[ Page 4877 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Dismissal of Bruce Donald. Mr. Macdonald –– 4877

Amax mine tailings in Alice Arm. Mr. Passarell –– 4878

Coca-Cola contract for B.C. Games. Hon. Mr. Wolfe replies –– 4878

Proposed Campbell River coal mine. Mr. Gabelmann –– 4879

Policy on size of forest companies. Mr. King –– 4879

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

On vote 156: minister's office –– 4880

Mr. Barber

Mr. Lorimer

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. D'Arcy

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Barrett

Mr. King

Tabling Documents

B.C. Cellulose Company financial statements for the year ending December 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 4901

Report on education for 1979-80.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 4902

Appendix –– 4902

TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's indeed a pleasure for me to introduce a person in the gallery today who is retiring after 30 years in the public service of British Columbia. His name is Mr. Jim Williams. Latterly he was director of administration and appeals for the Public Service Commission. Jim joined the public service in 1951 as the first personnel officer for the Forest Service, where he organized the personnel program and its administration. Some 11 years later he joined the Public Service Commission in 1962 as the coordinator of accident prevention. Starting from scratch, he was responsible for developing and ensuring the application of safety practices and principles throughout the government service, something that at that time no other provincial government had attempted to do. In 1966 Jim became the chief selection officer for the Public Service Commission during a period of unprecedented expansion, and in 1971 he became the executive assistant to the then chairman of the Public Service Commission. From 1975 to the present, Jim has served as director of administration and employee relations, now known as the director of administration and appeals.

Jim can very certainly be proud of his career and his years of service, and I know that each member of his House will join me in wishing him and his lovely wife, Frances, many happy years of well-earned retirement.

MS. BROWN: In the gallery with us this afternoon is a group of community social-service workers from Douglas College along with a couple of their instructors. Would the House join me in bidding them welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I had the pleasure of meeting with the group that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) has just mentioned. I would like to ask the House to especially welcome these students from the community social-service program at Douglas and their instructor, Betty Emery. The very special class here today is graduating this month and will be going into the field of social service. In welcoming them I hope the members will congratulate them on their graduation.

MR. DAVIDSON: With us today in the gallery is Mayor Ernie Burnett for Delta. I would ask all members to join with me in giving him a warm welcome today.

MR. COCKE: I rise on a point of personal privilege. Yesterday, on a widely publicized TV show, the Premier made a statement that was quite incorrect, indicating that this member, when Minister of Health in 1974, introduced a clause on balance-billing into a contract between the Medical Services Commission and the Medical Association. That clause was introduced in 1971 by the previous government. As a matter of interest, we introduced an order-in-council on June 6, 1974, making extra billing against the regulations of the commission. I feel that this kind of misinformation is very harmful to an hon. member, and I demand a firm and full apology from the Premier of the province at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before a matter of privilege can be considered and before we can entertain debate on the matter, the matter must be considered to see whether or not it is indeed a matter of privilege. If the member has a written statement and the motion which would accompany the matter. I would be happy to see it.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the whole question can be resolved by the Premier at this point, with an apology in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Then it would not be a matter of privilege: it would now be a matter of a ministerial statement.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I did use information on the Jack Webster show which was provided to me and which was incorrect. The question of including the clause in the contract for balance-billing was introduced by Ralph Loffmark and was included again in the next contract by Dennis Cocke, the then minister. When I found out the information that I had relayed on that program was incorrect as given to me, I immediately phoned the Webster program and asked him if he would correct this on the same program and give it the same wide circulation, which he offered to do.

If I caused any inconvenience to the member, I apologize; that was the information I had at the time. The facts are, Mr. Speaker — to make sure the record is clear — that the opportunity to balance-bill, after many years of medicare, was introduced by Ralph Loffmark and was continued in the contract by Dennis Cocke, the then minister, in 1974.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, during question period we expect that the Attorney-General, if changed in personality, would have been properly announced by the Premier. So before question period commences, could the Premier table the resignation of the hon. Premier and introduce the order-in-council appointing the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We appreciate the member's good humour, but he has sought the floor on other than a point of order.

MR. LAUK: On a new point of order, if the hon. member for Dewdney is not the Attorney-General, I would ask that he yield that chair to the Attorney-General, who's been waiting patiently in the back of the hall, and that's a question of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Oral Questions

DISMISSAL OF BRUCE DONALD

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the Attorney-General, and I'm not in all that good humour about it, Mr. Speaker. Can the Attorney-General confirm that he has dismissed Bruce Donald, senior Crown prosecutor in the Vancouver area?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 4878 ]

MR. MACDONALD: I ask the Attorney-General what the grounds were for that dismissal. Did it have anything to do with the release of public information, which was properly and should properly have been before the public?

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer to that question is no.

MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary, what were the grounds?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Based upon information which came to me just over two weeks ago, I was led to wonder whether or not Mr. Donald had released information from files within his possession as senior Crown counsel to persons unauthorized to receive that information, contrary to the public service oath, and also whether or not in respect of those same matters he had in response to questions posed by me and by senior members of the ministry responded untruthfully. I met with Mr. Donald last Friday and satisfied myself that both circumstances were the case. I was left with no alternative but to dismiss him for misconduct.

MR. MACDONALD: My supplementary is to the Attorney-General. Did this information on which you acted come to you through the offices of Mr. Peter Butler, who was the counsel for Mr. Vogel in a libel suit respecting the CBC hat is now proceeding? Was it based upon the discoveries in hat case, which are confidential documents until the trial?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question would elucidate a legal opinion. I think the member is wrong.

MR. MACDONALD: Before deciding who's lying, why would not the Attorney-General at least suspend him, as was he case with Mr. Vogel, or leave the matter until this comes before the court?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The matter was not one which involved testimony on the part of the Deputy Attorney-General. In fact, it was sworn evidence of another person. That evidence was put to Mr. Donald, and he agreed it was substantially correct.

MR. MACDONALD: Wasn't the real reason for this dismissal that the Attorney-General dismissed the senior Crown prosecutor because in 1979 he revealed certain letters with respect to two miscarriages of justice which were of public interest — these are the Andrew Rigg case and the Micky Moran case, and this is irrespective of whether or not he comments of the CBC were justified or not — and that his is punishment for that release of information that should have been in the public domain anyway?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the member's information is inaccurate and incomplete.

AMAX MINE TAILINGS IN ALICE ARM

MR. PASSARELL: I have a question for the Minister of Environment. In view of the recent shocking revelations that he report of scientists to advise the government on the Amax permit was the minority opinion of the chairman only, and that four out of the five eminent scientists on the panel did not approve the dumping of toxic waste in Alice Arm, has the minister decided to revoke pollution control permit No. PE-4335, issued to Amax Canada?

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

MR. PASSARELL: Pursuant to section 4(4) of the Pollution Control Act, did the director of pollution control forward a copy of the application to the Ministers of Health and Agriculture?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a new question. Can the minister confirm that the federal cabinet issued its permit on April 10, 1979?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I am not yet privy to information about what goes on in the federal cabinet.

MR. PASSARELL: In view of the fact that the federal government did issue the permit on April 10, 1979 — it's been public for a year and a half — can the minister confirm that our Pollution Control Board issued its permit on January 12, 1979, three months ahead of the federal government?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Again, I'll take that question as notice. I don't have the specific dates at hand, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PASSARELL: In view of the fact that the B.C. government issued its pollution control permit three months before the federal government acted contrary to the predominant view of the panel of scientists, has the minister decided to call for a full public inquiry into the Amax mine proposal for the dumping of toxic mine waste into the Nishga food fisheries at Alice Arm? Can the minister give his personal assurance that this Nishga food fishery will not be destroyed by this asinine movement by this government to allow half a million tons of mine waste to be dumped into the ocean?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is based upon information which apparently hasn't been confirmed in the House, in that part of it was taken as notice. In any event, considerable opinion is being expressed in the question itself.

COCA-COLA CONTRACT FOR B.C. GAMES

HON. MR. WOLFE: I would like to respond to a question I took as notice yesterday. The question was from the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), and related to Coca-Cola and fruit juices at the British Columbia Games. I would like to answer one question briefly regarding these games and the availability of fruit juices for the athletes taking part in the games.

At the British Columbia Winter Games in Prince George  — the most recent games — Coca-Cola, the official soft drink of the games, was available at each of the game sites and free to athletes. Proper nutrition at the games is vital, and so milk and juice were readily available. Juices were served at both breakfast and dinner. Each athlete's lunch included a container of milk. To answer a specific part of the member's question, it is my understanding that Coke has never been served at breakfast, nor do the athletes have access to Coke at breakfast or dinner.

There simply is no monopoly by Coca-Cola. In fact, there is presently an agreement with the British Columbia Dairy Foundation to be very much involved with the games

[ Page 4879 ]

in the future. The B.C. Games have become an example of this province's ability to stage athletic competitions second only to the Olympics in size and in the number of participants. I'm pleased with the association and assistance of the Dairy Foundation and Coca-Cola, and can assure British Columbians that good nutrition is maintained throughout each of the British Columbia Games.

We applaud such organizations as Coca-Cola, the Dairy Foundation, the banks and many others too numerous to mention who participate and help with a major contribution toward making these games a success.

PROPOSED CAMPBELL RIVER COAL MINE

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Environment. The minister has had for some time now the second-stage report by Weldwood Lusgar for their proposal to establish a coal-mine adjacent to Campbell River. Can the minister now confirm that he has decided to tell the company that he will not allow a coal-mine in the middle of the Campbell River area which would destroy the entire salmon fishery in that area?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, the stage-two coal guideline submission by Weldwood Lusgar is before the coal guideline steering committee and has not proceeded to the point where it's ready to come back to the cabinet committee for their decision on whether or not to proceed.

POLICY ON SIZE OF FOREST COMPANIES

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. The Premier has indicated that forest companies are — or will be — allowed only to reach a certain size in the province of British Columbia. There is widespread concern in the business community that the government has an unstated policy in this regard, outside the relevant provisions of the Forest Act. Can the Premier confirm that companies wishing to invest in the B.C. forest industry are obliged to meet conditions which are not now codified in law?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the government has a stated policy, and it has that policy backed up with authority contained in the Forest Act. Of course the matters of high public policy are stated and, if necessary to enforce them, consideration will be given to changes in the areas of authority to make sure that in this province we maintain a balance within our forest industry so it does not fall into a single set of hands or a few hands. This government has rejected the other option of big-government takeover in the forest industry, the option considered by the opposition.

MR. KING: On a supplementary, perhaps the Premier would be kind enough to quote the precise section of the Forest Act that he refers to. I have no knowledge of a provision of the Forest Act which restricts the size of a company in this province. All I'm asking the Premier is if he will please put in writing, either by regulation or some other statutory provision, the precise criteria which the government has restricting the size of forest companies, so that people in the industry might understand what that policy is and be able to comply in an even-handed fashion.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I feel the policy is clearly understood by those who would consider expanding in the forest industry. The Forest Act itself gives the ministry the opportunity to rule on the transfer of cutting permits. I might say that I never saw any policy in the Forest Act, or what limited act there was when the NDP was in government, that said that they were going to take the industry over by government.

MR. KING: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure if the Premier Goes over the Blues he will be duly and appropriately confused by his own answers. The Premier has indicated that if it is necessary to change the act, despite all of the powers he now alleges are there, then they will do so. This gives further ominous reason for concern to people in the industry, and I ask him to articulate precisely what he had in mind in terms of further legislative changes.

MR. SPEAKER: Questions involving future policy and the need for legislation are out of order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, in response....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Mr. Premier, if a question is out of order, then I cannot accept an answer.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I had felt that the first part....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is not any part of that question that the Chair could determine to be in order.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. Perhaps you could ask a question that is in order.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Premier would be kind enough to indicate whether or not there is an intention on the part of his government to reduce to writing precisely what their policy is, so that it may be distributed to the public and to the industry. Is there a plan to put into writing, either by regulation or in some other form, what their policy is. rather than to change it from day to day according to the whim of the Premier

MR. SPEAKER: The question is in order insofar as it asks for plans that are underway.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the policies of this government are not whims taken by this government or the Premier from day to day, but are a matter of high government policy to meet its philosophical commitment that there shall be a balance of small and large forest firms in the industry, and that no one firm or no few firms could take over the total industry. That policy has been clearly enunciated by this government. It was dramatically illustrated by events a number of years ago. It is not my intention to comment that the events were not clearly understood by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, but I clearly want to say, along with that, that we recognize the private sector as being the one that should operate the forest industry of this province. In saying that, we shall not allow any small group in the private sector to dominate the forest industry. I further clearly state that it is not our policy to use the taxpayers' money to take over forest firms, with big-government ownership as the option. I think

[ Page 4880 ]

the forest industry can rest assured that there are protections; they cannot be gobbled up and will not be gobbled up, either by one or two big companies or by the government itself.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 156: minister's office, $186,675.

MR. BARBER: Before we adjourned at lunch we were busy clearing up the record of misinformation concerning the purchase of a trolley in Germany. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) started back-tracking and offering a slightly different explanation. I went on to say that Robert Bonner himself should be credited with telling the truth that other Socreds have not told about this particular trolley. I wish to advise the committee I was wrong. It was not Robert Bonner; it was the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis).

I would like to read briefly into the record that five years ago the now Minister of Finance publicly contradicted B.C. Hydro and the false claims Hydro made concerning the alleged unsuitability of this particular streetcar. To his credit, five years ago the now Minister of Finance publicly chastised B.C. Hydro for providing "false and misleading information" on the nature of this trolley. It may be that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is unaware of the honest and factual statement of his colleague. But let me, if I may, read it into the record, so as to — I hope once and for all — end the phony claim that this vehicle was unsuitable, that its purchase was ill-advised and that it couldn't run on any tracks, because Mr. Curtis himself made it perfectly clear that that was a false claim.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: And there are references from Public Accounts, which my colleague from Alberni (Mr. Skelly) remembers.

I quote from an article in the Vancouver Province of June 2, 1976, entitled "Trolley Costs Defended," by Mark Wilson:

"B.C. Hydro officials, including chairman Robert Bonner, were misleading or inaccurate in a presentation this week to the public accounts committee of the Legislature, Municipal Affairs Minister Hugh Curtis said Tuesday. Curtis said he was not present at the committee hearing, but newspaper reports seem to show that Hydro witnesses had inflated the unit price of secondhand trolley buses bought under the New Democratic government, and had wrongly stated the reasons why a $150,000 German-built streetcar could not be demonstrated to the public.

"One W.D. Duncan" — who may or may not have had an axe to grind, and who worked for B.C. Hydro; I don't know if he still does — "said the streetcar's wheels are too small and too narrow to allow it to run on a conventional rail line, claiming that it would topple sideways on curves. Curtis, while alleging that the vehicle was bought in haste, said that it can operate over railway trackage provided overhead power supply is provided. Similar streetcars have been ordered by the city of Edmonton for operation over standard-gauge railway tracks.

"Curtis said the reason that no operating trials were to be held was because it would cost $100,000 to erect two temporary stations on B.C. Hydro's Central Park line, install overhead wire and do other necessary works. The minister said his government judges streetcar trials premature, although he thinks the public would find the car impressive."

Mr. Curtis went on in the same comments to defend the purchase of the allegedly derelict buses obtained by the New Democrat administration for — guess what, Mr. Chairman — spare parts.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: That was the purpose all along. But you needn't take my word for it. Take the word of Hugh Curtis — then Municipal Affairs minister, now Minister of Finance — the man who set the record straight on the worthwhile nature of the purchase of this streetcar, which he described as "impressive," and who set the record straight as well as to whether or not it would allegedly not fit the tracks: it would fit the tracks, it did fit the tracks, it does fit the tracks, and it should be used today on the same B.C. Electric tracks to provide rapid commuter service from Burnaby to Vancouver. That, after all, was the original proposal for a demonstration project from Burnaby Lake to downtown. It would have made sense; it did make sense, and to the credit of the now Minister of Finance, Mr. Curtis, he said publicly in 1976 that the false claims of B.C. Hydro notwithstanding, the vehicle was perfectly serviceable, worked in a perfectly reasonable way and fit on the tracks.

I hope that this time the minister might be willing to admit that the now Minister of Finance, Mr. Curtis, was telling the truth. He may not like to hear the truth from New Democrats — fair enough; he may not like to hear the truth from employees of his own Urban Transit Authority, who would tell him the same thing if he'd bother to ask. But he should at least accept the truth published in June 1976 from his own cabinet colleague, who said that that vehicle was perfectly usable, was a perfectly reasonable approach to transit, worked on those tracks, apparently was going to work in Edmonton — and presumably has, because they now have rapid transit there — and was a perfectly sensible purchase.

Mr. Curtis did go on, though, to correct one other falsehood. It was in regard to the purchase of the trolley buses from Saskatchewan, which the minister had indicated were derelict. You know, Mr. Chairman, B.C. Hydro at the time — and this may be the origin of the false reports we've heard from the government benches ever since, except for the Minister of Finance, who has told the truth — alleged that these so-called derelict buses cost $5,000 apiece. Well, once again Mr. Curtis corrected the record and said that they only cost $1,700 to $1,800 apiece for a complete bus. Now why were they purchased? Well, not to operate, but rather to use them for spare parts. If you bought the individual spare parts, it would cost a great deal more than $1,700 or $1,800 per unit to get them all.

[ Page 4881 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: How much more?

MR. BARBER: Ask the Minister of Finance if you don't know; but if you don't care, keep your mouth shut.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, you have been advised repeatedly about parliamentary language, temperament and discretion in this chamber.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, if you do your job, you won't have to do this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member who just rose knows better than to interrupt the Chair when the Chair is already on a particular point of order, and knows that he should wait until the conclusion of that point of order, at which time any point of order will be entertained. But to the first member for Victoria, please. I ask the member to bear in mind where he is and the rules that bind us in this place. And if other members would cease from cross-chatter while the member is speaking, we would be able to proceed with the business at hand.

The first member for Victoria continues.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your intent to respect my right to speak uninterrupted and to correct certain entirely false information about the purchase of vehicles from Saskatchewan at an extraordinary bargain in order that spare parts might be made available more cheaply than by any other means for the transit service and the Transit Bureau of British Columbia; and as well to correct the record repeatedly misstated by certain persons about the advisability of the purchase of this particular trolley vehicle. I once more ask the committee not to bother, if they don't wish, for their own partisan reasons, to accept any argument from the New Democrat members — fair enough. But at least you should listen to your own Minister of Finance, who, when he was Minister of Municipal Affairs, told the truth about why that purchase was made, what the value of those spare parts was, and went on to say — and I quote from the article in the Province — that the public of British Columbia, if they knew the record of the trolley proposal, would find it "impressive." Well, it was impressive; it was a progressive, imaginative, useful and perfectly serviceable project.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got to be kidding.

MR. BARBER: Well, then take it up with Curtis if you think I've got to be kidding, because I'm just quoting him. Take it up with your own colleague, if you don't believe it.

However, we try once again to correct the record and to read into the record comments which the members — at least some of them — might find credible, and that is comments from their own colleagues. Meanwhile we have other comments on transit which will be presented by other of my colleagues this afternoon. We're concerned about the bungling and the bullying of the Minister of Finance in the field of transit. Several of us opposite, on behalf of persons concerned with the democratic impulse, who believe in the democratic system and who resent the roughshod and bullying attempts of this minister to overturn the proper decisions of the GVRD, will be debating that in the hours and days to come.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I wish to reiterate what I said this morning. I realize that much of this discussion stems from the fact that there was a fair bit of criticism by myself in response to other comments made — especially when I outlined the attempts made by the former NDP government during the early seventies to purchase almost anything rolling, as I put it. As we're aware, they included a Reno gambling tour, a bunch of parlour buses and a taxi service. These were the sorts of things that they were involved with. I reiterate once more: this government is not going to become involved in these types of purchases. I recognize too that it could well be.... The member admits that they purchased all of these old buses from the Saskatchewan government. I'm certain that the NDP government in Saskatchewan, which is noted to be considerably more astute than the former NDP government here, was happy to unload those buses, because they probably couldn't get rid of them to a junkyard in Saskatoon. Now we're stuck with them; we have a junkyard. That was a criticism. certainly.

With respect to the German train: yes, it can sit on the track. It will fit the track if it sits there, but you can't run it on the track, because it has the wrong calibration. That's what I attempted to point out this morning. So you would have to replace the tracks. I've tried to make that very clear to the member. Obviously I haven't got the message across yet, but I'll keep trying.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LORIMER: It's always amusing to listen to the Minister of Municipal Affairs talk about transit. He talks a lot about transit, but he does nothing about it. There's a lot of wind but very little action. The history of this government in the question of transit, like that of the Social Credit government before them, has been dismal, to say the least.

He suggests that the car will not fit on the rails, or something of that sort. For his information, the vehicle was parked on the rails on a siding for some time before it was hidden away in the Dominion Bridge buildings on Boundary Road. Also, I would advise the minister that he's not going to be able to use the rails that are there at the present time for rail transit. Those rails would not stand up to Canadian standards for fast transit services. The whole rails have to be removed, the bed has to be built again and new rails have to be installed. I've mentioned this before, but I don't think they've understood this.

I'm going to talk about transit a little bit today, but I'm going to discuss other matters as well. If the minister wishes to ask questions while I'm going through, I'll be quite prepared to answer. We can have a question period here, and I won't take your questions as notice. I'll try to answer your queries.

I was sorry that I had to leave yesterday and was unable to hear the minister in his opening remarks. I just got back and haven't had a chance to read the Blues, but I did notice he was talking about the rewriting of the Municipal Act, and I commend him for this. That was on my plate and I think on that of the ministers before and after me. It should be done; it has to be done. If he can succeed in doing it, that'll be great. I hope that when he does it, he has some philosophy in the new act that might indicate the relationship and the intent of the relationship between the provincial government and local governments in the province. I hope that he accepts the fact that this is basically a partnership. All the groups of elected

[ Page 4882 ]

people are representing the same taxpayers, and I hope that he will recognize and establish this in his proposed new Municipal Act.

Really, the job of Municipal Affairs is reasonably simple in that what you're doing, by and large, is dealing with other elected representatives. The purpose of the minister is to assist as much as possible a number of the smaller municipalities that don't have the expertise in the field of municipal affairs in accomplishing those things that the people in the local communities wan to see come about. But unfortunately the mayors call this minister a bully. I would never do that, but the local mayors have called him a bully and say that he's drunk with power. They say he's a confrontation minister — he likes confrontation. That may be so. I'm not saying that myself. I'm saying what I've read in the papers.

HON. MR. FRASER: You don't agree with that, do you?

MR. LORIMER: No, I wouldn't agree with that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Minister of Transportation and Highways please come to order. I remind all hon. members, and of course the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, that it is unparliamentary to use words or expressions in one fashion that would normally be unparliamentary. I'm sure the member appreciates that.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether your list includes "bully." I would think not. I would think it would not include "confrontation minister." I can call him other names from quotes I have here.

Anyway, I want to ask the minister about Gambier Island and the proposed mining operations that are off and on, from time to time — mainly operating on Howe Street but still a possible threat to Gambier Island. I would like him to report to us the position of the Islands Trust with reference to Gambier Island, whether or not he has been in contact with the Islands Trust — with their worry and the worry of the residents of the island as to the possible destruction of this fine recreational area within a few miles of the densely populated areas of Vancouver North Vancouver and so on. Maybe he can tell us what's going to happen on Gambier Island, if he knows.

I notice also that the Islands Trust budget has been reduced this year, while most of the budgets have been increased. There may be a reason for this. Maybe the minister would care to say why those amounts are being reduced.

I follow the statements of the minister with some amusement. He has the habit of announcing projects that be wishes he would be permitted to do, three or four times through the course of a year before anything happens. As an example, he announced, a year ago last January I think, that 250 trolleys would be purchased to replace the old ones in Vancouver. He announced it again in the session in May or June. He announced it again in late summer. I am advised that in October or November the Urban Transit Authority did order some 200 vehicles. And that's fine. The 250 was reduced to 200, but what I'm getting at is the announcements that are made right along, to get more print.

The difficulty is that although we may take the remarks with a bit of salt, some of the media and some of the people in the areas take these announcements seriously. As a result, I think a cruel hoax is being played on the people of the lower mainland regarding this whole light rail transit discussion. A number of statements have been made. The minister, you might remember, was talking about light rail. There were certain discussions back and forth with the regional districts. Then one morning he gets up and says we're going to use monorail; we're not going to use the conventional rail system. After about a year of arguing back and forth the minister realized that a monorail system would not operate efficiently in Vancouver; it might operate for certain projects, but certainly not as a transit system for the lower mainland. That kept him going for a year. Studies were made by the Urban Transit Authority, the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, all regurgitating the same information and spending thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money, and coming up with reasons why the monorail would not be satisfactory — it could not be operated in an urban setting.

With that cleared away, he suddenly woke up one morning and said that they were going to an automated light rail transit system. So that's been going along now. He suggested to the regional district that they spend a few hundred thousand dollars for a study on costs. Prior to the study coming in, he announces that he's going to go for the ALRT system.

One of the reports stated that the regional district branded him as a bully who was browbeating the GVRD before it ever sat down to consider the alternatives. Alan Emmott, the chairman of the regional district, stated that this is an extremely annoying situation. We have an ongoing study — one that was agreed to by the minister and the GVRD — to assess the relative costs of the alternative systems. "For the minister to make a categorical decision before this is completed is irresponsible," Emmott said. Then he goes on: "If money is no object, fair ball. If he's prepared to pick up any cost overruns, fair enough." But the problem is that the minister is not prepared to pick up any cost overruns, and he knows that there will be.

The automated transit system may work well. It works well in their back yard where they do their experimenting. But it has never been tested. There's no guarantee that this will work any better. They claim there's a guarantee that any costs over a certain figure will be picked up by the manufacturing company. But that, of course, is a legal question as to what is written in regarding guarantees'and whether or not the regional district or the Urban Transit Authority can come within the wording of those guarantees. So in actual fact the minister is prepared to buy an unproven system, and if it doesn't work, the Urban Transit Authority regional districts will be stuck for the losses. That doesn't make too much sense to me.

Mayor Jim Tonn, the Coquitlam mayor, said that he'd like to see Vander Zalm take over the transit management, saying he didn't support the GVRD involvement in the first place. He said he can't accept the continued browbeating from the minister. I can advise the regional district that they don't have too much to worry about, because the transit program that they're talking about — producing transit out to Surrey and other areas in Richmond and so on — will not be carried out by this government in any event.

The basic and the maximum amount that this government is prepared to do in rail transit will be the possible construction of a loop from the proposed convention centre to the proposed B.C. Place by 1986 for Transpo. I'm quite convinced in my own mind that that is the maximum amount that we can expect from this government in transit. You don't need to have a crystal ball to determine that. If you merely

[ Page 4883 ]

look at the history of what's gone on in the last five to six years in the transit field, you realize that, basically, up until this last year there have been no vehicles purchased. Transit has come to a halt. The number of vehicles now is far less than when this government took office. Even with the purchase of the new vehicles, it will still be less.

I could suggest to the people in the lower Fraser Valley that the idea that they're going to receive transit services, by way of rail or any other method of sophisticated systems, will not come about through this government.

Mayor Harcourt said: "Why doesn't the minister grow up?" Apparently he won't deal with the regional district or the authorities in coming to some proper solution or agreement with reference to transit. I don't blame the minister for that too much. The minister makes a lot of announcements. He did state that if he were in the position of Premier, he would handle things much better and much differently than has been done. As a result, he has to go to the Premier to get funds for the necessary services. He knows he's not going to get the money necessary to put in a transit system. It's as simple as that. But instead of telling the public that he's not going to get the money and that they might as well forget about it, he goes on with these promises that will never come about. I would think that the minister would do a better service to the community by telling them: "I can't get the money. I'd like to do it, but I can't get the money. The boss won't give me the money, so we can't have any kind of transit — light rail or automated." But he doesn't do that. He leaves the people with an impression that next year they're going to be able to run from Newton down to Vancouver on some fast system.

I want to talk a little bit about the announcement that buying the Canadian system is going to create jobs in Canada. Well, of course that is not true. It will not create that many jobs, if they do put up a plant to assemble it. The braking systems, electrical systems and the computer systems in the automated system are built in Europe. Some are in the States, but most are in Europe. They're not built in Canada. So to that extent the Canadian component in an ALRT system is very small, compared with what could have been done with the construction of a standard rail system.

As you all know, in 1975 arrangements were being made with Volvo for the construction of vehicles in this province under licence from Europe. The land was bought and the contract was ready to be signed, but it was turned down by this government. I know the minister was not involved with transit at that time, but his government refused to go ahead with the construction of vehicles in this province for use in this province and for export to the whole North American market. The licence would have included the right to manufacture for North America. By not proceeding with this program, the loss of job opportunities to this province has been immense.

The vehicles he has ordered could well have been built here. I'm not suggesting they would have been built more cheaply than what he's going to pay for them. But I am suggesting that the by-products of construction would have been very beneficial not only to the coffers of the province but also to the people in the province who have been able to obtain employment, and to the payrolls that would have helped to establish communities outside the major centres of population.

The other matter that should be considered is the question of service on the CPR tracks from Mission to Vancouver.

Again, this was in the process of being concluded with the CPR when this government took over in 1976. Arrangements were made; there were to be two trains coming in from Haney in the morning and two going out in the late afternoon. Not only would it be a great benefit to the motoring public to have fast service in and out of town, but the actual saving in such a system can be explained by the fact that for heavy rail transit the federal government will supply the cars required for the service. They did so in Montreal and Toronto, and there is no reason why Vancouver couldn't expect to receive the vehicles as part of that program. The only costs would be rental of the services from the CPR and some funds to re-establish and rebuild the stations on the way. It’s an easy system to put in, and not an expensive one. It’s got nothing like the costs of a light rail system; it's cheap in comparison. That system could carry thousands of people to the urban centres every day.

I want to mention my disappointment in the choice of location for the bus station in Victoria. It's just unbelievable to see the money being spent on a new bus station and having it remote from the centre of the city. I suggest these steps are designed to make it more difficult and less attractive for people to use transit systems. The station should be a multipurpose station; it should serve all forms of transportation. The station should be in downtown Victoria, close to the areas where you move to the airport or the E&N. It should be in an area from which all modes of transit take off. It should be near the dock where the Victoria Princess used to land. It should be handy to all the modes of transportation of the city of Victoria. To put it out of the city, in my opinion, is a very poor choice. I'm not sure why it was done, but I suggest to you that it's something that even now you may be able to stop and take a close look at and see how that fits in to your total transit program.

I also want to mention the difficulties in the morale of bus drivers, the number of people that are being put into the directorate of the transit field that have no expertise in transit — people that are picked up but don't understand what transit is all about. I want to discuss the fact that most of these people are presently working without a contract and that they have been for some time. Some of the dispatchers on Pacific Coach Lines haven't had a contract in three years and at that time they got a 3 percent increase. You haven't been treating your employees very well, Mr. Minister. I think the minister should take a look at what he's doing to his employees. Get them happy; give them some of the rights and privileges that other people in the workforce expect and get. I don't think it right that they should be asked to continue running the vehicles without a contract. A 3 percent increase in wages in three years when the cost of living is going up 11 percent a year is just not good enough.

I also want to warn the minister with regard to the ALRT system. It may work very well, it may be a good system, but BART was supposed to be a good system, and the costs of correcting the mistakes and things that couldn't be anticipated ahead of time in BART have far exceeded the costs of the original installations. This could well happen in the ALRT system. The suggestion that more jobs will be created by the Canadian system is false; there will be less jobs than if you constructed your own vehicles on the conventional rail system. The cost of putting in the ALRT system, according to the reports of the regional district, is about $100 million greater than the cost of the other system. All these things add up to the fact that I think the minister has made a mistake. I have no doubt that in about six months he will say that he is

[ Page 4884 ]

not interested in the ALRT' and will start another study of something else — balloons or some system — that he can use to move people about in the city. The ALRT will not proceed under this government except, as I say, possibly for a small demonstration model for Transpo '86. However, I don't think this government will be in power that long to bring about this conventional system or the other system, so I don't think anything will be done during the reign of this particular minister in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

I do wish, though, that he wouldn't make these statements when he knows very well that nothing is going to come from them. He builds up false hopes of people on the mainland and in Victoria, and really nothing is going to come of it.

I do have more to say, but I would like to hear from the minister what his plans are with reference to the ALRT and Gambier Island, and what he proposes to do in changes in the Municipal Act, because, in my opinion, it is not good enough just to renumber the sections of the Municipal Act when you are redoing the act. I think you have to stand back and take a look at it and see where it can be improved. So the strict renumbering, I think, would be a mistake, with the act the way it is written at the present time.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, just to have a lull in the storm of that invigorating debate we are getting from the opposition members this afternoon, I would ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, with us in the gallery this afternoon — again, as last week, we have several, in fact — are 34 fine young northern British Columbians, this time a grade 10 class from Fraser Lake Secondary School in Fraser Lake, in my great constituency of Omineca. Accompanying them are Mr. Lust and Mr. Ward, and their bus driver on the trip, Mr. Biglow. I would ask this House to make them all very welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, first, with respect to Gambier Island, yes, I've had discussions with the Islands Trust, and certainly if they ask for a further meeting with regard to anything to do with the Islands Trust, be it Gambier Island or any other matter, I will certainly make the opportunity for a meeting available to them.

However, as we are all aware, unless we pass a law there is nothing to stop anyone from prospecting, exploring, researching, or determining if, in fact, there might be minerals there or anywhere else in the province. There is no law against that, and I suppose if we were to single out one area or one particular party for doing that, possibly we could be liable in some way. However, until in fact there is an application for a permit to begin a mining operation, there is no issue. People can explore. That is not a problem. People can prospect. That is permissible. Until there is an application for a specific permit to do certain things, there is no matter to be dealt with. The Islands Trust is aware of that.

I agree that possibly many people have been stampeded into unnecessary fear that suddenly the whole of the island would disappear into the water, but you can't help that. Sometimes these sorts of rumours and stories are spread and people do become very much afraid unnecessarily, and that is unfortunate. Until, in fact, there is an application to deal with, there is no problem.

We were also asked by the hon. member as to why it was that the Islands Trust's estimates were reduced. I'm sure it's well intended. It appears to be somewhat contradictory to some of the things that I've heard and seen displayed in the Legislature over the last number of days, where people didn't so much as question why something was reduced or increased, but simply moved to amend to reduce for the sake of some exercise, I thought. However, I'm pleased that the member is asking why it's reduced and that he now has a concern, which appears to be the opposite of some which were expressed and which I thought might have happened to my estimates, where there were simply going to be amendments for the sake of amendments and a little bit of grandstanding and a lot of talk as to why it should be reduced and how hard it is for people to pay taxes — all of which I agree with, naturally. But in this particular instance, the concern of the member is: why is it reduced? I'm pleased that I'm able to answer that.

The reason it's reduced is that when the Islands Trust took authority over the islands they also took on a person who had previously been employed by the Ministry of Highways. That person has been there in a sort of supernumerary position. Because the person had been there in the employ for a good while and because, I imagine, he was near retirement age, they couldn't send him down the road; they decided to keep him on and we as the government continued to pay. However, that person is now retired; there is no longer any need for the position, and that certainly accounts for some of the reduction.

There is also a reduction because $20,000 worth of professional studies were in last year's estimates and again proposed, but it was deemed no longer necessary. There was one other item which accounted for a $13,000 reduction: last year there was an election, and this year there is not an election; so the $13,000 which was allotted for last year's election was no longer required. So there is the $53,000 by which the estimates were reduced.

The member had a fair bit to say about ALRT, and I would refer him to the Blues — or to Hansard, if he's ready to wait that long — but certainly that topic was well covered this morning. I certainly gave a good description of why ALRT, what the advantage is, and I pointed it out especially to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). So I think it's fitting again that the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) be somewhat aware of the detailed explanation I gave this morning, which in effect was my expression of concern for Burnaby especially, since had we proceeded with the initial conventional LRT proposal, there would have been 18 level crossings in such places as Kingsway, Patterson Avenue, Rumble — all of which would have created a chaotic situation. According even to the traffic counts which have been projected in the initial GVRD study as requiring burying, compared with the traffic counts as they are today, that would mean that immediately upon announcement we would have to start burying the track in any case, which would mean $50 million a mile. So when you're comparing ALRT to CLRT, it's a little like apples and oranges; or put another way, it's like, a Cadillac and a Volkswagen, in that I think we have the Cadillac in the ALRT and the Volkswagen in the LRT as proposed with all of its level crossings. Both will get you from A to B, but the ALRT, the Cadillac, gets you there a little quicker and a little more comfortably, and it provides certain other luxuries that weren't available in the LRT approach.

[ Page 4885 ]

The member mentioned that some years ago when he was responsible for the position I hold now he was planning to provide for a commuter service between Maple Ridge and Vancouver. Actually, I hadn't heard of that previously; this is the first I've heard, though it might have been mentioned earlier. I'm rather pleased that the then NDP government saw the merits in developing a commuter service between Maple Ridge and Vancouver, because it bears out the correctness and the wisdom of the decision we recently made to get on, not to simply talk about or study more the potential for a commuter service but to get on with establishing a commuter service between Maple Ridge and Vancouver. Of course I should again advise the member that we're hoping to see this commuter service in place and running — serving the people well — by the middle of next year.

It's not a cheap project. The member mentioned that you could do that for very few dollars. Well, we're looking at $24 million for that, so it's not just a peanut item. It's certainly something which is fairly costly; but I think it will be of tremendous service for the people in the northeast section of that region. After all, that is a section in which we're providing for an awful lot of housing for people, and we recognize that there's a need for housing and have taken the initiative by making Crown land available to be developed for housing purposes. The commuter train as well as the ALRT tie into our attempts to provide for an urban strategy which responds to the needs of people in the greater Vancouver region.

The member also spoke of the LRT having — in his opinion — such a local component to LRT that we didn't need to consider ALRT. I want to reiterate again for the benefit of the member — and I would refer him to what I've said this morning — that one of the good things about the Canadian technology.... One of the great things is that this government has recognized that we as Canadians musn't be afraid to accept and to fly, to develop and continue with something that is actually Canadian. Why must we look to the Americans or to the Japanese to try our technology if we're sure and satisfied that this technology will work? Let us buy something Canadian and let us develop something Canadian. Let's support Canadian trade wherever possible. Here, in ALRT, we have that opportunity. It's truly Canadian technology. Not only is it truly Canadian; it will benefit our region and every other Canadian city eventually if they have the foresight that this government had to buy something Canadian. Similarly, we will develop a whole new industry in British Columbia to export to all other parts of the world where they want this technology as well.

Now I would just like to advise the member of the Canadian component in the ALRT system. Initially, many of the components for the ALRT system were designed in other countries — granted — because, naturally, it was a system which was being developed and experimented with, and from the very outset some of the components had to be brought in from elsewhere as the program was being developed and tested. But the manufacture of these components.... I've attempted to make clear throughout these last months, especially to the hon. member from Burnaby-Willingdon, that I'm very pleased that by far the majority of GVRD directors have become very supportive of the ALRT system, because they recognize that the things that have been said over these last months are true. Granted, the mayor of Burnaby has the advantage of serving on the Urban Transit Authority and is therefore getting a lot of the information firsthand. Granted, Mr. Alan Emmott is the chairman of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and thus has the opportunity of studying and knowing and receiving information about the system a lot more readily than others. But because of this, they have become very supportive of the system.

We are now going to be manufacturing the components, which were initially an import when the project was being tested, in Canada. There are three specific exceptions where off-the-shelf technology is available at the best price from the United States, and the three components referred to amount to less than 3 percent of the total of approximately $300 million — 1979 dollars. They are the wayside computers, the brake components and some special track work. Now some of it — the technology and so forth — will naturally come from Ontario, but we've always said that by far the majority of it will be manufactured in British Columbia, not only for British Columbia but for other places throughout the world. The current estimate of the direct B.C. content — not Canadian content; the Canadian content is much higher — is 66 percent of the total. Therefore you're looking at approximately several hundreds of millions of dollars for this system alone.

The other mention was of the guarantees. We have negotiated the guarantees for the performance of the system for the upper price. These have been very tough and prolonged negotiations. But once more, being the first to take on the Canadian technology, we've had good cooperation from the urban transit people, the UTDC in Ontario. I find them to be an excellent and very cooperative firm, and I'm sure they will do extremely well regardless of where they go in the world and what they manufacture in this line. So we're coming along well with the guarantees.

The other mention was the PCL station for Victoria. The hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon, of all members, should be well aware that the Pacific Coach Lines is not an urban system. It's not to take you from 1st Avenue to 3rd Avenue and back over to A Street or down C Street. It's not that sort of system. The PCL system is an intercity or intermunicipal system. It goes up-Island, it goes out the Fraser Valley to Hope, and it serves the various towns, cities and villages on its way. It isn't intended to stop at every junction in Comox, Duncan, Vancouver or come down the streets throughout Victoria. That is not this sort of system. It brings people to Victoria. Then if people get to Victoria and want to take an urban bus to Oak Bay, Esquimalt, James Bay or wherever, they will pick up the James Bay bus, the Oak Bay bus, the Esquimalt bus or the bus that runs down Blanshard or Douglas. These are their choices to be made when they get to that terminal, because it connects up with the urban system.

We've been renting from the CPR for a good many years. I agree in many respects that has been fairly convenient. It's been convenient for those people wanting to come to the parliament buildings, be they MLAs, someone within the government service or someone wanting to do business with government. The station at the Empress was convenient for them. It wasn’t necessarily convenient for the person living in Oak Bay or for the person living in Esquimalt or elsewhere. However, it was for the people visiting here.

But it also presented another problem. This morning the hon. first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) expressed concern — I agree with him — about the fact that here's another government outfit losing millions of dollars. PCL does lose millions of dollars. I commend the board for bringing up the charges to assure that there's a greater contribution from the user. But these transit systems or public service systems

[ Page 4886 ]

don't make money, which is why, of course, we have a hard time turning it over to a private entrepreneur. Otherwise I'd do it. If somebody comes along and wants to buy it, run it and provide a service as a private entrepreneur, they could probably do a lot better than government. I'm the first to agree.

In part, at least here, the problem is that the PCL bus would come in from the ferry or from Vancouver and run down Blanshard with a few passengers parallel to an urban transit bus which was going in exactly the same direction, also perhaps with two or three passengers — stopping at every stoplight, stopping behind every car, taking a half hour to get down and a half hour to get back out. That is not only expensive, but it makes the whole system less efficient. While I concur that maybe it would have been nice to have carried on in a more downtown location, in many respects, from the board's point of view, that was not a practical solution. They wanted to also have their repair terminal, where they washed and cleaned the buses and all the other things, right near the station. That is possible where they're proposing to go at 2800 Douglas.

Finally in that respect, Mr. Chairman, for a whole year we've had meetings, letters going back and forth between ourselves, Victoria city council, Victoria Chamber of Commerce and other groups who had an interest in developing a downtown terminal. The Victoria city council put forth a number of suggestions, but they were either too small, the wrong location, a horrendous price, there was already something there or it was zoned the wrong way. Yes, in the end the Victoria city council agreed, as well, that they really didn't have a good alternative proposal to make, and they felt perhaps the whole of the issue could be left. We can leave it for a time, but we can't leave it too long, because the Empress Hotel wants the property where the little station sits now. Some decisions need to be made. Being a person who would like to see us get on with matters and who wants to see the board carry out its decisions in as autonomous a fashion as possible, I'm certainly willing to bring to them any good suggestions that may be put forth, but not to stop all progress with respect to PCL — they've got a job to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll recognize the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon, because he was questioning the minister, and then the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem).

MR. LORIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll only be a few minutes so that the member for Dewdney can get up in a few minutes.

I didn't suggest to the minister that commuter train service was a cheap service. When you're comparing it to the other services, it is a very reasonable service for the number of people it carries. To that extent, it's a much cheaper service than most services in the transit field. Secondly, the fact is that assistance is available for the cars that are required, which adds to the savings in such a system.

The minister was talking about the need for 18 level crossings in Burnaby if a conventional rail system were used. That, of course, is a lot of nonsense. You don't need any level crossings. The LRT service can go underground, overground or on the ground. There's no, need whatever for level crossings. The costs of the LRT appear to ) e very substantially less than, the costs of the ALRT. I'm not going into any further arguments on this at this stage, because, as I mentioned earlier, I don't think anything will ever come of it anyway during the present government.

Guarantees. You might want to check with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), but guarantees are a pretty hairy proposition, Mr. Minister. If you're satisfied that the guarantees are good and safe, then I suggest you wouldn't be adverse to telling the regional district that any overcharges or overruns will be looked after by you. The regional district is concerned that if there are overruns, they're going to be nailed. If you've got a guarantee that you're satisfied with, then why don't you tell them that there'll be no overruns and if something happens you'll be responsible? That would be a very simple thing to do.

Talking about the station in Victoria, I was somewhat taken aback by the response the minister gave with reference to the location of a station. He talked about the fact that Pacific Coach Lines goes from city to city. They're not an urban transit system. I agree with him; that's absolutely correct. But the philosophy I suggest for a transportation system is that you don't take one piece of the transportation picture, isolate it and deal with that; you look at the whole transportation system. You then meld your systems together so that you have one system looking after a variety of transportation modes. You don't look at commuter service as an entity in itself, you don't look at urban transit as an entity in itself, you don't look at the intercity system as a system in itself and you don't look at the ship run to Seattle as a system in itself. This is all part of a transportation system, and unless you get your pieces together, your system will never operate efficiently. To consider that all you're doing is making a station for intercity travel.... I suggest you save your money and not bother with it at all, if that's your idea of providing proper transportation in the capital city.

It's true urban transit will not make money; it never will. But there's not too many highways making money either. Transit and transportation should be considered for what it is. It's a system for the movement of people the same as the automobile, truck or airplane.

There'll never be money made in the transit system. There may be in the holiday transit and that sort of thing, but certainly not in urban or intercity transit. If you want intercity transit to make money, I think you can. I think you should advertise and boost up the express service — which is a very fine service — on the intercity bus system. If you advertise and push that, that's where you can make money. I would suggest that what is being done is a good system, but not that many people know about it. I think that a few advertisements would bring that financial return up to a much better level than it is at the present time. You're not going to make money on the transit system; it's going to be on the sidelines maybe where some money can be picked up.

Bridges haven't made too much money in late years, nor have highways. I don't know why a person might expect a ferry, rail or transit system to make money. So I don't think you should feel badly about it. You should admit the fact that you're not going to make money on it. It's true. You're not. You're providing a system. I'm suggesting that you should consider an overall system, not just one item in the transpiration picture. You should consider the whole system as one. It's not a bunch of isolated and different modes of transportation. You should be operating a system.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity of addressing this House.

First, I want to thank the minister for his statement today that transit service on the north side of the river will go as far

[ Page 4887 ]

as Maple Ridge by the middle of 1982. That is certainly good news. I know it wasn't an easy project. I know it wasn't easily accomplished. I know it ran into great difficulty with the railroad corporation that did not want to cross the Pitt River Bridge. I want to assure him of the total appreciation of the people of the upper valley. It's certainly a breakthrough in transit. The minister recognizes that the only hope for transit in the lower mainland is steel on steel, not buses. Buses simply cannot be a major factor in public transit. That's been proven in many jurisdictions.

At the same time as I'm complimenting the minister, I'd like to say that he impresses me very much in this House. I'm sure the hon. members of the opposition must recognize it, although I don't hear them say it. The minister faces immense problems in transit, but all we hear from him are the answers, and the way it can be done. I want to tell him the member for Dewdney does recognize this.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I think the only transit system that you could compare to ours is the transit system in metro Toronto. In our system under the Urban Transit Authority Act transit system deficits are shared between the UTA, representing the provincial government, and the municipality. The cost-sharing formula provides that for the first two years of an agreement UTA pays 75 percent of the operating deficit, and the municipality pays 25 percent. It takes a lot of courage for this government to work with those figures.

In metro Toronto it's exactly the reverse. In metro Toronto 70 percent is paid by the fare box. I think there has been a change in the last year, but until a year ago 70 percent came from the fare box, 15 percent from Metro, and only 15 percent from the provincial government. Some difference! That is the major problem. The government grapples with this. But do we hear one compliment or word of encouragement from the opposition? Not one word. That's where it should come from.

Today in this province we are dealing with an element we must master — that is, public transit. We have the problem of one million too few people. If we had one million more people we could handle it with 70 percent from the fare box, as does metro Toronto. But since we do not have that one million more people, the government faces the problem of having to pay it from general funds, which I think is a courageous thing to do.

It's all very well to say "government," but you must get the money from the business community somehow and from the people, through taxation on their money, to prove the worth of the system. It is difficult to prove the worth of a system when it only serves one part of the province. Yet with courage and determination — no alibis, no questions asked and with only positive actions being given to this House, saying we will do it this way over the objections of....

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Those people, yes. I didn't want to mention names, but certain politicians in the lower mainland of a different political hue, even though the minister said they would get transit, had to find some way that it wasn't suitable, that it wouldn't work, that it wasn't the kind they needed and that they had to get some kind of a system with 18 level crossings. I think the minister has done a tremendous job. All light rail transit means is 18 sets of gates going up and down, 25 times a day. Can you imagine the accidents? Yet some politician will say that is the system. I think it takes courage to say we'll try the system from Ontario that will work.

I compliment him. I do not know for the life of me why he needs to waste his time in this House trying to argue that system, which is a credit to us: a Canadian system to be used in Canada in this great lower mainland of British Columbia. I think we should appreciate it and not fight it. It's amazing how I find the opposition trying to say: "Yes, it's okay, but...." That's the part that I can't understand. I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman. It's time we dealt with the facts here and acknowledged this minister is doing such a wonderful job in this very vital area — one million too few people, and yet rapid transit second to none in Canada.

MR. D'ARCY: I have some local issues I want to address, quite briefly, to the minister regarding transit. I want to say that I'm glad to see the minister and his deputies here. The staff the minister has are most helpful both in the distant past and in the recent past and do their jobs well.

Before I get into the local issues specifically, I can't help commenting, as a layman from the interior, on some of this exchange which has been going on for the last couple of days here. I have to find rather strange the assumptions of the minister and some of his supporters that anybody who says anything the least bit critical of the minister's arbitrary and unilateral policies in transit must be a New Democrat. I happen to know that some of the people who are saying these things claim to be liberals, Tories and even occasionally Socreds. The minister seems to assume that anybody who has any complaint at all must be a New Democrat and is only doing it for political purposes. I'm quite sure that the politics that the minister is attributing to some of these people would be great news to many of these civic politicians from the greater Vancouver district in particular.

MR. NICOLSON: The Socred revisionists.

MR. D'ARCY: Perhaps so. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I want to make a couple of other comments here. Quite frankly, I have never been inconvenienced by a level crossing, unless there was a slow-moving freight train taking some time to get through the crossing or, worse still, even stopped by it. I have never been inconvenienced in any urban area that has rapid transit by the second or two it takes a passenger train to pass through a level crossing at speed. Of course, if the rapid transit that we're talking about is not moving at speed, we shouldn't be having it in the first place. If it can’t be moving at least 80 kilometres per hour between stations, we might as well forget about it completely; put the tracks on the streets, use fast buses or whatever.

In some parts of the world the technology is there and transit moves at speeds up to 160 kilometres per hour. I can imagine that there are very few level crossings which are blocked for any length of time at that speed. When I drive down Kingsway or any other thoroughfare in greater Vancouver or anywhere else, it's not the level crossings that bother me; it's the red lights. They're absolutely necessary, Mr. Chairman, but red lights block traffic for a minute or two, not just 18 times but hundreds of times throughout the lower mainland and the greater Victoria area — and, for that matter, even in the city of Trail. The minister is telling us that the need for level crossings somehow justifies spending hun-

[ Page 4888 ]

dreds of millions of dollars on new and untried technology. It is simply beyond me. Of course, like everyone else, I don't like being inconvenienced by anything that stops traffic. However, level crossings with light transit are the least of my problems; unless, as I've said, you've got a slow-moving freight train blocking the crossing.

Mr. Chairman, I also find it rather strange that we have the minister telling us that we must have a Canadian technology doing this. Now I appreciate that; I would like to have a Canadian technology too. But the reports that have been given lately would indicate that the ALRT proposal is really only assembled in Ontario; in fact, the technology and the manufacturing are international. Whereas we well know that in the province of British Columbia we have the capability right now of manufacturing railway rolling stock, because there was a very successful operation which did just that and whose cars are being used on the BCR. If we listen to the complaints of the B.C. Railway, they will tell us that the other railways in North America like those units so much that they have trouble getting them back once they leave the province. Now if we could do that, I'm sure we can manufacture conventional rapid transit vehicles right here in British Columbia, without importing technology or manufacturing facilities from Ontario or anywhere else in the world.

However, what I really wanted to talk about was my own area, where we have a major problem with insufficient buses and buses which are just incredibly ancient. In fact, Mr. Chairman, we have one unit operating in Trail — this is no reflection on the maintenance there at all; they do their best — and I'm quite sure that if an actuary from ICBC were to see that thing, the insurance rates on the whole system might go up substantially. It's a danger both to the drivers and to the passengers. In fact, possibly even a compensation board inspector might want to pull the driver right off that particular unit. I gather the history of it is that it started perhaps 30 years ago in Montgomery, Alabama, and has been through many B.C. Electric systems and B.C. Hydro systems and now is part of the UTA. My primary concern is that the minister and his staff somewhere in the UTA system in the province of B.C. find a replacement unit for that vehicle. In the Kootenay Boundary Regional District east end and in the city of Trail we have some of the steepest grades to be found anywhere in the province of British Columbia. This unit really needs to be replaced, and I think that somewhere in the system there must be a more modern unit.

It does hurt my feelings a bit, Mr. Chairman, to travel around this province and notice in greater Victoria, in greater Vancouver and in many of the interior and even in some of the northern communities, not just newer equipment but brand-new equipment. Mr. Minister, I'm sure your staff can confirm that the Trail-Kootenay-Boundary system has one of the highest riderships per route mile anywhere in the province. So here we have a system which is being utilized by the public, yet quite frankly they're using what they themselves say is unsafe equipment. I want to repeat this is no reflection on the maintenance crews there; they work day and night to keep some of these units going. So first of all, we need at least one replacement bus.

The second point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is that we have had a change in the demand for services to our major industry, the Cominco smelting and refining operations in Trail. A few years ago there were only three shift changes a day, and those shift changes were served very well by cooperative transportation societies that had been operating in the area for 40 years. Most of those shift changes are still being served in most of those areas. However, now instead of three shift changes we have seven, due to 12-hour shifts, staggered day shifts and so on. Many of those transportation societies are finding that they can't serve all parts of the city of Trail and all communities on all shift changes, so they only serve certain of them. I have discussed this with the transit authority, and the city of Trail has discussed the matter, and I believe possibly so has Cominco. What we really need is an extra bus — not to pull the rug out from under the transportation societies, but so that the transit people in the area can schedule services to those parts of the city of Trail on those shift changes which are not being served by these non-profit societies.

To repeat, Mr. Chairman, a major priority is one new unit to replace the existing one, which is quite literally falling apart. I was following it out to Genelle the other day and I really thought some pieces were going to fall off. I'm not exaggerating; it was that bad. Secondly, we need an additional bus to provide commuter service to the major industry in the city of Trail.

I have a number of other things that I would like to say about inter-city transit in the area, but I think the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) has covered them, and I don't want to take up too much time in the debate.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, it's very difficult. For the last several days we've heard so many inconsistencies and contradictions coming from the opposition, and in this again there is a bit of a contradiction. All day yesterday the point was made: "You nasty minister, you're centralizing too much. Everything's being centralized." Today it's the opposite. "You've decentralized. You've taken away the decision-making you had. Why don't you make some changes?" It's not us in Victoria that decide whether a bus goes up hill or down dale, to Cominco or from Cominco, three times a day or seven times a day. Those are the decisions of the local council in Trail. The member should know that. He's just left the chamber; however, I'll have it there for the record so he can refer to it. It's the local council that determines what type of service, how often, and even the charges that are made.

The member also went on about the level crossings. I should point out that by law trains have the right-of-way. They can scoot across Kingsway or Rumble, toot their horn or not, I guess, and just carry forth. But every 90 seconds? He says: "I don't care if the gates come down. It's no inconvenience. Let the gates come down. So what." Maybe that's all right in Rossland or Trail; I'm not so sure it is or that he's even speaking for the people there. But for the people of Burnaby to have a gate coming down every 90 seconds on Kingsway to allow a train to go by one way or the other, or both ways at one time.... It doesn't make sense. Yet that was the proposal. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) says: "No problem; bury it." That's the very point I made earlier. If you bury it it's $50 million a mile. All of that has been said so many times, but they keep coming back with it.

I guess the most disappointing thing is the criticism from the members opposite for the fact that we've gone for a Canadian system. For whatever reason, they were so set upon a west European system — a German system — that I've heard even the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D’Arcy), the member for. Burnaby-Willingdon, and before that the first

[ Page 4889 ]

member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) all defending the import system. They should be proud of the fact that we're determined to buy Canadian. Other times those members will get out on the hustings and say we should do things for British Columbia or Canada, but here they're constantly contradicting that very thing which might have been said otherwise. We are determined as a government, and I am determined as a minister and a ministry, to buy Canadian whenever and wherever possible.

MRS. DAILLY: On the subject the minister just discussed — that he's really surprised we won't go for the Canadian-produced product — I have some statements that counter that. I'm quite willing to bring them up for the minister's attention, hoping he will counter it. Now that we're going ahead with this we all hope it is going to be a Canadian product.

If the minister will bear with me I want to read to him some of the facts that were given to me, hoping he can disprove them. I mean that sincerely. In point of fact I've been told that the Celtrac Automatic Control System was developed by Standard Electric Lorenze, a German subsidiary of ITT. The propulsion system and the linear induction motors (LIN) were developed by German firms, and the extent to which UTDC may have improved it remains to be verified. The computers are American. The power inverters are European. The design work done recently for UTDC was done by ABAM, a consultant firm in the United States. So much for the all-Canadian myth. Further, the vehicles for any LRT technology can be built in Canada. Hawker, Siddeley, Bombardier and even UTDC have all manufactured or designed conventional LRT rail vehicles.

All I'm trying to say to the minister is that he has attempted — and probably rightly so — to sell this on the basis that it is Canadian-produced, but on the other hand, I and some of my colleagues keep receiving this material which is questioning whether it is truly Canadian-produced. I've just read to the minister some of the material that has been sent to us. I would like to hear from the minister if he too has these facts. Can he hopefully disprove them?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll simply have to repeat what I said earlier, but I'll try to do it a little more quickly. When the technology was initially developed and the trial track and train were being put into place for Kingston, many of the components were purchased from other areas. There was no need to re-invent many of the parts which were actually already intended to be a part of this Canadian developed system. Some of the inventions had taken place elsewhere and the components were available. Certainly, while the project was being tested, that was satisfactory. But now that they're putting the first real system into place, these components will be manufactured in Canada — 66 percent, as a matter of fact, of the whole of the system will be manufactured right here in British Columbia. We will be manufacturing for other cities across the world and throughout North America. The only....

MR. LAUK: Will you stake your seat on that? You're misleading the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The UTDC is negotiating with three firms.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll have to ask the first member for Vancouver Centre to withdraw.

MR. LAUK: I'm shocked and amazed, Mr. Chairman. Because of the Chairman, I'll have to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The UTDC is dealing with three firms in Vancouver to manufacture the linear induction motors. There are only three exceptions where off the-shelf technology is available at the best price in the U.S., and those three components amount to only — or less then — three percent of the total system: they are the wayside computer, the brake components and some special trackwork. That amounts to less than 3 percent in off-shelf items. The rest of it is Canadian and the majority of it is British Columbian.

MR. LAUK: The minister has indicated here that the train-control system, which was German designed, the British power inverter, the linear-induction motor, the U.S. power converter and the U.S. computer control will all be manufactured in British Columbia or Ontario. Is that what the minister is undertaking to this committee on this day?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, I'll repeat again. Now this is the third time today, but I guess perhaps I can't say it often enough, because I'm proud of the fact that we're buying Canadian. We're setting an example for the world, but especially for all other cities in Canada. The wayside computers, some brake components and some track-work — all of which amounts to less than 3 percent of the total cost of the system — will be imported. The balance of it will be Canadian-manufactured and 66 percent of it will be manufactured in British Columbia. Now how much plainer can I make it?

MR. LAUK: This is very interesting, although it's a side issue to the debate about what kind of transit system the lower mainland should have. It's interesting the minister has undertaken that all of the major components to the ALRT system will be manufactured in Canada. He says that the majority of it will be manufactured in British Columbia. I've made it clear in my question to the minister, that means the train control system, the power converter, the linear-induction motor — the extra power converter you need on the ALRT system that is designed in the United States — and the computer control system, which is quite a substantial component, will all be manufactured in Canada. I'm glad to hear him say that, and we'll hold him to it.

That does put the ALRT system on a par with all kinds of other systems that can be manufactured in Canada. It makes it no different but on a par — not superior. On behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia, I'm afraid that the minister has bought a "pig in a poke." What he has done is worse than that from the standpoint of his attitude toward democratic action and fair play in this province. Behind closed doors, without competitive bidding or a fair shake for the taxpayers of British Columbia, let alone the people who can manufacture and supply equipment to a system here, he has given a turnkey operation to Kirk Foley and the boys back east.

Interjection.

[ Page 4890 ]

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) says: "Oh, come on, Gary." I've never encouraged such intimacy from the Minister of Agriculture. But I should point out to the minister that he should learn a little bit more about this major project that his colleague is foisting upon you as well as us and the people of the province, instead of sitting there and saying: "Oh, come on."

The responsibility of this opposition is to point out that this minister has deliberately usurped the power granted by this Legislature to the GVRD for the planning of a transit system. He's usurped it, just as any tyrant in the world has usurped power. The man has no respect for democratic institutions, and he has no respect for the historical practice in this province whereby such a major project is developed on behalf of the government.

There was no public tender for a $500 million turnkey project to this company back east.

MR. BARBER: Yesterday he said it was $650 million.

MR. LAUK: It's rising every day. It's money we pay out to a contractor to put in the entire system — designed and constructed by the contractor and run by the contractor. The conflict-of-interest situations alone are tremendous. The risks are incredible. This minister is smiling now. But I'll tell you, people in Vancouver and the lower mainland aren't smiling at your tyrannical attitude, Mr. Minister.

The ALRT, the so-called small transit system, has been described by Kirk Foley himself as being for use in smaller cities. It's not called a high-capacity system, which is what is projected for the needs of the lower mainland. We haven't tested it. It must be at least 70 percent elevated and completely separated from population, either because of the hot third track or the fact that it will be running though a population area — all of this at great cost and with no guarantee of federal funds.

Even the uncommitted federal funds spoken of by the minister are minimal, compared to the total eventual cost. The government of Canada has hinted at providing a certain sum of money that may cover the extra cost for the new grades and engineering that will be required by using this system in the first place. There's no gain there. In moving from the conventional system to this system, there's a $90 million extra cost for the whole GVRD plan, and there's a $70 million extra cost at least for the New Westminster line alone. That's great for Ontario.

The people in Ontario have been told by their Premier that this deal with British Columbia is going to provide lots of jobs to Ontario. This minister has been going around saying to the people of British Columbia that this deal is going to provide lots of jobs for the people of British Columbia. Who's telling the truth, Mr. Chairman? Who is going to get these jobs? It sounds to me like a little bit of flim-flam on both sides of the Rockies. This minister is willingly playing that flim-flam game. Kingston thinks it's getting the jobs; Vancouver thinks it's getting the jobs.

I understand that this turnkey operation, in not going to tender, will be completely and utterly controlled by the UTDC, without any say or input in planning, except rights-of-way — in place in a way which at any time....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're a disaster.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Minister, you're a disaster. The GVRD spent $600,000 in developing a plan for transit at your request, Mr. Minister. What we ended up with was back-of the-hand treatment from the minister, to put in place your little toy train from Pier B-C to B.C. Place. That's what it's going to be. It's going to be a little toy train, running about six or seven kilometres, because I know the minister will never build a transit system as long as he's minister. Thank God, that won't be very long at all.

I have some questions for the minister on this system. How much line is going to be built? What's being planned? Tell the truth for a change. What lines are going to be built? Are you just planning the little line from Pier B-C?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I would ask you to withdraw imputing any wrong motive to the minister.

MR. LAUK: Nothing could be wrong with asking the minister to tell the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, you said more than that. You said: "Tell the truth for a change." That is imputing a false motive to the minister.

MR. LAUK: I withdraw "for a change" — because the cost of this project is no small change.

I would ask the minister how much line is going to be built, where and, most importantly, when. I don't want pie-in-the-sky promises. When are these lines going to be built? Is it just going to be that Tinkertoy for six or seven kilometres?

The second thing is who is going to pay for it. Is it going to be the provincial government? If so, how much? Or is it going to be off the backs of ordinary homeowners in the city and in the greater Vancouver district? What commitment has the province made? Because there has been no commitment to speak of from the federal government.

Those are the questions I have: how much line, where and when? Until those questions are answered, we can't trust this project in the hands of this minister,

Another thing I'd like to ask is: could the minister inform the committee about the fees to Ontario on this project? My understanding is there is a 15 percent commission fee.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: How much?

MR. LAUK: Fifteen percent. Is that not correct?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Have you ever been correct?

MR. LAUK: It's amusing. The minister says: "Have you ever been correct?" If the minister was candid, honest and straightforward with the people of this province, we wouldn't have to ask him these questions in committee. He operates in the back room with that arrogant smile and smugness, which I'll tell you the people of this province will redress at the next election in the municipality of Surrey. You have jackbooted your way across this province in two ministries now, and the people are fed up with it. You're the least consulting minister and the least sensitive to the needs of a democratic politic like we have here in the province of British Columbia, which I know you don't understand in any particular.

[ Page 4891 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask the member to address the Chair.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister to address himself to what commission fees are being paid to Ontario, how much line, where, when, who pays, and what proportion.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I'll try not to get upset, but there certainly could be cause for that. Some of the things which have been said by the member certainly ought to be clarified. I'll get right to the point and answer these questions, but I appreciate the fact that this is the same member who only two years ago made a prediction that in 1981 British Columbia would have the highest unemployment in its history and housing and land prices would fall to nothing at all.

MR. LAUK: That's a lie. You're lying.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It was certainly attributed to you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. I would ask the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre to withdraw the statement "That's a lie," and then I will talk to the minister.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the minister is totally incorrect and he knows he's incorrect. I'll withdraw the accusation that he lied, and I expect the minister to withdraw his statement. I made no such statement at any time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the minister continues, it is very important to be most careful when canvassing the conduct or statements made by others. I think that is what invites unparliamentary rebuttal. I would ask that all members remember: "Good temper and moderation are characteristic of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate."

The minister continues.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, the legislative authority for planning with respect to transit lies with the UTA under the UTA Act, and of course it is contracted to the GVRD, the CRD and other such municipalities or bodies throughout the province. The proposal for the ALRT is for the contractor to put the system in to meet the specifications of the UTA. We are in the process of negotiating, or have negotiated and actually have ready for the overall agreement, a guarantee which is bonded by the Ontario government to the tune of $300 million and in effect states that the system will perform as per specifications and that the cost of the technology will be fixed at the time of contract. Also, of course, there is a completion date.

All of this is specifically set forth, and I think we're certainly very pleased to have seen the UTA negotiate these matters with UTDC, which probably gives us a contract unlike anything that's been negotiated — especially in the transit field — anywhere in North America at any time. I think the UTA has done a commendable job, and all members, regardless of where they sit in the House, should recognize that as a tremendous accomplishment. The UTDC will subcontract the detail design for the work for final approval by UTA, and the final decision with respect to all physical facilities rests with UTA.

The proposal is to plan a 20-kilometre two-way system from downtown Vancouver to New Westminster, and to start immediately and begin revenue service by 1986. I'm especially keen, as well, to ensure that the system is extended into Surrey and Coquitlam as quickly as possible in order to serve those very rapidly growing urban areas and in order to help alleviate the problems with the crossings. It's a system which I've said will go from Vancouver to New Westminster to Surrey and Coquitlam. It's approximately 20 kilometres, double-tracked. It's probably about 40 percent elevated. There will be no level crossings with gates coming down every 90 seconds. It is not, as the hon. member said, a toy train. As a matter of fact, it's a system which was recommended to us by the Urban Transit Authority, and the Urban Transit Authority, of course. has four GVRD members that sit on it. So it comes highly recommended. We're expecting that this system will be adopted in many other parts of the world, and we're pleased to be the leaders in the field.

MR. LAUK: The minister hasn't answered the question of who pays, and in what proportions.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The other thing that should be cleared up before it's sort of left on the record in a way that the member possibly intended it to be is that when he mentions train control, the train control is the same as computer control. I said that less than 3 percent of the system will be brought in. The balance is manufactured in Canada. There's no other system anywhere in Canada that can equal this. Even the regular trams manufactured by Ontario which are in fairly extensive use, especially back east, are only 78 percent manufactured in Canada. This is the most Canadian system of all. But the wayside computer control is an imported item and is part of that less than 3 percent component.

Who pays for it? That's a good question. We again, and British Columbians.... The hon. member for Vancouver Centre seems to be repeating what has been said by the mayor of Vancouver, Mr. Harcourt, a number of times. Let me assure you that it's recognized by all municipal people everywhere — bar none, unless they philosophically wish to pick argument — that British Columbia has the best financing formula for transit anywhere in Canada, by far. Let me also say that this means the capital is included in the financing formula, and in effect, we're paying now 75 percent of capital, which is reduced to 70 percent for the third and fourth year and two-thirds of the total cost thereafter. So the province is picking up the bulk of the cost.

MR. LAUK: I have just a couple more questions. One of the problems which I can see with going with the turnkey operation and why I think it's a big mistake is that you're opting on the one hand to hold one contractor responsible for the sake of convenience, efficiency or whatever, and on the other hand you have 80 percent of the work on a transit system such as this in the design and construction of the railbed, the structures, the power distribution and the signal system. That's about 75 to 80 percent.

I'll wait until the minister's attention is focused on the question. Is the minister concentrating on the question? My question is this: 80 percent of the construction is on the design and construction of the railbed system, the power distribution system, the signal system and structures. We

[ Page 4892 ]

could buy the cars from some turnkey operation. but why do we have to hand the whole contract over to UTDC? Doesn't that give the opportunity for the UTDC to start creaming — at the expense of good materials and good construction — on their total contract package? This is the conflict of interest that I think disturbs a great many people in the city. Another thing is that the railbed, track, power distribution and so on should be locally constructed by local contractors. local engineers and local people. The minister may say that's going to happen, but how can he guarantee it happening in a turnkey package system like we're buying?

I'll wait for the minister to hear this one. I understand the UTDC has already hired an engineer to help with the planning who will supervise the planning and perhaps even the placement of this project. But he's from Seattle. Already the minister must say the UTDC....

Perhaps the minister could listen to my questions and chat with the jolly fellow in the back when I'm finished. The minister should indicate if it is true. Can he confirm that an American engineer out of Seattle has been hired by UTDC for this project; and if so, has the minister decided to intervene and say: "Look, we've got engineers in Vancouver who can handle this kind of package. What's going on?"

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As far as I know — and I'm fairly certain of this — there is no Seattle engineer on the project. This sort of innuendo about Seattle engineers is perhaps a little misleading, to say the least.

Let's get on with the balance of the questions. The engineering will be done by local engineers. The physical structure will be done by tender and open contract so that local people will be bidding and competing with one another for their part of the job in all physical portions.

MR. LAUK: That's the railbed and everything?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The UTA will approve all the subcontracts. Yes, the railbed and all, all the physical structure.

We can go on for days and try to make things look bad in order to kill transit for the greater Vancouver area. The member can say: "You're arrogant, you're just bulldozing and bullying." Well, yes, contrary to what perhaps the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and the mayor of Vancouver have said they wanted, I am determined we will not need further studies, and we're going to get on with the job. We've studied this thing long enough. We're not going to delay transit another 3, 5, 10 or 15 years. We're not going to go through the process that you went through, hon. member, when you were government, of purchasing a bunch of used equipment to make do for a time. We're going to get on with a good transit system, and that's all there is to it action.

MR. LAUK: The minister is not directing himself to the question, and I don't expect that he'll want to. When you get a turnkey package operation, you're not going to have control over the construction of the railbeds, the rail lines and the power distribution system.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) said something that's probably truer than I'd like to believe: the system's not going to be built anyway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Negative, negative.

MR. LAUK: I don't want to be negative about this system.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You would like it to fail.

MR. LAUK: I don't want it to fail. I completely deny that to the minister.

Mr. Chairman, I think that for the system to succeed, it's our responsibility on the opposition side to point out the frailties of giving a package deal to one company. The minister has not assured this committee that giving the commitments that the railbed and power distribution system and others will be constructed in British Columbia by British Columbia engineers means anything in terms of that package deal. It's a conflict of interest to cream on one part of the deal and benefit the other.

The other thing is that it is a low-capacity system. Can the minister assure the committee — contrary to indications from Mr. Foley when asked about this subject — that it can be added to to make it into a higher-capacity system? All indications are that the ALRT — or that produced by the UTDC — is a low-capacity system, and that we're going to be stuck with that capacity for some considerable period of time, and that we cannot bring on a conventional higher-capacity system when needed. Those are the questions I have on transit, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The capacity of this system is 25,000 persons per hour per direction, which is 3,500 more per direction than the conventional LRT. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the first member for Vancouver Centre has no further questions, in the spirit of having debate reciprocate, the Chair will recognize the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) who's been trying to seek the floor.

MR. BARRETT: I'm on my feet. I'm standing.

I have one question to the minister. The night before we voted on the budget I saw the minister on television indignantly denounce a request from the GVRD in terms of financing transit by saying that in principle he would never vote for indexed taxes. When they asked for an indexing increase of tax on gasoline, he would never vote on an indexed tax. Is that correct? Did I see you correctly? Was that not you? You weren't pulling the wings off a fly — nothing incestuous, nothing like that. Through you, Mr. Chairman, that was you. Smiling on time; you don't have to be cued like the other guy, who's the leader. You do it on time. You look right in the camera, indignant. That's it. Look at that. There he is.

"No way would I ever vote for indexed tax." Twenty-four hours later he stood up in this chamber and voted for the first indexed taxing on gasoline to support his government. Mr. Chairman, I want to know if that was done with the full knowledge that school children in this province might read the record and discover that the minister was saying one thing on television and doing something else in his chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will all members please come to order. It would appear to me that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is reflecting on a vote that is already

[ Page 4893 ]

passed. If the hon. leader can relate his remarks to vote 156, the committee would appreciate it.

MR. BARRETT: No, I'm not reflecting on a vote. I'm not debating the nature of the vote. I'm stating as a matter of record that the minister stood in his place that day and voted for indexed tax on gasoline on behalf of his colleagues and that government over there. Twenty-four hours earlier he was on television saying: "I would never support, in principle, the idea of an indexed tax." Were you fibbing on television, or were you fibbing in the House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I will have to ask you to withdraw that remark. You cannot impute a false motive to another hon. member of this House. That word is unparliamentary. Would the hon. member please withdraw.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw if you will withdraw that I was suggesting a false motive. I never said "false motive." The Chair did. I ask the Chair to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair will not withdraw. The Chair finds the language unparliamentary. The member has withdrawn. We continue on the debate on vote 156.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I do not ascribe to the member a false motive. I never suggested that.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: What did I do wrong? Mr. Chairman, let's go over it again, so we'll understand. I didn't do anything wrong. I'm saying he did something wrong, but I'm not saying a false motive. On television, when he was asked by the GVRD whether or not he would support an indexed tax on gasoline to help finance transit, he said — and I saw him: "I will never support an indexed tax as long as I'm in public life."

MR. HOWARD: But I'll vote for it.

MR. BARRETT: Well, are supporting and voting for it two different things?

MR. HOWARD: Oh, yes, he voted blindly; he really didn't mean it.

MR. BARRETT: Look, Mr. Chairman, would you tell my back bench to be quiet; I've got enough trouble with the minister without these fellows protecting him. I tell you he meant to vote for it.

MR. HOWARD: No.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, he did mean to vote for it.

MR. HOWARD: Did you, Bill?

MR. BARRETT: You ask him. Do you think he had a false motive?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: Speak to the Chair. Mr. Chairman, did you know what the hotliner Rafe Mair said about that member? He called him a turkey. You can't say that.

It's a quiet afternoon, Mr. Chairman. The press is not going to pick this up — it's time for confession. Could the minister tell this House why he would say one thing on television and do something else the next day? I mean I'd really like to know that. Now if the minister didn't mean what he said on television — write these questions down, because it will save us a lot of time — if you didn't mean what you said on television, have you written the station and said: "Withdraw that interview with me or I'll sue you for showing what I said"? You're pretty good at suing people for cartoons and stuff like that — sensitive feelings, people catching up with what you've said.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will again remind all hon. members of the committee that we must relate our comments to vote 156, the administrative actions of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. If the hon. Leader of the Opposition would contain his debate to that, then the committee would be well served.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, we're talking about financing transportation. Is that not right? All right, Now did I hear the minister correctly? I heard him correctly. He said the night before the vote on the budget, "I will never vote for an indexed tax, " and the next day he did. Now would the minister please explain to me how this contradiction came about?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, it's on the financing of transit. Would you call the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) to order, please.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the Leader of the Opposition raised that particular point, because it will perhaps help clarify something that I have wanted to see clarified for some time, and hopefully the member may have something further to say after I give my response. But first of all, we've been hearing all afternoon from various members — just a moment ago from the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) — about how they would like to see the system fail, and I was just reminded, when the Leader of the Opposition spoke just a moment ago, of what he said in New Brunswick in 1976: "I hope British Columbia goes down and down, because the further down it goes the better I like it."

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, that is false, and I ask the minister to withdraw it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: They want failure; they thrive on failure; they attract the negatives and the failures.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will all hon. members please come to order. I have asked all members of the committee to relate all their remarks to the vote before us, and I will suggest the same to the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. If all members of the committee would do that, if we could discuss the administrative actions of the department, as we are so instructed to do in Committee of Supply, then the committee could proceed on vote 156.

[ Page 4894 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman. I'm attempting to rationalize all of this debate today about the failure and their desire for failure, because, as I said, they thrive on it. But getting back now to the question, it will possibly give me an opportunity to verify something that has been on my mind for a while, and that's the fact that the delegation that came here apparently had the support, if not of the Leader of the Opposition then certainly of a good many members of the opposition, and definitely of the member of the opposition who, as the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) said, was their spokesman for the NDP in Vancouver, namely Mayor Harcourt. When they came to us with this proposition....

MR. LAUK: You're a pathological liar.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will have to ask the first member for Vancouver Centre to withdraw that remark.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, let me tell you something about that man. Lie after lie after lie....

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, I find those comments grossly disorderly, and under standing order 20 I will ask you to withdraw from the chamber.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) also used that offensive language. I would ask him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not hear that.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs continues on vote 156. Oh, I'm sorry, the first member for Victoria has a point of order.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs to withdraw the false and wrongful accusation that I suggested at any time — I defy him to produce any such word from the Blues — that Mayor Harcourt was the spokesman for the New Democratic Party in Vancouver or in any other place. That is a false accusation that cannot be found in any statement I've made in this House, and I ask him to withdraw unequivocally and to do so now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not a valid point of order. The member may take his place in debate during Committee of Supply with absolutely no restriction on the amount of times he can speak and, in fact, give the House an opinion with respect to the comments. I can't, hon. member, ask for a withdrawal on your point of order.

On another point of order, the first member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: My point of order is in regard to the advice you just gave. I do not stand to correct the record. I stand to ask the minister on a point of privilege, if you will, because I'm personally offended to have him put words in my mouth that I never said, indicating, as he put it: "The mayor of Vancouver is the spokesman for the NDP." To make such a false claim with a straight face is personally offensive. What I did say for the record is that of course he's a member of the New Democratic Party, and he's never tried to be deceitful about it — unlike a few other municipal politicians I can think of.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you are now....

MR. BARBER: But in any case, if you prefer that as a point of privilege, I ask the minister to withdraw unequivocally the false and wrong claim that I said the mayor of Vancouver was the spokesman for the NDP. I didn't say it. I wouldn't say it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I can't accept that as a point of order. You have the right to speak to the committee and point out your truth in Committee of Supply, and if you were in the House, you could rise on the same point of privilege under standing order 42. What the hon. minister said was not unparliamentary, and the hon. first member for Victoria has the sanction of the committee to rise in this committee and point out on his behalf what might be a conflicting opinion.

The member for Skeena on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: The point of order I want to submit to the Chair is this: you yourself — that is the member for Prince George South in the chair as Chairman — have ruled on other occasions that if statements are made in this House which are offensive to an individual member and that individual member rises to complain about them, it's incumbent upon the person who makes the statement to withdraw, if asked to do so. You have ruled that way and now you're ruling another way. I submit you have to maintain some regularity with your rulings, Mr. Chairman, or the whole office of Chairman of committee will fall into disrepute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I have ruled on many occasions...

MR.HOWARD: ...any way you feel like it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. I have ruled on many occasions that when language is unparliamentary, a member must withdraw. It is on that basis that rulings are made in this House by the Speaker and by the Chairman of committee.

On vote 156, the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, the delegation came forth requesting that the gas tax, the hydro surcharge, and the escalation of it be tied to the cost-of-living increases on a per annum basis. This in effect could mean that you could well double the revenues that might accrue to the regional district every five years, and in fact you would double the taxes to people every three, four or five years, whether they needed it or not. So, you see, I could certainly not accept that proposal by the GVRD. However, while I perhaps could not accept that proposal, they had considerable support from the other side, but certainly those members can speak for themselves. We agreed on most of the points raised by the GVRD, but that's one I could not accept.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

[ Page 4895 ]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for being candid. One day he says he can't accept this principle, but the next day he votes for the principle. I want to know what happened in between the time he first said he could never vote for indexed taxes and 24 hours later when he voted for it. Today, nine days later, he comes back in the House and says he's opposed to the principle. I want to know what it is that makes it a principle one day and a matter of expedient politics the next day and then back onto principle again nine days later.

There may be young people coming into this Legislature who expect consistency when a minister declares what principle is. Today the minister has again confirmed that he could not accept the principle of indexed taxes on gasoline for UBCM or for transit. Cool, cool, cool, easy — you'll think of a slippery way, I'm sure. I'm anxious to hear it. He gets up here and he says he's opposed to it; but his name is on the record as voting for it.

MR. BARBER: Hypocrisy.

MR. BARRETT: That is not hypocrisy, Mr. Chairman. That is an unparliamentary word. It is not hypocrisy. Is it double-dealing? No, it can't be that. "Fibbing" is out. "Lying" is out — one guy is out for saying that. Could the Chair instruct me? What could I say — stranger than the truth?

I saw on the television that indignant defence for the taxpayers by that minister, who said: "Those municipal taxing agencies are going to grab the money and double it in five years. I'll never vote for indexing taxes." Twenty-four hours later he stands up there smiling and votes for it. Then he gets up today to try to obscure it by talking about Mayor Harcourt and this and that and everything else. Then he says quietly: "Yes, I'm against it in principle, but that doesn't mean I don't vote for it when I have to."

That minister sitting over there wants the voters of this province to believe him when be goes on television and says things like that. That minister over there got on television and left the impression with the voters that what he's saying is a matter of fact, a matter of truth, a matter of commitment, a matter of principle, when 24 hours later he voted against exactly what he'd said he was not going to do.

This is not a socialist plot. It's got nothing to do with the Bierman cartoon. It's got nothing to do with offence against the minister personally, who I happen to really love as a human being.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: So help me, I love him as a human being. Mr. Chairman, I love everybody, including that minister. But sometimes it's harder to love some people than it is others. One of the things that makes it harder to love people is when they say one thing one night and do something else the next day, and hope nobody will notice.

AN HON. MEMBER: You do that all the time.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, there he goes again. The first guy fingered by Rafe was called the turkey. Guess who it was.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, we seem to be again straying somewhat from vote 156, the minister's office, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. References to open-line shows of any kind or to other ministers — the Chair finds great difficulty, hon. leader in finding that relevant to vote 156.

MR. BARRETT: I agree with the Chairman. Any more reference to open-line shows could mean that another cabinet minister might go. Competing stations might get one of them. So I promise not to talk about open-line shows or the host Rafe Mair or what he called cabinet ministers, i.e. turkeys. I'm not going to talk about any of that.

I'm talking about what that cabinet minister admitted he said on television. Just a few minutes ago he said he doesn't support indexing taxes. Then he came into this House and voted for indexing taxes, ironically on exactly the same resource — the gasoline tax.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, they can all interrupt and throw in little stories and say all kinds of things. It can hurt my feelings, and maybe I'll sue a cartoonist. or I'll go for the leadership; but I've already got it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Not for long!

MR. BARRETT: Are you after me, Garde? Well, Mr. Chairman, there it is. The Liberals are ready to jump again. I know who's after it: the guy in the tunnel.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, vote 156, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, minister's office, estimates thereof.

MR. BARRETT: Will the minister tell me what the guiding philosophy is that allows him to say one thing on television and to vote completely opposite the next day? Is that the same philosophy that says: "I'm really a Liberal, but I could join Social Credit, and I really support Bill, but if he goes down the tube I'll run for the leadership"? Is that the same philosophy that says one thing out there on the hustings but another thing in the House? How do you justify that philosophy? How do you rationalize it" What are you looking for?

Tell us, Mr. Minister, while the Premier's here, so he'll know what lie has to guard against. For example, when you say outside. "I'll never knife Bill," does that mean you're really going to do it, or what? I want to know what it means when the minister says. — I'll never do this," and 24 hours later he does it. Will you give us the signal, the blueprint, the layout? The last thing I want to advise the minister — if you're going to consult anybody, that's the last guy to consult.

Conic on, Mr. Minister, I want to know. How is it the syndrome for success allows this'? Tell us. so I can tell the children out there.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You've got to sit down first.

MR. BARRETT: Don't tell me to sit down. Are you ready to answer? Okay, Mr. Chairman, he's ready.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm very pleased that the Leader of the Opposition is in the House for a change,

[ Page 4896 ]

because he hasn't been here an awful lot. Perhaps he may have something to contribute to the debate, but obviously right now that member is extremely confused. He doesn't understand, or he doesn't want to understand or know the difference, and I can appreciate that, because that's what caused the province to go down the tube in three years when he was supposedly in control during the early seventies. He was confused then, he's confused now, and he doesn't understand. He gets up and raves in a high-pitched voice, but he doesn't have an inkling about what we're discussing.

Two requests have come from the GVRD. I understand, and repeat, that the opposition members — at least in part, if not the leader — supported the particular approach that their gasoline tax and Hydro surcharge be tied to the cost of living and automatically increased whether they needed it for transit purposes or not, so that the taxes would increase and double regardless of whether it was required for the budget or not. This was the one approach. I disagreed with that; I disagree with it now; I'll continue to disagree with that indexing proposal. The other was a request that instead of a 3 cent per gallon gasoline tax it might be a percentage, be it 3 percent or otherwise, which would remain at that level and be changed yearly. That request is under consideration. I have advised the members that I would review or consider that request following some experience for the coming year. We will all sit down early next year to look at that particular request. It's the second time they've asked, and I've promised them consideration of it.

So there is the difference between the two proposals. The one is to take all the taxes, index them to the cost of living, don't have a review but simply keep increasing taxes the socialist way, year by year for evermore whether you need it not. That's the one proposal. The other proposal is to take the 3 cents per gallon and instead make it 3 percent of the price of gasoline. The first I've rejected, the second I've promised to review in a year's time. I hope that's it now very clear to the Leader of the Opposition, that he will now understand, that he won't be confused again, that he'll try and remember, put it in his head and not have to ask it again and again, but that he'll keep it in mind.

MR. BARRETT: Now we're getting somewhere. I won't have to ask about it again and again. I understand perfectly. What you said "no" to for the municipalities you said "yes" to the next day for the provincial government. I know, and you know in your heart of hearts, beyond politics — because on occasion people are partisan here — just between us, a wink and a nudge in the House, that what he said was no good for the municipalities he voted for the next day. He just repeated it again. Incidentally, it's totally incorrect to say that we supported the formula. Where do you throw this guff in from anyway?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Speak to the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber).

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the minister is so nervous. He's been caught in another one of....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The only thing you support is Trudeau.

MR. BARRETT: He doesn't need my support. He's a millionaire like the rest of you guys over there.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the interruptions of the Premier, who advises the would-be Premier how to say one thing outside and do another thing in the House.

Just to go over it so we know exactly where we stand, as I understand it — and I'll look in the Blues — you said that when they came to you with a formula that automatically indexed the gas tax, you would not support it, because no matter what it was it would still go up, double and triple.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No? You mean you're just changing your mind now? Let's go over it slowly. You are opposed to the formula of indexing gasoline tax to the cost of living. Is that right?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you very much. Now at no time on television did the words "cost of living" come in. On television the words were simply: "I am opposed to indexing tax, period, in principle." That's what he said. Now we see the famous, "Ah, well, " a little frown, a little shrug. Oh, what's a few words missing, eh? We know what's going on, Mr. Chairman. The wheels are finally beginning to turn and they're meshing in the minister's head and he realizes: "Hey, I goofed here, so now I've got to add these little words."

MR. MACDONALD: He knows what he's doing. He doesn't think much of that bunch and he's a rebel in those ranks.

MR. BARRETT: He is?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: He wants to be leader.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: Why doesn't he get a guy for 62 grand a year?

MR. MACDONALD: He knows what he's doing.

MR. BARRETT: He knows what he's doing? Mr. Chairman, will you call this member to order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. I must remind all hon. members that we're on vote 156, the office of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Clearly, the line of inquiry that is being taken at this time is not in order for Committee of Supply. We must remember that there is a section of our standing orders which says that we must be strictly relevant. We are talking now about the administrative actions of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I would ask the members to bear in mind the "strictly relevant" section that guides our debate in Committee of Supply.

MR. BARRETT: The Minister of Municipal Affairs under his vote, as the administrator responsible for deciding the funding of transit — said on television: "I do not support

[ Page 4897 ]

in principle any tax that is automatically escalated or indexed." Having said that, the minister came in this House and voted for exactly that kind of tax the next day. The point that I'm making — and the minister emphasizes — is that what is good for municipal affairs when he talks one way in dealing with financing transit is not good when he's a politician in this House.

We can have a lot of fun about this issue. We can slice it backwards and forwards. We can giggle and have interruptions. The fact is that the people of this province were given a glimpse of the two standards of the same minister: one thing for the public and another vote in this House when it comes to this government indexing taxes. The first indexed taxes in the history of British Columbia were passed by that Social Credit majority over there, with that minister's vote, 24 hours after he said he'd never vote for such a tax. That's a matter of record, Mr. Chairman, and I'm dealing with it under his vote.

There's no use belabouring this issue. The fact is that the minister said one thing one night, did something else the next day, and has tried to dodge around it ever since. It is sheer hypocrisy on that minister's part, and I think that is parliamentary, Mr. Chairman — "hypocrisy" is acceptable. I didn't say he was fibbing or lying. I said it is hypocrisy. But it is the hallmark of Social Credit to say one thing out there one day and do something else in here the next day. He is the prime example of Social Credit: say anything and do anything as long as you think you can get away with it. Well, sooner or later it's going to catch up with you — and I think it's going to be sooner. You cannot tell municipal officials that you do not support a tax that has built-in inflation and then go ahead and support it. Against indexing tax in principle — that's what you said on television. And the next day you voted for indexing tax.

No matter how you try to explain it or apologize for it or anything else, we know what you did. Mr. Chairman, what hurts is that there are some people out there who might have believed you the night before when you said you wouldn't vote for it, and the next day you did vote for it. You're not kidding anybody. It's just a "say anything, do anything" syndrome. It's related, in effect, to dirty tricks. It's in your heads; it's in your actions; it's just another dirty trick by a politician.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I certainly won't take those last remarks seriously. I must consider the source. When he says, "They'll catch up with you," there's nothing to catch up with. But they obviously caught up with him in three years. That's all he lasted in the province of British Columbia. I doubt very much if he'll ever con the people again into voting for them once more and having them reign as government in this beautiful province and pushing it down the drain inside of another three years.

I think the record ought to be clear on this. I thought the Leader of the Opposition understood. How many times do I have to say it again? But he's very good at twisting and turning and making it look as if something is really something entirely different. Then he'll get out there some place, perhaps next week, when he's away from the House again for a week or two or ten days, travelling around instead of being in the House, and he'll say that the Minister of Municipal Affairs said one thing one day and something else another day. He'll leave that impression out there. Because he'll be speaking largely to NDP audiences, there could be those that believe him, unfortunately. They follow like a blind group. It's a religion.

Let me read from the letter dated March 13, 1981. I think the Leader of the Opposition was given a copy, so he should be aware of what's in the letter, but he conveniently overlooked it.

Chairman Alan Emmott
Vancouver Regional District
2294 West 10th Avenue
Vancouver, B.C.

"Dear Chairman Emmott:

"Re: current local transit tax sources — i.e. gasoline tax and power levy; the request from you that they be adjusted with the cost of living.

"As you are aware, this issue requires an amendment to the UTA Act. At this time the government, as a matter of principle, will not introduce a tax that is tied to the cost-of-living adjustments.

"I will, however, continue to reconsider the gasoline tax levy biannually in accordance with the agreement reached with the regional board last year."

Let me repeat again: the request from the regional district at the beginning of last month was that the gasoline tax and the hydro surcharge be tied to the cost of living, and that it would increase annually for ever more on the basis of that increase of cost of living, whether the regional district needed it or not. That was the proposal. The earlier proposal was that instead of 3 cents per gallon it be 3 percent of the price per gallon. The earlier proposal — and I say it again in this letter — I will review. This latter proposal I can't consider. I cannot support it.

I hope that finally that is very clear for the Leader of the Opposition. I guess maybe he'll get up and question it once more. He probably doesn't understand it still, but I'll perhaps send it to him in written form as well. Then he'll have it to look at every night before he goes to bed.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the minister is against indexing taxes for the municipality, but is for indexing taxes for the provincial government. That's what the crux of it is. One night you got up and you said that you're against it for the municipalities; the next day you stood up and voted for it in this House. No matter how much you say or how much you skip around and read everything else, the simple matter is you said before that you'd never vote for that kind of tax; the next day you did vote for it. You rest that in your own conscience.

MR. KING: I've been listening to the debate with great interest. I was one of those people who watched the minister during his interview on television when he indicated that he would never allow the indexing of taxation by the municipalities to pay for transit or anything else. The minister has reiterated that here today. He's explained it quite well. Our difficulty is not in understanding that position. We understand that. What we on this side of the House have a little difficulty understanding is how a minister of the Crown could take that position as a matter of principle and then within 24 hours completely betray that principle. I would just like to explain — if the minister cannot comprehend where the conflict exists — that the conflict exists by his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), bringing in a budget which specifically provided for indexed taxation increases with respect to gasoline tax and with respect to tax on tobacco.

[ Page 4898 ]

MR. BARRETT: He voted for it.

MR. KING: And the Minister of Municipal Affairs voted for that budget which contained, Mr. Chairman, the very kind of tax indexing which he repudiated when an attempt was made by the municipal governments to use that method of revenue generation.

So it's a matter of conflict; it's a matter of double standards, as my colleague the Leader of the Opposition says. If the minister can't comprehend that, then I can readily understand why they abandoned the function of a member of their party trying to develop a code of ethics to regulate that party over there. We heard a great deal about that, Mr. Chairman. There was going to be a new code of ethics: openness, the truth, no more dirty tricks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Once again, on vote 156 we are talking about the administrative responsibility of the minister. I think that the hon. member will realize, on reflection, that he is straying somewhat from the strictly relevant aspect of vote 156.

MR. KING: I'm highly reflective today, Mr. Chairman, but I thought that perhaps that did have something to do with the minister's administrative capabilities. Certainly consistency, openness and honesty should be the hallmark of a minister of the Crown in British Columbia as a basic criterion for him to perform his ministerial functions effectively and with proper regard and respect for the office that he holds. I think the minister departed from that standard when he allowed the conflict between his policy statements to municipalities and his vote in the House on the budget. But that's for the people to judge, Mr. Chairman.

I want to raise another matter with the minister. It's an interesting thing and I want my colleagues on this side of the House to listen very closely, because I think that minister has developed a number of new standards and a number of new criteria over the past year. This one relates to a rezoning application for land that was originally in the agricultural land reserve. It's in my own riding. I have a very, very interesting letter here, Mr. Chairman, which I would like to share with the House, wherein the Minister of Municipal Affairs sets out a new criterion for removing land from the agricultural land reserve and for approving rezoning. This is a letter dated September 30, 1980. It's addressed to a Mr. Louis Blanc in Chase.

"Dear Mr. Blanc:

"Thank you for your recent letter regarding zoning amendment bylaw No. 578 of the Thompson Nicola Regional District. In March 1980 I was not prepared to approve the bylaw. However, since that time I have received additional information which addresses the concerns I had.

"The regional board advise me that in regard to the recommendations from the planning bodies involved, it was their opinion that the proposed subdivision would not be an intrusion on the surrounding agricultural uses, that a significant number of small holdings were existing in the area, and it was not considered" — listen to this, Mr. Chairman — "a ranching region because feed was imported."

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Municipal Affairs obviously knows something that the Agricultural Land Commission does not. Apparently he has set up a new standard which holds that if you have to import hay to feed your stock even for a short period of the year, then that land is no longer agricultural land because it doesn't support the growth to accommodate your herd. Any time you have to import grain or foodstuff to accommodate your herd, then you are not on agricultural land.

I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) knew about this letter. I wonder if he approved it? I wonder if this is a new standard which the Agricultural Land Commission now functions by. It's a new criterion altogether to me, and I thought it was absolutely intriguing that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in this kind of brief, offhand manner, is prepared to categorize and rezone land as being outside the agricultural capability simply because there was the importation of feed.

Mr. Chairman, I would be most interested in hearing the minister's explanation of that particular comment contained in the letter, because I want to say that if that is a new criterion that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has set up, which is a higher evaluation than the Agricultural Land Commission or his colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food, then certainly there are some very serious implications in virtually every part of the province of British Columbia, because I doubt that there is any area of ranching or farming in the province of British Columbia which is capable of producing the total feed crop necessary to accommodate the herds. In virtually every area of the province feed has to be imported at least part of the year. Now if the minister is serious, and if this is the criterion, I'd like to know how it was developed and who was involved. Was it the Agricultural Land Commission? Was it the ELUC?

AN HON. MEMBER: Or Art Knapp?

MR. KING: Or was it Art Knapp, as my colleague says? But really it's a very intriguing letter to be put out by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and I would appreciate very much his responding and explaining to me precisely how he came to this new standard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 156 pass?

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I've asked the minister a very serious question. I know that he may well be tuckered out by his gymnastic exercise in trying to wiggle out from under his conflicting statements regarding tax measures in the province. But that's behind him for the moment, and perhaps he can lend his mind and his attention to the question that I have asked on behalf of a constituent of mine, who wants to know what the score is. Is that really the criterion now for determining whether land is agricultural? Is that the criterion: whether or not any feed was imported to serve the herd, whether it be beef cattle, swine or whatever? Because if it is, it has very serious implications for the rural areas of British Columbia, and I would think some of his own colleagues would want to know all about this. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), I think, has some farming in his area.

I sincerely ask the minister to get up and tell me whether this was just another casual and careless statement or whether it truly reflects government policy at the moment.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs....

[ Page 4899 ]

Interjection.

MR. KING: Yes, it's a very short-term grant too. I think the minister should know that.

I'll go on to other things then, and hope that the minister might put this in his reference book and answer as we go along. The minister is highly communicative. This is the same guy who bought television time with the taxpayers' money to go on television and explain to the people what his policies are. Isn't it odd, Mr. Chairman, that when we get him here in the Legislature on the one occasion during the year when the opposition has an opportunity to question him regarding the administrative functions of his office, regarding the spending programs of his ministry, he seems very reluctant to answer. Perhaps he prefers television to the forum that he sits in at the moment, or perhaps he enjoys answering when the taxpayers' money is providing a forum for him rather than the elective forum of the Legislature, I would seriously ask the minister to respond to the question on agricultural land that I've put to him. It's his letter, it's his signature, and certainly it deserves some explanation.

The other point I wanted to raise with the minister, is, again, a question that relates to the minister's area of responsibility: the Municipal Act. This question relates to the designation of a newspaper as contained in the Interpretation Act of the province of British Columbia. I draw to the minister's attention that regional districts are obliged by the Municipal Act to publicize bylaws and so on sufficiently in advance that the electors in the area are aware of the pending bylaw. The problem that arises in some regional districts with very small rural newspapers is that unless a newspaper is sold in the fashion of the Vancouver Sun or the Province, with a list of subscribers, with an actual cost of distribution, then it does not qualify under the Interpretation Act as a bona fide newspaper. In other words, small publications that are carried by advertising but handed out, such as shoppers' guides and so on — which in some areas might be the only publication — fail to qualify as a bona fide newspaper and are therefore not entitled to carry the advertising required under the Municipal Act for bylaws and so on,

In one of these cases, where a small publication such as I refer to carried a bylaw notice, litigation subsequently ensued on that point and the court held that because this small publication did not meet the criteria set out in the interpretation Act — that is, it did not have a list of subscribers and did not actually sell its publication — then it failed to meet the test of a bona fide newspaper under the act. Therefore they're shut out of any advertising by the government — be it local or provincial — under the Municipal Act. That seems unfair, and it seems discriminatory to some of the small publications, which should be on an equal footing with the dailies or the weeklies in rural areas, simply because they exist on the basis of advertising support rather than day-to-day sales. It is also a requirement of the definition of a newspaper under the Interpretation Act that it be recognized by the Post Office.

I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs has had correspondence in this respect. I believe he has indicated an intention to do something about it, and I submit that he does have under his jurisdiction the authority to correct this inequitable criterion, at least as it applies to advertising for regional district bylaws, etc. I would reiterate that in some particular areas of the province it's not a matter of a publication such as I've described even competing against a weekly newspaper; in some of the areas this might be the only publication available to meet with the requirements of the Municipal Act. In any event, I hold that it's only fair and even-handed to allow the same rights to this type of publication that are allowed to a weekly or a daily. I ask the minister whether or not he plans to take any action to remedy this obvious problem out there, which I don't think was contemplated or intended by the legislation, and I ask whether we can expect the minister to take some action on the matter at this particular session of the Legislature.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We're aware of the problem and it's in the process of being addressed.

MR. KING: While he is effusive and in this mood to answer, perhaps he would address himself to the other question which I ask in all seriousness. The copy of his letter which I referred to is signed by William N. Vander Zalm, Minister — I presume that's the same gentleman. He said it was not considered a ranching region because feed was imported. Now seriously — I'm having a bit of fun with it, but it's very serious — if that is a new criterion, I want to know something about it. The reference is: "It was not considered a ranching region because feed was imported." This letter is addressed by the minister, and I'd like an explanation.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't have all of the correspondence, so I really can’t comment on it except to say that very often we get requests for bylaw approval with respect to a rezoning of a subdivision in a regional district or village. If in fact there is some objection, or perhaps not necessarily an objection but a reservation on the part of a regional district — I assume this is what that was — then I'll quote it to the resident because I think he has a right to know. Now the resident may well think that that's a ridiculous reason and could go back to his regional district and argue it, but he can't argue it if he doesn't know what it is that the regional district turned it down for, or why they're not dealing with it. So given that information, hopefully it's of some help. I'm thinking that's what it is.

MR. KING: I don't think this was the opinion of the regional district. As I read it. It was the opinion of the minister. The board had advised him that in regard to the recommendation from the planning bodies involved, it was their opinion that the proposed subdivision would not be an intrusion on the surrounding agricultural uses. It seems to me like it was the minister's opinion. What I'm basically asking the minister is if he can assure me that the criterion that is articulated here is not a new criterion for establishing agricultural land in the province of British Columbia. If he can assure me, I would be quite satisfied. That's what it appeared like to me.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I was simply stating the reason given by the regional district. That's certainly no criterion with us.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, for the minister's information, at the bottom of page 24 of the budget speech — and I'll quote very briefly in reference to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) earlier — the following appears: "Starting October 1, 1981, the gasoline tax rate will be adjusted every three months to maintain the rate at 20 percent of the pre-tax pump price. Therefore if the retail price

[ Page 4900 ]

of gasoline increases by 5 cents per litre, the gasoline tax rate will be increased by I cent per litre." At the top of page 25 the minister's colleague, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), went on to say: "These measures will increase the fuel tax rate on all uses of petroleum fuels and will keep the tax rates in step with increases in the price of fuel." How much more clear does the government need to make its agenda than this statement makes it, Mr. Chairman? The minister voted in favour of a tax on gas which is tied to inflation, which is indexed, which I quote the Minister of Finance — "will increase the fuel tax rate on all uses of petroleum fuels and will keep the tax rates in step with increases in the price of fuel." It's fairly clear to us that the point made by the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely correct.

However, there is more evidence, and once again it comes from the budget speech, and this is the final quotation that I'll make from it. At the bottom of the speech at page 32: "Effective midnight tonight the tax on cigarettes will increase from 24 cents to 34 cents per package of 25. Starting September 1, 1981, this rate will be adjusted every six months to reflect increases in the price of cigarettes. There is a corresponding increase in the tax rate on tobacco." Once again, this is further proof that Social Credit has introduced indexed taxes. This they have done for the first time in the history of B.C. Not for the first time in the history of the Municipal Affairs minister, however, do we see some inconsistency on his part. Once again we observe that he has no defence at all when he attempts to squirrel his way out of the legitimate criticism that he said one thing to the GVRD, denying them a tax based on inflation, based on all of the standard tests and measures of cost of living, and then turned around 24 hours later and voted for a budget speech and a budget which, as I have just read word for word, clearly ties this government and that minister, who is a member of it, to indexed taxes. The inconsistency, the simple, sheer unmitigated gall of that inconsistent minister who tells the GVRD one thing and then votes quite another way in this House.... It's really a bit much for us. However, I just wanted to read that into the record so that we know what the minister voted for when he voted for the budget. That's what it said in the speech.

I want to talk about the proposed transit terminal in Victoria.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: I've been in order all day. You haven't been in the House all day, so how would you know?

The minister seems not to understand the important value and necessary aspect of an integrated urban transit facility. The ideal comprehensive and integrated transit facility would surely include buses pulling up, railway cars pulling into, automobiles parking at, helicopters landing on the roof of, and boats tying up at the dock of one centre. If you could possibly arrange it that simultaneously one urban facility served marine, road and air transportation, you would be thereby doing a great service to the future of the lucky urban community in which that integrated facility appeared.

I remember the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Curtis, making an excellent speech and referring, I believe, to the example of Hamburg. In that great metropolitan, community of Europe, there is an integrated facility where under one roof and serving one constituency of travelers is made available rail, road and air transportation. I remember that speech, and I applauded it at the time.

What do we hear now? We hear a nineteenth-century approach taken by a Minister of Municipal Affairs who has no imagination, no knowledge of what succeeds in other jurisdictions, and no courage to make it work here. Victoria does not need, does not want and will not use a transit facility located three miles from city hall to the north on Douglas. That's simply stupid. The former chairman of the city's transportation committee, Alderman John Cooper — an acknowledged expert in the field of urban transit, especially in the field of rail transit — and the mayor of Victoria, Mr. Tindall, who is on the UTA, have publicly stated that they reject any proposal to build a single-use transit facility out of town, well beyond the 3800 block of Douglas or in any other inappropriate location this government may propose.

It's simply foolishness to omit the opportunity to create at one site an integrated transit facility serving many uses and all the same people under one roof. Why do you want to do that? Is it because you think in the short run you're going to save a few bucks, because you think you can cut comers and cut costs, and not at the same time cut service? Downtown we need an integrated and comprehensive centre for every form of public transportation that can be practicably managed under one roof. That certainly includes — if we can locate it — marine transportation, because Victoria is a marine enterprise city. It must include buses and should include an extension of the E&N railway up Johnson Street or down Wharf, connecting wherever it may be located.

There are two other possible locations in downtown Victoria. One, of course, is the site behind the old laundry run by the Empress Hotel — a block currently used for parking. It's actually more than a city block and it's a site which is available, currently used for underground bus storage, and which, connected with the larger block across the street, could clearly, at one location within easy walking distance of the inner harbour, the float planes, the commercial district of the city and the tourist district of Victoria, serve the several needs of people concerned about public transportation. The train could pull up there, and the E&N should be given an opportunity to provide that service right into the heart of downtown Victoria. You could land certain forms of air transportation on the roof.

The heliport Victoria has right now, over across the Johnson Street bridge, is too far out of town. If in Manhattan, Chicago, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver they can land helicopters on the roofs of major buildings downtown where the structural support is more than great enough to support the weight, and the commercial traffic is more than great enough to support the investment, then surely in Victoria we can forget about this silly location for a heliport across in Vic West — it's just not an appropriate location — and instead bring it downtown and let that particular air service land on the roof. Why not? The same service could connect with rail, helicopter transportation and of course buses. The buses would be urban and suburban; they would be commuter and could as well be tour buses.

There's no reason why we shouldn't combine the interests of the tourist industry and that economy with the interests of the general transportation facilities needed by the people of Victoria. It might in fact be a good thing. The tourists who come in off the buses, be they coming over on the Marguerite or from Black Ball, should be able to catch a municipal bus if they wish, and should be able to catch the E&N service up the Island for a ski trip or a visit to one of the parks to go holidaying in some fashion, all under one roof

[ Page 4901 ]

and all in one setting. Why should we force a tourist who doesn't know the city to traipse a mile or two over to the E&N station, to traipse a mile over to a helicopter station, if he's taking a ride on a helicopter service that's increasingly available, or to walk another mile down to the Inner Harbour? Why on earth are we wasting money putting in a single purpose transit facility three miles from city hall, when in fact we have two sites available downtown that could serve several purposes at one time?

The other site available isn't quite as advantageous as the Empress Hotel site. Nonetheless, it commends itself, and it still seems to have the space necessary. It is theoretically available. It is currently unused, and it has rail service. I'm referring to the site owned by the CNR opposite the Molson brewery on Government, between the blocks effectively bounded by the Molson brewery on the east and Capital Iron on the west. This site is only four and a half blocks from city hall. It is, at the surface, large enough to manage the several uses that should be appropriate. Obviously it cannot provide a direct marine link, but it certainly provides the possibility of an air link, of road links and — importantly — of a rail link.

Once again, I want to urge that we're wasting our money if we build a new transit facility in the capital city that is so far out of town that it is no longer a practical objective to connect the E&N Railway with it. The minister may know that the E&N Railway currently ends just east of the Johnson Street Bridge at Wharf and Store. The Premier once came down, I recall, to celebrate the eightieth anniversary of the founding of the railway. That's a good thing; it's an important railway, and I'm glad it's still in business. In order to enhance its business, it must be tied more directly to the tourist economy of Vancouver Island. In order to improve its business, it must undertake part of the function of rapid transit and commuter transit serving the Western Community and downtown Victoria. That proposal has been made repeatedly by the Capital Regional District and by my colleague the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell).

Why are we wasting money putting in a single-purpose transit facility way out on Douglas Street where we cannot afford to extend the rail lines? Why would we do that when we have another facility available, in this case bounded basically by Government and Wharf at the Molson and Capital Iron sites? It's a waste of money. It reveals a lack of foresight. It reveals a willingness to save money in the short run and inevitably admit the loss of millions in the long.

I believe the city council of Victoria is unanimous in its rejection of the proposed single-purpose transit facility on northern Douglas Street. They don't like it, they don't want it, and they don't want to pay for it. I do note that the mayor of Victoria, Mr. Tindall, did say that he wasn't certain whether or not the minister had, in fact, decided to locate it there, even though the minister's officials said he had so decided. I noticed today, when this matter was raised by my colleague, Mr. Lorimer, that once again the minister indicated an apparent agreement that it was to be located there. So I have a series of questions for the minister.

The questions are: Has he personally and has his government corporately endorsed the northern facility location for the proposed transit centre in Victoria? Has he done that himself? Did Mr. Smith, on behalf of his government, in fact make a proper claim when he said he was announcing a government policy? The mayor of Victoria said he didn't think he did. So we'd like to know for sure whether or not Mr. Smith was speaking on behalf of the government when he made his announcement.

Secondly, has the government done a cost-comparison study? Have they done a user study? Have they made any kind of examination at all in a formal and documented way that we could look at which examined the possibilities of at least two other sites far more closely oriented to downtown than is the site way out on Douglas Street? If they've done those studies, would the minister at the appropriate time be prepared to table them? If they've not done the studies, would the minister be willing to delay a decision on a proposed new terminal for Victoria's bus service until such comparisons have been done and until such studies have been undertaken?

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the council of the city of Victoria is virtually unanimous in rejecting the so-called northern site; I believe they are virtually unanimous in rejecting the single-use option; I believe they are virtually unanimous in recognizing the value of incorporating air, road — and marine, if possible — public transit services under one roof at one centre. I argue as well that we could do a great deal to further enhance the tourist industry on Vancouver Island if we allowed tourists the further ability to connect under one centre with all of the principal forms of transportation that Vancouver Island has to offer. This would be a useful and helpful approach, and it in the long run is most certainly a cost-conscious approach. It is an approach which was commended to this Legislature by the member for Saanich (Hon. Mr. Curtis) two years ago when he made, if I may say, virtually the same speech that I'm making now, which we applauded then and which we endorse now, and in the endorsation of which we ask the minister to recognize that the proposed northern site for Victoria is simply foolish. It will only serve one purpose: it will narrow rather than widen the base of public acceptance of transit in this community and it will cut off all of the possibilities of tying in a metropolitan bus service with an up-Island bus service, with an up-Island bus service, with a rail service and with an air service that could and should function under one roof. So I ask the minister whether Mr. Smith spoke on behalf of the government when he made the announcement regarding the northern site. Does the minister have studies that looked minimally at two other sites that are available downtown for a comprehensive and integrated transit facility? Is he prepared to release those studies at the appropriate time? I and the people I represent in the city of Victoria would very much like answers to those questions.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Vote 157....

MR. BARBER: Oh, come on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Close, but.... [Laughter.]

The House resumed Mr. Speaker in the chair,

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

Hon. Mr. Phillips tabled the B.C. Cellulose Company financial statements for the year ending December 31, 1980.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and refer you to section 42 of standing orders. The point of order

[ Page 4902 ]

is that during a discussion earlier today in the House the Premier referred to.... I believe it was a major misunderstanding with respect to a question of who is responsible for balance-billing, etc., and he referred to....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Was this in committee, hon. member?

MR. COCKE: No, it was in the House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. COCKE: It was with respect to a point of privilege that I raised. He referred to the Hon. Ralph Loffmark as having been the person to introduce this question at that time. It was the Hon. Wesley Black who was the minister responsible for medicare in 1971. It was under the Provincial Secretary's office.

MR. SPEAKER: It is not a point of privilege; no motion attends. It is simply a correction. It seems to me that the member for New Westminster has sought to find the floor on a measure not provided for in standing orders. None the less, the correction will stand.

Hon. Mr. Smith tabled the report on education for 1979-1980.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled answers to questions on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

Appendix

11 Mrs. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Food, responsible for ICBC, the following questions:

1. During the period December 1979 to December 1980, what has been the total expenditure of ICBC to reimburse drivers on the Lake Cowichan Road for damage to glass?

2. During the period December 1979 to December 1980, what has been the total expenditure of ICBC to reimburse drivers on the Lake Cowichan Road for damage to paint?

3. How much did drivers have to pay as the deductible portion of this paint damage?

The Hon. J. J. Hewitt replied as follows:

"1. $255,029.

"2. $4,000.

"3. $900."

22 Mrs. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Food the following questions:

1. (a) How many job vacancies for temporary, permanent or contract employees were available in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food at the time of the hiring freeze in 1980, and (b) what was the job title, salary range and location for each position listed in reply to (a)?

2. (a) How many job vacancies for temporary, permanent or contract employees were available in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food at the time the freeze was lifted, and (b) what was the job title, salary range and location for each position listed in reply to (a)?

3. (a) How many job vacancies for temporary, permanent or contract employees were there in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to the latest date available, and (b) what was the job title, salary range and location for each position listed in reply to (a)?

The Hon. J. J. Hewitt replied as follows:

"l. (a) At the time of the hiring freeze the Ministry had 38 vacant positions in total.

[ Page 4903 ]

"(b)

"2. (a) and (b) same as above.

"It should be noted that the vacancy levels at the time the freeze was lifted are similar, as Treasury Board agreed to lift the freeze for the Ministry very quickly. In fact, verbal approval was received approximately one week after the imposition of the freeze.

"3. (a) At the present time, the Ministry has 38 vacant positions.

"(b)

[ Page 4904 ]