debate. Mr. Chairman. I couldn't help but notice that the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) was apparently upset because we didn't tell him that we had appointed a cabinet minister without pay. We knew that we had to get an amendment to this act, as witnessed by the fact that no pay was forthcoming. The minister received no pay right from the very beginning. Now it took from January 10 until May 6 before the quick-witted first member for Victoria picked this up. He's the man, you may remember, Mr. Chairman, who sits around reading old bills in his spare time in order to pick up these little mistakes, and it took him all that time — four months — to figure this one out.

AN HON. MEMBER: He picked it up before you did.

HON. MR. MAIR: Before we did? We knew; you didn't. If that's any evidence of the quick-wittedness of that opposition, no wonder there is so much trouble. No wonder they're totally incapable of being an opposition — much less a government.

I was interested again in the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) because he always does lend so much uplifting argument to debate. He doesn't tell us that the person who invented the game that he complains we might be involved in — and God knows we shouldn't.... It was invented by him and his leader when they played shuffle off to London with Strachan, and then Nunweiler came in and it cost a half a million bucks to do absolutely nothing, and Nimsick went to one place and somebody else went to another place. You

[ Page 3038 ]

know, it ill behooves those who created such a shambles in the province of British Columbia to come along at this stage of the game and say that the Lieutenant-Governor is not entitled to have as many ministers as he deems necessary to advise him and to pay them all.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in opposition to this amendment which would restrict the numbers....

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no amendment.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, can we have a clarification on the amendment?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment has not yet been accepted or rejected, hon. member. It is the prerogative of the Chair to allow debate to continue until a decision has been reached. Debate on the amendment is in order until at that time.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, one way or another the intent of the opposition would be to restrict the original amendment to the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, by which it is apparent that they would have the intent of restricting the numbers in the executive council to 20. The original restrictions on the numbers of the executive council go back quite a long time in history to the time when the restriction was made that there could not be more than 23 members of the executive council, at a time when the total obligations and budget of the government was something under $1 billion for the whole of the province of British Columbia.

Today we have a completely different circumstance, a completely different job and obligation and task before the government of the day, and I say that the age-old restrictions imposed, you might say, by the Constitution Act place an undue inability to function on the Premier and the provincial government of the day, whoever they might be, in terms of the ability to react to changing times and requirements. This House does not always sit for long periods of time. This facility is required by the government of the day. This means that portfolios must be established and changed from time to time, and the purpose of the bill before the House is simply to remove unnecessary technical obstacles that might otherwise hinder the proper efforts of government to respond to the needs of the day.

Mr. Chairman, we have a case in point where in effect we had the Ministry of Tourism — an extremely important function in the province of British Columbia — coupled with another portfolio. Tourism is very high in our priorities. It's either number 2 or number 3 in respect to the economic values it represents — it's extremely important — and here we were in a situation where this government needed to respond to that requirement and had some difficulty in being able to do that without having to amend the Constitution Act.

I think it's very obvious why the opposition would want to keep these types of shackles on the ability of government to function in the future. I think it's quite obvious, when you relate this to other provinces and to the financial job before us today — a budget of $5.5 billion — that one can well understand and support this change in the Constitution Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, prior to proceeding, I must rule the amendment out of order. I refer members to the Journals of the House, March 9, 1887, where Speaker Pooley ruled on a point of order that a motion for leave to introduce a bill to amend the constitution by a private member of the House is out of order. The amendment is so ruled. On section 3, the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: The only thing that might convince me to let this thing go through is to hear from some more ministers. After hearing the Provincial Secretary, I'm almost willing to take back my objection. Could we do worse? Maybe it would be a good idea to open it up. To get a pound of brains over there, we may need the rest of them to come in. I think maybe after listening to the Provincial Secretary, we should bring in the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet). He might add some intellect over there. I think maybe we should bring in the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) in charge of mortgages. I think maybe we should bring the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) into Environment. We saw a display here during the last few days by the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers). He is absolutely incapable and not knowledgeable about his own portfolio. Maybe we do need a guy who will drink Fraser River water.

I have to admit that they've almost convinced me that we should withdraw our objection. Maybe if a couple more ministers got up and spoke you could win the day. Maybe the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), who I think was on the Liberal benches when his colleague from Point Grey put the original amendment, should speak. You should speak to it; it's your bill. You should speak to it; convince us why we should let those guys in. I know the Attorney-General. I know that he's looking for the kind of fire power that that group down there can give him. I mean, you're going to bring in talent if you open this up. I think I'd better quit.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I certainly can't reflect on the fact that my colleague's amendment was out of order. However, there is an amendment that could be put, which would not be out of order. That amendment could be put by a government member. It strikes me that the government should place some limitation on the number of cabinet ministers. I think that when the member for Vancouver–Point Grey....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No more than 30 now, but who knows? Maybe next time we'll be government with 40 and you'll wish that you hadn't made it this wide open, but that's not the point. That kind of discussion, I guess, goes both ways.

Really and truly, it strikes me that there should be some kind of limitation. The member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) at the time was arguing for a limitation of 19. He indicated that he didn't want that 23 in there at all. Of course, right now it's wide open. I don't think it would take the Attorney-General very long to put together an amendment that would be in order. If he would do that, then we can see where we're going. Along with my colleagues, I'm delighted to see that the member for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) is finally going to be paid for her fine work and for that crown that she's been wearing, which she told us about in her original letter — the golden crown of tourism. Now she's going to be able to reflect that golden crown of tourism in her bank account.

[ Page 3039 ]

In any event, Mr. Chairman, why shouldn't there be a limitation? Why doesn't the Attorney-General stand up and indicate to us that he can put an amendment to the committee that would be in order? Let's go beyond the 20. Let's go up to 22 or 23, but at least limit it. I suggest that's the way we should go.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: May I participate in this debate, Mr. Chairman, very briefly, if I must? I wish the members to know that the question of the elimination of the restriction on the number of persons who may be appointed to the executive council has already been considered by the Attorney-General and other members of the government. Quite frankly I'm a little distressed that the motion was found out of order, because the opposition finally got hold of an outstanding precedent brought to this House by a member who had real talent. I don't want to reflect upon the decision of the Chair, but if we dealt with the motion then we could have used an equally outstanding precedent as to how the government reacted — the same way it did in 1973; it refused the amendment. Therefore we are following the precedent which was established by the New Democratic Party when they were in the government of this province.

The size of the executive council is dictated by the necessities for the proper administration of affairs of this province. Since 1973 the responsibilities which have devolved upon government have increased. I would think the opposition would be pleased that the government since 1975 has been so successful in developing the affairs of this province that we have to have more qualified people in order to carry out the business of the people.

Consideration is being given today to the fact that in January we appointed the Minister of Tourism. We didn't have that problem when the NDP was in government, because the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) said, "Americans stay home," and just to make sure they did he let the highways get full of potholes so they couldn't drive on them anyway. They didn't need any Minister of Tourism in those days, because that government did their very best to drive them all away.

The bogeyman, the apprehensions that are being displayed by the members in debate today make one wonder whether or not they have carefully considered the responsibility of the executive cabinet. I guess it’s no problem, because they'll never again have to worry about selecting anybody. I've looked back at the selections they made in 1973. I remember when the member for Prince Rupert was brought into the cabinet; that was a bright day. I remember when they brought in the member for Fort George; that was another bright day. They had to make him a director of B.C. Rail in hopes that he'd go away and get lost someplace. And he did.

They would never use the cabinet for political purposes. They would never have thought of that. Mind you, they appointed the member for Atlin in those days as a member of the executive council without portfolio — the first native Indian to sit in this House. They kicked him out too. That wasn't political; no, it sure wasn't.

We gave very careful consideration to the restrictions that exist upon the executive councils in other governments in this country. We find that the restriction in our Constitution Act is not repeated elsewhere. We think that in the proper administration of the affairs of this province, whoever the government may be, the government should have the opportunity of appointing men and women who can discharge the responsibilities that are required. If additional portfolios are required from time to time because of changing importance in our society, then the government should be free to meet those needs. There was a time when we had lands, forests and water resources all in one ministry, even under the NDP, but the importance of those three elements to this province is greater than the burden that should be shouldered by any one member of the executive council. As a result, when you split those up you get two or three persons required in order to effectively administer those important responsibilities. To hamper a government in moving in the direction it must is something even the opposition should not wish to support.

MR. NICOLSON: That was hardly a contrite response by the Attorney-General. This is just one more wedge driven into the base of our democratic system in British Columbia. The first one was the Government Reorganization Act which he almost alluded to, whereas they can shuffle ministries and make new ministries. Now they can create any number of cabinet ministers. It makes a complete mockery. To not set limits upon ourselves here in this Legislature is to allow the erosion which is something that every member of this House is bound by honour and duty to defend. We are allowing the erosion of the Legislature itself. We are ceding to the cabinet benches more and more authority. As I say, they have the authority to completely reorganize and create ministries without any acts, and now they have access to unlimited cabinet numbers. I would have expected that the Attorney-General might have recognized the seriousness of the matter and perhaps had some sort of a vision of where he once stood in this House in terms of matters of principle. His colleague the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey, the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, did express it well. He was arguing then the difference between a limitation of 19 and one of 23. But do not say that when we were government that we brought in something that was absolutely open-ended, that we abolished all limits. This is abolishing limits; it is totally.... I don't care if the province of Saskatchewan has no limitation; that doesn't justify this province of British Columbia removing a good principle from legislation.

We're not objecting to the change in part 2 and we're not objecting to the elimination of part 4, which created a sort of fish-and-fowl situation in terms of limiting the number of members with portfolio and then setting a second limitation in terms of ministers without portfolio. If the minister would like to come up with a practical number, let's debate that. Let's debate whether 23, 24 or 25 is too many. But to absolutely open this up is a signal that this government.... Some of those Social Credit members who've had experience in opposition to our NDP government did not learn by all those years they sat in opposition. I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman. I learned a heck of a lot about this House after we were put into opposition. I wish I'd had the experience of having sat in the opposition before I had the opportunity of being catapulted into government and the cabinet.

To have such a blank cheque is something that I.... If this is allowed in this province, I hope it can be found ultra vires in the courts. I hope that there is some court of appeal. I hope that our system of democracy in this country is not so defenceless that we can allow this kind of a travesty to pass. I'm really in a quandary as to whether I should attempt a filibuster on this thing without even having discussed such a

[ Page 3040 ]

matter with my caucus colleagues, or what. But this is a travesty.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: I don't expect the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) to understand it. But when you've been on both sides of this House.... Perhaps, Mr. Member, if you should be so fortunate as to have the opportunity to serve in opposition and not merely be a one-timer in this House, then you will come to appreciate that there are certain things that stand out as being fair, decent and correct, and they stand out a country mile when you can look at things from both sides of this House.

HON. MR. MAIR: I think that I just want to make one brief comment, because there seems to be some misunderstanding, at least on the part of the member for Nelson-Creston. The obligation to govern does not increase or decrease with the size of the cabinet; that obligation to govern remains constant. The size of the job remains constant. The only thing that changes is the number of people upon whom the burden falls. Therefore the efficiency of the government depends, in large measure, on the number of people who can do the job. I quite agree that you could perhaps have too many people try to do that one job. That's something that the people will make a judgment about in due course. But I can tell you one thing: I'd rather take the chance of having one or two too many bearing that burden than to have one or two too few. If we make an error and have too many, I'm sure that people will tell us that; but they'll sure tell us a lot sooner if we have too few.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. BARBER: The comments of the Minister of Health are really not very helpful at all, because in fact the people, through this Legislature, should have from time to time — more often than simply every three or four years at the ballot box — an opportunity to comment on the performance of the government. If the minister really believed that, then of course.... Taking that principle further — to beyond the point to which even he would subscribe, I'm sure — why bother with the Legislature, why not simply decide everything at election time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, that's nonsense, Charlie. Why don't you pay attention? Take the hair out of your ears and listen for a change.

MR. BARBER: Of course it's nonsense to take it that far, and so is the whole principle as you extend it, so is the whole principle as you would argue it.

Parliament traditionally has two prerogatives regarding the organization of government. Firstly, parliament shall determine the organization of the government service by various bills that come in from time to time to establish government departments. I'm aware that there is a Ministry of Tourism bill currently being considered by cabinet. It's in its fourth draft. For political purposes the government is now writing a Ministry of Tourism act. I'll give the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) my copy if he wishes it. For political purposes....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Have you been sneaking around the halls again? Have you been looking in the waste baskets?

MR. BARBER: Who needs to? Your government is a sieve. Your government is an absolute sieve.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, could we please have order during debate?

MR. BARBER: We know which government it was that first introduced a shredder into the cabinet room. It was your government and it was your obsession with secrecy that made you do it. Previous governments commanded somewhat more respect from their employees. This government is a sieve. Of course we see these things and hear about them.

There is a Ministry of Tourism act currently being considered and it will be brought to this House in due course. The reason it will be brought to the House is for political purposes, because on that occasion it will serve the government's political purpose to consult with the Legislature before creating, in name, a new department. Why do they do that? Simply because they think there are political points to be gained. Why do they not do that on other occasions? Because there are no points to be gained. The first prerogative of parliament has been, in regard to the establishment of government itself, to vote from time to time on bills that are brought forward to create or disestablish departments.

One of the first acts of Social Credit, as my colleague from Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) pointed out, was an attempt to do away with all that — to do away with that honourable tradition and ancient prerogative of parliament by establishing instead a new act called the Government Reorganization Act, giving to cabinet the awesome sweeping powers to do it all behind closed doors.

So that's what they did in 1976 and that's why they did it. We do observe that for political purposes they are prepared to bring in a Ministry of Tourism act. You see, the problem with the Minister of Health's (Hon. Mr. Mair's) argument is that the reason they're bringing in a Ministry of Tourism act defeats his own conclusion. He tells us: "We'll let the people decide, not the Legislature. They'll be the final judge." Well, on the burden of that argument you may as well let the people decide everything every four years and in between run what Mr. Gordon Gibson used to describe in this House as a four-year elected dictatorship.

It is an ancient prerogative of parliament that we shall have the right to debate and vote on the establishment of government ministries. The Government Reorganization Act of 1976, introduced by the then Provincial Secretary, did away with all that. Now we see the second step which infringes on the second great prerogative of parliament. That prerogative has been that not only may we debate and determine for ourselves the establishment or disestablishment of ministries of the Crown, but we may also determine in this House that however many persons the Legislature sees fit shall theoretically be named to cabinet positions. Why is this? Because some time ago parliament realized the problems of cronyism, favouritism and abuse that can result if there are no limits, no controls and no ceilings.

Some time ago the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) said that they were simply following the precedent of the New Democrat administration. He knows that's not at all correct. The New Democrat administration established a ceiling consistent with the times, introduced it on this floor,

[ Page 3041 ]

had the courage to have it debated on this floor and saw it pass through the Legislature.

What a world of difference between that procedure and this coalition government, which first of all brings in a Government Reorganization Act and secondly brings in this. What disrespect for parliament and its traditions is revealed by that coalition. If they want to bring in a full-time Minister of Tourism and pay her a salary and increase the number by one, let them do so. Let them bring in the Ministry of Tourism act, which we've seen, and let them debate these things openly and publicly. That would be fair. If it is in the interests of the people of British Columbia to pass a Ministry of Tourism act, fine. Let's debate that and, if necessary, pass it on this floor. But for the government, through the Government Reorganization Act, to assume the awesome sweeping powers to do that for itself in private without being held accountable in this place is a wrong thing. To compound the wrong by then assuming for itself all the authority to determine any number of persons as may be appointed by cabinet is to do a further wrong thing.

The opposition doesn't have very many rights in the parliamentary system of Great Britain. The executive council has all the power and authority and it makes all of the decisions. That's how it works in the British system. Sometimes Canadians complain and say: "Why can't you be more cooperative? Why can't you run it like the Americans do, where they have committees that are bipartisan, that represent both sides, that draft and redraft legislation in the open at the consequence and conclusion of public hearings, all of which is done in public?" The reasons we can't do it are, first of all, that the government doesn't believe in the committee system; and, secondly, that that is not entirely consistent with the British tradition. In that tradition the government has all the power and the opposition has virtually none. Those few powers that the opposition does have have consistently tended to be built around the notions of how government shall be organized and what, within that organization, government may do. Government still wins all the votes even though, in this House, the opposition wins all the debates.

HON. MR. MAIR: What are you smoking? It's illegal to smoke that stuff. I'm prepared to put up with hyperbole, but that is....

MR. BARBER: The typically well-mannered Minister of Health, as usual, declines to debate the real issue. In part, the real issue at hand is what the rights of the opposition are and whether those rights include the right to determine from time to time how many persons may be appointed to cabinet and with what authority they shall be invested. Perhaps if the Minister of Health left the room the debate might proceed a lot faster.

What shall the powers of the opposition be to control the far greater power of government in the British system? Let me restate that until wiped out by Social Credit the two powers have traditionally been, first, the power to comment on the organization of government ministries; and, second, the power to comment on the number of ministers who may serve those purposes. What is wrong with that tradition? I haven't heard a single good argument advanced yet in opposition to that ancient means whereby the few powers that remain in the hands of the opposition shall be retained by them in this Legislature. If the government has a need to create a new department, let them make that need open and clear. Let them argue, defend and make the case here. There is nothing wrong with that.

This government of so-called businessmen, who have made more mistakes and bungles than any other government in living memory, should surely recognize that in the corporate sector any manager who proposes to rearrange his administration to add to or detract from the number of managers who carry it out is required to report to the board of directors. In the private sector the board of directors has the final say. In the private sector managers can't simply stand up and say: "This is what I've decided in my room that has the shredder in it, and I want you to approve it. By the way, I don't even want you to have the authority to approve it anymore. See you around, pals." Even in the private sector. where to say the least the democratic instinct is pretty darned frail, managers of corporations are required to go to their board of directors for approval of these things. How much more important, therefore, is it that in the public sector, where the public interest is crucially at stake, the managers of this province, the executive council, shall be required to come to their board of directors, this Legislature, and ask for permission to reorganize and ask the consent of this House to designate another person or two or three to the high office of cabinet?

Even the business sector knows more about how you run things than this group seems to, at least as this amendment provides evidence. Apparently the coalition doesn't care much for these democratic procedures. Apparently they prefer, instead, to be consistent with their first acts in government, one of which was to install a shredder in the cabinet office. Did you know that, Mr. Minister of Labour? That is what they did. Ask the now Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy); she was responsible for it. Why did they do it? Because they have secrets to hide and business to do in private that they care not to be held accountable for on the floor of this House. It's a good idea.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we return to the section. hon. member?

MR. BARBER: It is important for the traditions of this Legislature that the government tell us why they propose to remove one of the remaining powers of the opposition. If you can't persuade this House and the people why that power to examine and be asked for consent in regard to the organization of government should be granted, then it should instead be denied.

MR. NICOLSON: Hope springs eternal. It wouldn't take much to change the section to a workable section which the government wouldn't have to hang its head in shame for. Frankly, probably both sides are making a political mistake on this section: the government by showing just how arrogant they are — I will comment on that a little more — and I suppose we're making a mistake in trying to show the government the error of its ways rather than maybe taking the politically expedient route and remaining silent, hoping that the government allows this thing to pass, and then going out and telling it to the people on the hustings as a symbol of how big government is absolutely getting out of hand.

There have to be limits set. There have to be limits set on the number of directors on the board of directors of ICBC, and there has to be somewhere where government shows a modicum of sense. But perhaps not. Perhaps this government

[ Page 3042 ]

has become so arrogant, as I think has been indicated by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), who's just left, in terms of saying: "You'll never be government again." What are you saying — "We are going to be government forever and say anything and do anything to remain government forever"? It means that they've learned nothing from their actions and their misdeeds during the past election, that they have not changed direction, and that rather than seeking to change their temporary loss of popularity through being temperate in the type of legislation that they bring into this House, they are bringing in and stubbornly persisting in proceeding with this thing. One simple amendment from the government, simply to take out that part which says "by striking out 'not exceeding 23'...." If you were to leave the "not exceeding 23," then you would have some limit in there, and you would have all the other things that you need to do immediately and you'd have room for three more cabinet ministers. I just cannot see why the government cannot see this.

It's at times like this that I miss the former member for North Vancouver–Capilano, Gordon Gibson, in this House; when I miss the former member for Oak Bay, Dr. Scott Wallace, in this House. It isn't just a matter of two parties that are at political poles; there is no doubt how the Attorney-General would have felt about this when he was a Liberal. I just wonder how he could have forgotten.

Section 3 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 21

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

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

MR. BARBER: I wonder if the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) could explain the necessity for this amendment to the Highway Act.

HON. MR. FRASER: The intent behind this is to remove the population limit of 30,000. We presently cannot classify highways in communities over 30,000. It existed for a long time and applied to the cities of New Westminster, Vancouver and Victoria. Because of growth, boundary expansion and so on, it now also applies to the cities of Kamloops, Kelowna, Nanaimo, North Vancouver and Prince George. This amendment is in here so we can legally have arterials. I might say to the Legislature that any work we do or anticipate doing is always done in consultation with the councils involved. That's the intent of this amendment.

MR. LEA: If what the minister says is correct, then I see no need for this incursion into more communities. I suspect that the reason for these amendments is the Annacis crossing, so the government can deal with the city of Vancouver in any way it sees fit. Up until now, for the minister and the government to designate a highway in a community of over 30,000, they had to do it through negotiation and agreement, and then payments would go to that community.

What this amendment does is allow the government to ride roughshod over the city of Vancouver in any way it wants in the designation of highways for the approaches to the proposed Annacis crossing. Other than that, what reason is there for this amendment'? If indeed the minister says that the problem is those communities he mentioned — Prince George and Kamloops and others that have risen to 30,000 — why take the limitation off altogether, so that now the city of Vancouver is taken into it? The cities of Victoria and Burnaby are now included in this act. The minister said: "Yes, this is what we're going to do." But he hasn't given the reason for it.

Why, for instance, do you now need power in Burnaby that you didn't have before? Why does the minister need power in the city of Vancouver that he didn't need before? It seems to me that this is another move by government to centralize power in the hands of Victoria. It's a vote of non-confidence in the municipalities of Vancouver, Burnaby and Victoria. You can see the reason that probably would be needed in communities that are in the centre of a valley or out in the rural sections of the province where there is a necessity for the government to have this kind of power. But to move that same kind of power into municipalities of over 30,000, including Burnaby, Vancouver, Delta and Surrey, seems to me to be grasping power for power's sake. What this does is take away from those municipalities the power of the councils to zone.

I don't know how many members are aware of it, but in order for a municipality — up until now, a community of under 30,000 — to rezone or to have a change in zoning, the council of that community is not empowered to do it unless they have the signature of the Minister of Highways. This means that the cities of Vancouver, Burnaby and Victoria, in order to rezone within half a mile of each side of that highway, now have to apply to the Minister of Transportation and Highways to rezone, taking power away from the municipal council. Also, in the smaller communities often the staff isn't large enough to deal with some of the problems that have to be dealt with in these kinds of projects. But in communities of over 30,000 they have staffs that are capable and large enough to deal with the kinds of problems that the minister and the government want to take unto themselves.

I know it happens that this kind of thing can come through the legislative process and hit the floor of the House without members of government fully understanding the ramifications. I suspect that this is one of those innocuous little things

[ Page 3043 ]

— as it would have been called — coming through the legislative process that probably no member of the government took a look at or had explained to them. It looks to me like the bureaucracy within our own Ministry of Highways has asked the minister to do this, and maybe the minister isn't really aware of what this could mean — the ramifications. But as an ex-mayor, an ex-municipal politician, he should understand that to take further powers of zoning and planning away from the cities of Vancouver, Victoria and Burnaby is ridiculous. I strongly suspect that communities the size of Prince George are getting to the point now where they could handle this kind of planning and zoning on their own without having to ask for the help, or the hindrance, of the provincial government.

Kamloops is another one. I remember when I was the Minister of Highways and we met with the Kamloops council, when the now member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) was on that council....

HON. MR. MAIR: That's the time when Lorimer fell asleep, wasn't it?

MR. LEA: That's right, the same time.

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, I remember that.

MR. LEA: I remember the objections of the now Minister of Health to the kind of things that now he's going along with and his government's bringing in. We were talking about bringing the road in around the industrial area east of Kamloops.

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, Campbell Creek.

MR. LEA: And you didn't agree. In fact you took exception, Mr. Member, to the powers that the Ministry of Highways had to do that. Now what happens? Isn't it strange, Mr. Chairman, how things change?

We have more municipal politicians on that side of the House. We have the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), the member for Kamloops, the member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser), the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and the member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). Why would people who have been involved in municipal politics want to have a further incursion into the rights and the duties of the councils elected by the people in those communities? But this is what it is.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: And Prince George. Almost every one of you has been on a municipal council, and for you to sit there and have this incursion.... For instance, I would like, as we discuss this, to have the Minister of Municipal Affairs tell us how this relates to the act that he is planning on bringing in later. I'd like to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs if he was aware that this kind of power was being taken away from the municipalities. It seems to me a very strange act, for a government that should be so sensitive to the municipal councils throughout this province, to take this further incursion into the municipal field. There's no need for it.

When he got up to explain it, the Minister of Highways didn't show us any need for it. But if there's a need for this kind of act for the Annacis crossing, then level with us. I suspect that that's what it's for, so that government can do what they want to do against the wishes of the residents living on both ends of the Annacis crossing. What other reason could the minister ask for such wide, sweeping powers? Do you realize that now for half a mile on either side of Kingsway in Vancouver the minister can stop any zoning that the municipality wants to do'!

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Yes, that's right. Alec. It is right.

Did you know that on either side of any arterial highway that goes through a community of over 30,000, the member for Cariboo — the Minister of Highways — by his signature can turn back any application for rezoning from those communities? Did you know that if this thing goes through the minister can have any building torn down and shoved aside? Did you know that if this act goes through in those municipalities of over 30,000 the minister can now talk about the setback? You may as well literally wipe out half of the planning of the municipality of over 30,000.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I would like the record to show in Hansard that when I mentioned that they wanted to wipe out the planning departments of the municipalities of Vancouver, Burnaby, Victoria and every community over 30,000, the government benches applauded. They gleefully applauded, because if ever there has been a government to centralize the decision-making process into Victoria, it has to be this latest Social Credit government. They've done it in schools. They are now doing it in highways. They've done it in every darned piece of legislation that they've brought in that they could possibly put it into, to take the power away from the municipalities, the school boards and the regional districts and bring that power into Victoria. They've done it every time.

I would like to ask the minister whether the municipalities involved know that this piece of legislation is going through. Have you talked to Victoria municipal council, Burnaby municipal council and Vancouver municipal council and told them that you're going to be taking powers away from them that they've had since the beginning of time in this province, since we've had municipalities? Have you talked to the municipal councils about this amendment that would make these changes?

MR. BARBER: This is a dangerous piece of legislation, because it undermines the integrity and independence of local government. It is a dangerous piece of legislation because it undermines the principle of autonomous local government in British Columbia. It is a dangerous piece of legislation because it is heavy-handed and stupid and unnecessary.

The Minister of Highways let the cat out of the bag yesterday at 4:30 p.m. when we were discussing the Annacis crossing. He inadvertently admitted what the real purpose of this section was. The political necessity of this amendment is clearly to find a legal way to surmount the objections of Burnaby and Vancouver councils to the Annacis crossing. The necessity for this is clearly to overcome the objections of the neighbourhoods through which all the feeder routes will have to pass in order to supply the traffic for the Annacis

[ Page 3044 ]

crossing. Yesterday at 4:30 p.m. the Minister of Highways admitted as much when he said: "The bigger problem than building the structure is getting access to it." The Minister of Highways knows he cannot built the Annacis crossing successfully — within the framework of what he thinks success means — unless he can build the access to the bridge. The only way he can do that is by pushing this section through. Of course they've done it without telling Vancouver council what it means. Of course they've done it without notifying Burnaby council either. And of course my own city council has yet to be informed of the implications of this. The reason this is here is to overcome the objections of local governments to the Annacis crossing and the feeder routes that are necessary to put the project together.

The minister himself said yesterday: "A bigger problem than building a structure is getting access to it." Well, he's right. That's the problem with Annacis. You've got to get access to it through the neighbourhoods of Vancouver and Burnaby. That means Vancouver South, much to the political peril of its current Social Credit members. That means Burnaby; that means New Westminster, to some smaller extent; and that means, finally, the need, apparently, for this amendment.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who should oppose this amendment because of the way in which it undermines local government, should be made aware that the new powers that the Minister of Highways will have include, firstly, the power to designate arterial highways, as provided in section 31 of the Highway Act; secondly, control over construction and maintenance of arterial highways — section 33(l); thirdly, all the powers of a municipality to lay out, construct and maintain the highway — section 34(l) — and the further powers of a municipality in relation to other aspects of the maintenance of arterial highways — section 34(2) ; fourthly, new powers to be granted to the Minister of Highways and to be taken away from communities over 30,000 include the power to fix a distance from a highway at which fences, buildings and other structures may be placed, including the power to order demolition of any structure along the highway — sections 42(l) and 42(2) of the Highway Act.

The practical consequence of this is to give the Minister of Highways the personal power to determine anything that goes on in an area one mile wide where any arterial highway runs through any community over 30,000, the power to order setbacks, to demolish and alter buildings, and the power to approve zoning. The Minister of Highways, by the seemingly innocent act of designating a road to be arterial within a community over 30,000, is in fact giving himself the powers of a planning czar to determine in the privacy of his Victoria office what local governments should be determining for themselves in public.

This is not an innocent little section. The minister let the cat out of the bag yesterday when he admitted that the problem with Annacis was not the structure, but the access to it. This is an attempt to sneak through the Legislature, without any announcement of the government's true intentions, a legislative means of bending local government in Burnaby, Vancouver and New Westminster to the will of Social Credit in regard to the Annacis crossing. That's what it's all about.

If you simply want to maintain arterial highways, go ahead and do it and no one will object. The minister says it's been technically unlawful to do so for years. Fine. Who cares? Has anyone raised objections to that?

AN HON. MEMBER: You.

MR. BARBER: We've never raised objection to that. If you want to maintain an arterial highway, go ahead. Why do you need these additional powers in order to do so? You don't need the power to do so. If what you want to do is look after an arterial highway through an urban community of 30,000 or more persons, go ahead. Spend the money to repair the potholes, paint the lines, fix the gutters and build the sidewalks. Go ahead. No one objects to that. What we do object to is the increasing diminution of authority at the local level and the increasing aggrandizement of it at the provincial level by your coalition government.

The literal need for this bill is the need of Social Credit to push through the Annacis crossing at all costs. Why? Well, if they don't, they'll lose the services of the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson), who will resign and reduce them to a one-person majority in this Legislature.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Well, at least he said he would resign, and I presume he meant it. Maybe the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) knows better, but I took him at his word. If they can't build the Annacis crossing they're in political trouble with one of their members, and they need all the members they can get. The problem is they can't build it over the objections of local government in regard to access routes, feeder routes and all the necessary construction.

The steps the government will take are obvious enough. First of all they'll build the bridge, and that's all there is to it. Then they will hear complaints from people that they can't get to the bridge. So then they will stand up and say: "We've had so many complaints from the people of greater Vancouver that now we have to build feeder routes to it, so here's plan two." And after they build the feeder routes, they will then discover that some of them trespass on the integrity of neighbourhoods in Vancouver and Burnaby. In order to get away from that problem they call in plan three, which is this amendment today. Plan three would then allow the coalition, through the office of the Minister of Highways, to make all the decisions anyway. That's why this is here. That's why this amendment is not innocent at all. That's why it gives to the Minister of Highways powers he does not need and should not have in the great urban communities of British Columbia.

I agree that in other, much smaller communities there is apparently not the planning resource available to local government. Sometimes the planning department consists of a half-time town clerk, and that's not adequate. At those times the planning advice of the ministries of Municipal Affairs and Transportation and Highways is a good thing to have. We don't object at all, because local governments at such a small level with such a tiny population clearly can't afford it and can't do it. We don't object to that, and don't misconstrue our objection. When you're talking about communities of over 30,000 people, though, you are talking about a community that has the financial, intellectual and training base to support a good planning office and to make decisions on zoning and bylaws and arterial highways for themselves. They are competent and able and entitled, until now. Now, by the result of this not-innocent-at-all little amendment,

[ Page 3045 ]

they have lost some measure of that entitlement, authority and autonomy. Why? Because the Minister of Transportation and Highways proposes to do it himself. Why? Because he thinks he knows better. Why? Because they know they will run into objection in regard to the access routes for Annacis, and they want the power today in order to meet those objections a year from now and not have to fight the Annacis crossing battle all over again in this Legislature.

The new powers that the minister can now exercise in Vancouver city are powers that he need not have and should not have, because Vancouver city is entirely competent to do it for itself. If all you want to do is fix potholes, go ahead. No one will criticize that for a moment, assuming you do it properly. But you are giving to yourself a level of arbitrary zoning authority that you do not need and should not have. You should not have it because here in Victoria you're not competent to be the best judge. You do not need it because if you're building things that the people want, their local councils will approve and through consultation will allow them. You don't need this power if your house is in order in regard to your relations with local government. If those relations are in good shape, you can negotiate, you can collaborate, and you can determine where the potholes will be fixed along Kingsway.

Local government should be put on notice by this debate that the government wants a level of control over their own affairs to which the government is not entitled. The only apparent reason for it is this government's intention to bulldoze the Annacis crossing and the necessary access routes to it, regardless of local objection; there is no other rational explanation.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I have never seen a letter, in my five years as municipal affairs critic, asking that some corrective legislation be brought in in order to allow the paving of arterial highways in Vancouver city; I've never seen that. I don't believe that the minister could produce a single document which demonstrates that any local government over the population of 30,000 wants this; if he could, let him table it now, but if he can't, let him admit that this is not the innocent little device that he would tell us it is to simply designate arterial highways. To the contrary, it's a means of building Annacis and all its feeder routes against all objection. At the moment your power to do so is questionable.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Well, maybe not. The minister smiles. It may also be nonexistent. I think it's questionable, because, of course, there is a provision in the Municipal Act that allows the Minister of Municipal Affairs to personally rewrite any zoning bylaw in the province. My colleague from Prince Rupert may not have remembered that, but that is the case. The now Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) brought in that incredible power and that incredible incursion into the autonomy of local government. So it may be that what they can't do through Highways they can do through Municipal Affairs. Be that as it may, when we stood up and asked the minister to tell us why he needed this power, the only answer he gave related to the totally bogus issue of the designation of arterial highways. He did not mention all of the other powers that come into play when you give him this original power. He neglected to tell us about sections 31, 33, 34 and 42 in the Highway Act, which also come into force when this seemingly innocent little provision is made law.

If it were only the thing the Minister of Highways said it was, we probably wouldn't object — an amendment to allow him to pave potholes on Kingsway and on other arterials in Vancouver would be fair ball. But the minister, apparently by design, decided not to tell us about the impact of sections 31, 33, 34 and 42 in the Highway Act, which now come into force, assuming this amendment passes. This is a dangerous provision. It is an attack on the integrity of local government in communities of over 30,000. It is an attack on the planning authority of those communities. It is an attack on the ability of those communities and their local government to exercise the democratic authority that they must be allowed to exercise.

You know, just a few minutes ago, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) — who fortunately has left — said: "The reason to have more cabinet ministers is in order to share the work." I could argue as well that the reason to have local government is because the province can't do all the work. That's why we have the institutions of local government in this province. That's why, by and large, it succeeds. They are accountable and they should be in power. This not innocent provision diminishes the power of local government in communities over 30,000. That is the impact of sections 31, 33, 34 and 42, which also will now be granted to the authority of the Minister of Highways and previously were denied him in communities over 30,000.

I have other colleagues who wish to speak on the matter, but I'd like to hear from the government if they have any rational explanation at all as to why the powers of local government should be so undermined, diminished and reduced by the practical consequences of this not so innocent amendment to the Highway Act.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I've been accused of being a bully by one of my colleagues, and she's probably right. However, just before the bewitching hour, I wanted to just put this into context.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The witching hour is 12; the bewitching hour around here is 6.

Mr. Chairman, not long ago we listened to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), when he was discussing transit, tell us how he wanted to make sure that decision-making went to the local communities. That's what he said. That was his argument around his $55 million surplus funds. He wanted to get those powers into the local community where decisions could best be made.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we'll watch how he votes. I don't think we'll get an opportunity to watch that before 6 o'clock, but we'll watch how he votes on this section when his colleague comes in and centralizes the power of planning here in Victoria for every community in this province.

I know how darned convenient it is for a Minister of Highways to decide who should build along the highway, and how they should build and access, and so on. As a matter of fact, I remember a Minister of Highways long gone in this province who made good use of the zoning ability that he had along the highways of this province.

[ Page 3046 ]

Mr. Chairman, there is a very good reason in smaller communities where there is ribbon development for a Minister of Highways to have that kind of access, but in responsible large communities, there is no reason for this provision. This provision tells him that he can deem any through road in our municipalities as a highway and he can decide whether you can build on it, how large you can build, and the access. That's the reason he's doing it, of course. It's for the Annacis crossing. He's got Delta, a community with more than 30,000. He's got New Westminster to contend with, a community of some 40,000 people. He's got Burnaby to contend with, a municipality, Mr. Chairman, with 150,000 majestic people, according to my colleague for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly).

AN HON. MEMBER: Let Eileen speak.

AN HON. MEMBER: You wouldn't let her speak for herself.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to let my colleague speak right now, but I just wanted to let the Minister of Municipal Affairs know that I heard what he said before, and I'm going to be watching how he votes on this section.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

Hon. Mr. McClelland tabled answers to question 64 on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.

APPENDIX

64 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources the following questions:

With reference to Columbia River power development financing as outlined in the British Columbia Financial and Economic Review 1979—

1. What is the total expenditure on construction of storage projects to date?

2. What are the total expenditures on generation, transformation and transmission facilities to date?

3. What is the total estimate of the total amount required to complete the project?

4. What was the total amount, including interest, received under the Columbia River Treaty?

The Hon. R. H. McClelland replied as follows:

"1. $599,629,664 to 30 April 1980.

"2. $670,666,091 to 30 April 1980.

"3. $2,644,006.

"4. $479,107,523."