[ Page 5015 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On the amendment to vote 160: central ministry services –– 5015

Mr. Barber

Ms. Brown

Hon. Mrs. Jordan

Mr. Lorimer

Division on the amendment

On vote 161: transit services –– 5024

Mr. Barber

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Lorimer

Mr. Barrett

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Lea

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Cocke

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

On the amendment to vote 160: central ministry services, $596,514.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yesterday I advised the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) that standing orders preclude the use of such material as visual aids such as the one presently on the member's desk. Latitude was extended to the member yesterday for his initial display, but now I must instruct the member to remove the article from his desk.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, the Chair said standing orders prohibit such matter being presented. Could you cite the standing order, please?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Beauchesne, sixth edition, the section we looked at yesterday, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: You said standing orders, Mr. Chairman. I was just wondering which standing order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The rules of the House, hon. member.

For the benefit of all hon. members, I will once again read from page 117 of Beauchesne's sixth edition, section 333, entitled "Exhibits": "Speakers have consistently ruled that it is improper to produce exhibits of any sort in the chamber." He cites Debates, June 16, 1969, page 10156 –– I hope the matter is therefore settled.

MR. HOWARD: What you are ruling, then, Mr. Chairman, is that henceforth there be no distribution of any exhibits of any nature, be it apples or flowers or logs, such as the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) brought in at one time, and presented to the House and distributed. Those are exhibits of a nature, and I assume that is what your ruling means.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sure the hon. member is very familiar with what I am referring to. We are talking now about the placing of a specific exhibit on the desk.

I might add, hon. member, that throughout the day yesterday the member was allowed the opportunity to use the particular graph that he now has before him. Hon. member, the Chair so rules.

MR. HOWARD: But what you are ruling is that exhibits....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have ruled, hon. member, and that ends the matter. There is an option available to the member, but the ruling of the Chair has been made, and there the matter ends.

MR. HOWARD: But your ruling is on all exhibits of any nature — that's what you read. Speakers have consistently ruled that exhibits of any nature should not be presented in the chamber. Of course, if you're relying on what they do in Ottawa, and not what the practice is here.... It's passing strange to me that you would look to that place in Ottawa that nobody on the other side seems to enjoy in terms of any precedents. What you're ruling is that henceforth no exhibits of any nature shall be presented and displayed in the chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. For the benefit of all members I will once again say that my decision is based on the particular exhibit that is presently on the desk of the first member for Victoria. On that matter the Chair has made a ruling. If members wish, there is an opportunity to take the proper course. But there is no further debate; the Chair has ruled.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you're making a ruling on that particular exhibit — that's what you ve just said. If you're going to pick out a particular exhibit, you're leaving the Chair open to the charge that the Chair will decide what side of the House and when exhibits will be seen. My colleague has asked: does this ruling mean that from now on all exhibits will be prohibited? You just mentioned that one. None of that stuff; that's politics.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair has ruled that the particular exhibit on the desk of the first member for Victoria is not to be placed there. The Chair so rules, and there is no discussion,

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. BARBER: On a point of order pursuant to your ruling, which I would like to understand.... As the Chairman will remember, I gave an undertaking yesterday, according to the advice of the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) that he only used his charts and displays for a limited period, that I would too — during the period of moving reductions in votes — and then it would be put away because it would serve no further purpose. I wonder if the Chairman could advise me why, when some time ago the member for Dewdney spent some time in this House with displays and exhibits, we heard no such ruling from the then Chairman, When the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) brought logs into the House as an exhibit in favour of his proposed Forest Act, we heard no such ruling from the Chair. When the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), then the Minister of Tourism, brought exhibits into the House — smile buttons and other paraphernalia on her desk — once again we heard nothing from the Chair. What I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, pursuant to your ruling, is whether or not there's just the possibility that some people would think there might be a double standard here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. As the member will recall, yesterday the Chair advised the member, we read the section that we're referring to and the member was allowed to produce the particular chart that he now has on his desk. He was permitted to use that extensively for approximately an hour and a half yesterday — more time than either of the other

[ Page 5016 ]

members referred to. At that point, hon. member, I advised the member that the graph would not be allowed to be used further in the chamber. I've cited the particular reference. The member has used the graph already, certainly more so than any of the others referred to by other members. On that matter we carry on with our business, which is the amendment to vote 160.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, standing order I says: "In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in force at the time shall be followed as far as they may be applicable to this House." I think that when the Chair cites a practice in the House of Commons in Ottawa, it should be the very last thing that applies in practice to this House. For instance, I have risen in this House under a practice, which is quite acceptable in Beauchesne and which is silent in other jurisdictions, to ask if an hon. member in the middle of his speech would entertain a question. This is quite the practice in Ottawa. I'm sure that Beauchesne recognizes that. But I was told that we follow the rules of Erskine May as he explains the interpretation of rules in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Chairman, what concerns me here is that we are saying that we who are a Legislature and are really sovereign are now going to become subservient to another House which should really be our equal, not our superior. We get our practice under standing order 1. I see no reference which says, that we should then disregard practice which is firmly established in this House and follow the rules of Ottawa. I think that the Speaker probably made a good ruling the other day when he said: "Yes, that's true. That's a practice in Ottawa, but you don't do it here because we follow the rules of Great Britain." I'm very concerned, Mr. Chairman, that if this is going to be the procedure, we start looking at Beauchesne and using it....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I think the member has made his point.

MR. NICOLSON: Would Mr. Chairman then reconsider?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, for the benefit of all members let us just review what does guide our activities in this chamber. Our own standing orders are our first guide. Second is the English practice that we have based our parliamentary tradition on. Lastly, we use the references when available from Ottawa or other common parliamentary traditions to which we can look for guidance in customs and usage in our own House.

Hon. members, firstly, I now instruct the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) to remove the sign. Thank you, hon. member.

I have concluded debate on the matter, hon. members.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, you have a responsibility under standing order 9....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I also have responsibility under other standing orders. The first member for Victoria.

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

MR. NICOLSON: It is absolutely imperative to the continuance of order in this House. You have an obligation under standing order 9, and I ask you to live up to it!

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

Interjection.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN:.Order, please. Hon. members, again I would bring....

MR. NICOLSON: Cite an authority anywhere in the Commonwealth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I order the member for Nelson-Creston now to leave the chamber.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm not going to.... I would ask you to adjourn this House in the interest of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sergeant-at-Arms. Sergeant-at-Arms.

MR. NICOLSON: This is a travesty!

MR. CHAIRMAN: This committee will come to order. The Leader of the Opposition is on his feet on a point of order. No interruptions will be tolerated. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

MR. BARRETT: As the member for Nelson-Creston pointed out, he asked the Chair to cite the particular standing order under which the ruling was made. For asking, Mr. Chairman, for the definition of the ruling under standing order 9, the member was asked to leave. Now I can understand that there's a need for order in the House, but when a member asks for a definition under standing orders, that is hardly appropriate for the kind of scene we've had. I repeat the member's request: under standing order 9, would the Speaker please tell us under what standing order the decision was made?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Firstly, may we just review the very firm rule, which has been established in this House, that when the Chairman or the Speaker is standing, absolutely no conversation is to take place. That is the ultimate and only way that this chamber may be brought to order. If members, whether they be on a valid point of order or an invalid point of order, whether they be right or whether they be wrong, the Chair has made it abundantly clear that when the Chair rises no interruptions will take place, or the member will be excluded from this chamber. That, hon. members, was the reason for the last action; it had nothing to do with the points of order.

Now in reference to the Leader of the Opposition, let me read standing order 9: "Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide questions of order, subject to an appeal to the House without debate. In explaining a point of order or practice, he shall state the standing order or authority applicable to the case." Or authority.... Hon. members, we read from Beauchesne twice today, twice yesterday, to refer specifically to the matter before us. Hon. members,

[ Page 5017 ]

with due respect, the matter should at this point be concluded, and we should return to debate.

The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Under standing order 9, it is imperative that the Chair receive the full respect of every member, and because of that the Chair must calmly explain authorities or standing orders.

As I recall the series of events that have unfortunately happened, the member was not facing the Chairman on his feet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please,

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we have a problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clearly now, hon. member, you are entering into debate on an issue that has already been decided.

MR. BARRETT: No. In reference to the point of order I raised, you went through an explanation that I didn't ask for. I asked for the interpretation of standing order 9, but the Chair then interpreted his actions for throwing the member out under the request that I asked on standing order 9. Now you're saying, Mr. Chairman, that the member was not thrown out for asking for an interpretation of standing order 9, but that he was thrown out because he didn't sit down when you stood up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right.

MR. BARRETT: Well, that was not made clear to the member, nor do I recall, Mr. Chairman, very candidly, that the member was on his feet when you were on your feet, and I point that out to you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The Leader of the Opposition, doubtless, does not have the same view of the chamber as does the member presiding.

Hon. members, the first member for Victoria rises on the amendment to vote 160.

MR. BARBER: The use of graphs and charts ordinarily would save time, but that being unavailable at the moment at least, I will return without graphs and charts and will have to take a little longer to explain verbally what I would rather illustrate visually, and that is the necessity for this government to respect, honour and support the proposed amendments the New Democratic Party puts forward in the estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. As the chart would show, if it were available to the committee, we propose to reduce the spending estimates by $368,000 this year. In particular, our amendment to vote 160, specifically $76,262, is an attempt to reduce the waste, trim the fat and get rid of some of the red ink — for which Social Credit is responsible — in the general budget whose specific estimate we are now voting.

Specifically, Mr. Chairman, our amendment does not reduce public service salaries by one penny. It does not reduce the ability of the minister or his associates below last year's spending to do anything they did last year in the field of travel, office expenses and advertising. But we are shocked to discover that in vote 160 the estimate for travel is up by a phenomenal 192 percent. This is the government that poses and parades as cost-cutters, but when you look close you find out where their real priorities lie. When you look close you discover that office expenses in this vote are up by 133 percent, a shocking admission by Social Credit of its gross inability to control spending within the public purse. And when you look even closer, Mr. Chairman, you discover that under vote 160. which we are now amending, advertising expenses are going up an unheard of 266 percent.

This group of posers opposite, who pretend in campaigns that they are cost-conscious but who in this committee reveal their true hand, which is that they are reckless, wasteful and spendthrift, propose increases that cannot be justified in a year of restraint and in a time of high inflation either. A government that should be setting an example is doing just that, but the problem is that they are setting the worst possible example for the people of British Columbia and for private enterprise in British Columbia. Private enterprise has also got to be told to tighten its belt. They tell that to trade unions, and that same thing must be said to private enterprise. When it comes from a government that raises travel expenses by 192 percent, office expenses by 133 percent and advertising by 266 percent in this one vote alone, then we, Mr. Chairman, tell this committee that these proposed expenses are utterly unacceptable.

We have made a motion to reduce vote 160 by $76,262, Let me say again, so that the minister may not twist our intent, that this does not apply to public service salaries or the vital functions of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I've acted as critic for that ministry for going on six years now; I have great respect for its necessary and worthwhile work: I have no respect for a minister who would come in and propose to increase travel by 192 percent, office expenses by 133 percent and advertising by an astonishing 266 percent.

The government, which runs around this province and says that it will exercise fiscal restraint and that it will be an example of prudence to the people of British Columbia, has no right to come in with a proposal like this. The government has an obligation to support an amendment like ours. It reduces not public service salaries, not vital expenditures. but unnecessary expenditures in the field of travel. office expenses and advertising. But does it reduce it to zero, Mr. Chairman? No, it doesn't. All we do is reduce this year's figure to last year's figure. We allow no increase in the field of travel, office expenses or advertising. We don't cut it down to nothing; we simply restrict them to what they spent last year. This is not a punitive amendment; this is a cautionary amendment. This is not like the Premier treating the doctors vengefully; this is a responsible opposition treating the budget responsibly and saying that in a time of restraint this committee should restrain you to what you spent last year, and not a nickel more. That's all. We're not cutting it to zero: we're not getting rid of it altogether, but rather we are reducing it to what you spent last year.

I would point out, Mr. Chairman. that we proposed during the Forests estimates $12 million in reductions in equally unnecessary expenditures. We proposed $458,000 in the estimates of the Ministry of Universities. Science and Communications. We propose $368,000 now in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. If the government is serious about cost-cutting, let it take seriously the considered and researched amendments of the official opposition. There is no justification in a year of restraint to increase travel by 192 percent,

[ Page 5018 ]

office expenses by 133 percent and advertising by 266 percent in one year. That cannot be justified, especially by a government that poses, parades and postures as cost-cutters. This committee knows better. We now know who the real cost-cutters are; it is the New Democratic Party that proposes these prudent amendments. I hope that our amendment to vote 160, reducing the budget by $76,262, shall pass.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, certainly the purpose of this debate during estimates is for the opposition to question the various votes and those portions of a vote that make up the total. There have been no questions asked with respect to this vote, and unfortunately, for that reason, I've not been able to respond to the various sections of this particular vote which have been raised by the member in the amendment. That's unfortunate, because again, as usual, he is very wrong in his assumptions. The travel expense shown here is shown as travel expense, because that's how it normally and historically shows up in this particular vote. But again, as I pointed out to the member and to this assembly previously, we are wanting to decentralize the efforts within the ministry, in order to give greater and better service to the various regions of the province.

Our effort in this regard this year, in order to assure that the people in the eastern, northern and northwestern parts of this province receive the appropriate consideration, in order to assure that people everywhere throughout the province will get the opportunities and the benefits that would be available to a person if they were living in Victoria....

Again, the first member for Victoria forgets that British Columbia does not end at Victoria. There are whole vast regions of this province which are fast developing, and the people in those vast regions of this province require and deserve consideration every bit as much as the person living on Blanshard, Douglas, Government or some place in Victoria. British Columbia is much greater than Victoria. As a matter of fact, I am from a metropolitan area and 1, as a member of this government, am very grateful that we are receiving innumerable revenues and benefits from all the works that are provided us by the people in those northern, eastern and western regions. This is the lifeline, the lifeblood, of this province. We are in need and depend greatly on what happens in the development that takes place in those regions, and we're wanting to decentralize into those areas in order to provide the service they deserve.

Mr. Chairman, again, as I mentioned, we are decentralizing and we are locating four planning offices and planning directors in those areas in order to give the responses quickly and fairly to the people there. Now the travel portion here is in effect the moneys required to relocate the people that are taking on those functions, people that are presently stationed in Victoria. It's not so the minister or someone can fly from here to Prince George or Fort St. John or Atlin or whatever; it's to relocate those people as a part of the decentralization program. If the hon. first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) wants to cutout decentralization because he cares only for Victoria, I'm afraid I have a responsibility much beyond my own constituency or the constituency of Victoria. I intend to carry out that responsibility fairly in recognition of the services those people in the outer regions deserve.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, the member makes reference to office expenses. Again, what he fails to recognize — and certainly he, as critic for this ministry, should be aware of these sorts of things, if he would research it throughout the year.... But I'll bring it to his attention now, and perhaps he will immediately withdraw his amendment. The additional funds required for office expenses are a result of the addition of 22 new staff. This is because of the assumption of new programs and the establishment of four field officers and the transfer of the building standards branch and the staff of the ELUC secretariat to the ministry. Those who were previously in the ELUC secretariat doing those tasks that are better carried out by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs have been transferred to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and thus they must be provided for in the offices of Municipal Affairs. Similarly, of course, we have the new programs that are in place; and we've had this transfer of the building standards branch to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I seem to recall debate in this House a year or two ago to the effect that really the building standards branch property belonged in that ministry. We have accomplished that, but that requires us to provide for those people. So that accounts for the change in that vote.

The only item remaining then is advertising and publications. The hon. member points out that's there's $2,500 in that vote for 1980-81 and $9,174 for 1981-82. The $9,174 includes $7,000 for the annual report of the ministry, which is done every year. It will undoubtedly cost a little bit more this year than it did last year and because the printer is getting more money this year than he got last year, because his employees are deserving of a little bit more money this year than last year. No one would or should argue that. Obviously too, the paper costs might be a little more this year than they were last year, because the people at the pulp and paper mill are getting a little more this year than last year, and no one would argue that. So it's gone up a bit. The circulation of the report in a growing province with a tremendous economy has naturally increased this year over what it was last year. In total, we've got a greater volume of material to ship to the various parts of the province where the people are desiring and in need of it. The cost has gone up some, but that report is included here in accounts for $7,000. In actual fact, it's come down from $2,500 to $2,174, because of the transfer of $7,000.

I would now ask the hon. member, in fairness to what we want to see done to the outer regions of the province, where the people are producing in order for Victoria to thrive, exist and continue to be a beautiful city, in recognition of that and of the need to relocate these people into the various regions, and of the fact that we've had these transfers of the building standards branch and the staff of ELUC to the office, which .L, Counts for the increased office expense, and in recognition of the fact that we should make the report from this ministry available to all people in all parts of the province who are in need of the report, that he withdraw the amendment.

MR. BARBER: In recognition of the several red herrings offered by the minister, we refuse his proposal.

In recognition of the public memory, we now see what some might call hypocrisy — but I won't — on the part of a minister who, when he was Minister of Human Resources, shut down the resource boards in this province, which were one of the most brave and venturesome attempts at decentralization that this government has ever enjoyed.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, I would love to debate my role as Minister of Human Resources with that member, but I would prefer to do it outside

[ Page 5019 ]

the House. I don't think that this is the place nor the time. We should remain now with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good point. The first member for Victoria continues on the amendment to vote 160.

MR. BARBER: We've heard a very peculiar argument from this minister, of all people, in favour of decentralizing. Only by way of allusion, which is always in order, and only briefly, which is even more in order, I would point out that we heard from that minister in another capacity at another time arguing against decentralization. But this morning, because he's embarrassed about his wasteful spending and chagrined by our responsible, prudent and cost-cutting amendment, he now poses as a friend of decentralization.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Say that again! That's beautiful!

MR. BARBER: Do you like that? Responsible, prudent and cost-cutting amendment — I'll say it a third time; maybe you'll hear it.

However, the reason the amendment should pass is not just because of the inconsistency of this gentleman's approach to decentralizing the offices and the operations of government. The fact that when he was Minister of Human Resources he shut down one of the finest initiatives any government ever took — the resource boards — to decentralize out of Victoria into the community control for Human Resources policies.... It's not just because we are offended by that inconsistency, but also because, as usual, the minister's explanations do not add up and his figures don't either. For instance, he said that it was because he was responsible now for certain of the operations of ELUC that we have to allow him more money.

Let's take a look briefly at vote 78 in the Ministry of Environment. Only by way of allusion, this is the resource and environment management division of the Ministry of Environment where ELUC used to live. Do we find'comparable reductions in this year's equivalent of last year's ELUC? Do we find in vote 78 — it's on page 103, Mr. Minister, if you care to look it up — a comparable reduction, an example of savings or a cutback, in what used to be ELUC and what has now, the minister would pretend and have us believe, simply been transferred to Municipal Affairs? I'm afraid we don't. For instance, look at item 30, office expense: last year $621,000, this year $623,000. It didn't go down at all, it went up — only $2,000, that's good. You know, if they had less staff, Mr. Chairman, in what used to be ELUC and what is now in part Municipal Affairs, you'd think office furniture and equipment would go down. But no, amazingly it's gone up from $118,000 to $175,000.

If you think that the minister was telling the whole story, you might imagine that item 40 in vote 78, which used to be ELUC, would go down. That item is advertising and publications. But no, surprise, surprise, it's gone up also from $401,000 to $557,000. I might believe the minister's story if he could prove to us that there were savings in other ministries because of his ministry taking over other functions. The point is he can't prove it at all because it ain't true. What I've illustrated — it's in vote 178, page 103 of this year's estimates — is that we do not find comparable savings in one aspect of this government's operations, formerly ELUC, now Municipal Affairs. We don't find the savings at all.

The minister rises on another spurious point of order.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I can't speak for the vote of the Ministry of Environment. I'm sure that the minister will have the opportunity of responding to the various aspects of that vote. I really can't speak for that. I think it's totally out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. first member for Victoria must stay to the strictly relevant section of the vote before us. We are presently on an amendment to vote 160. I would ask the member to contain his remarks to that specific section.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I'm always happy to do that and to point out to the committee that the minister in his defence alleged that a partial justification for his wasteful and gross increase in vote 160 was the fact that he was taking over certain functions of ELUC. When pinned to the mat, because he has no proof whatever that there have been comparable reductions in the other ministry that he supposedly took over the functions of, the minister then says that he's not prepared to debate that. As my colleague for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) points out, if you can speak about it, that's fine; but if you refuse to speak about it, you can't hide behind the fact that you have no defence. no rational explanation, and, on this issue, as with so many others, no credibility.

The minister would tell the committee that the reason that he needs 192 percent more for travel is because of decentralization. Suddenly he's found another philosophy — strangely — that is utterly inconsistent with his public record to date. I remind the committee of the resource boards and the shameful way in which this government shut them down, thanks to that minister, who still hasn't apologized for what be did. He set back the progress of Human Resources policy by ten years in this province. He still hasn't apologized for that mistake.

Secondly, he tells us that because of decentralization, office expenses are up 133 percent. I simply repeat my reply and argue again that it is, to say the least, a somewhat inconsistent and basically incredible response from that particular minister: to argue in favour of decentralization, We might believe it from a few others. We'd probably believe it from the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) ; at least he's been consistent. He has decentralized — he's done it from the beginning and made no bones about it. Fair enough. As a capital city MLA I will argue against anything that reduces the economic base of my community, and that's fair enough too. Nonetheless. coming from this particular minister who shut down resource boards....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Again, vote 160 is very clear and specific. Our standing orders indicate that we must be strictly relevant, and not wander off as the member has. I would ask him to contain his remarks to the specifics of vote 160. We're talking about travel expense, professional and special services, office expense. office furniture and advertising. and really that is all we can discuss under the strictly relevant sections that bind us all in debate in this chamber. The member continues on vote 160.

MR. BARBER: Specifically to our amendment to vote 160, I'm not really wandering off. I know where I'm going quite precisely. It may not be a debate the minister Would like to hear, it may not be comfortable for the minister to realize that his own arguments are simply full of holes, and it may

[ Page 5020 ]

not be pleasant for the committee to realize that the minister, as usual, makes a claim he cannot substantiate. Part of the claim in reply to our amendment was that he had taken over certain of the functions of ELUC. I think this is in order. If it wasn't you would have ruled the minister out of order, but you didn't do that so I know he was in order on that item, and I guess I must be too, because I'm debating the same item.

If we saw comparable reductions in other offices, then we might be a little more willing to reduce our amendment by a comparable amount. That would be fair. If the minister could tell us they saved $10,000 in Environment and they added $10,000 in Municipal Affairs I would give our word that we'd reduce our amendment by $10,000. That's fine. If it's a simple transfer of functions and finance to pay for them, we'd be willing to reduce ours accordingly. But the problem is the minister cannot demonstrate it because we can't find it in the only comparable vote, which is vote 78 — to which I briefly alluded — that indicates there was any reduction. To the contrary, we find massive increases there too.

I don't wish to reflect on an amendment that we have not yet introduced, but the committee should certainly be aware that in our research office we have also looked very closely at vote 78. It's just possible we'll be proposing amendments to reduce more Socred waste, fat and overexpenditures.

Meanwhile we're dealing with our amendment to vote 160, which I think should succeed. It should succeed because this government has got to set an example. It's got to set an example of restraint, caution and financial prudence.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're going to talk for hours because he wouldn't let you keep your chart.

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

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, would you protect me from that anonymous member in the wrong chair? He worries me. He's three inches shorter than I am, and I'm afraid of him.

What I'm trying to illustrate is that some day or another this government has got to summon up the courage, guts and political will to say no to reckless expenditures and yes to, caution and fiscal restraint. We are not proposing anything other than saying no to a 192 percent increase in travel. We're not saying get rid of it altogether. Through this amendment we're asking the government to keep this year's expenditures to last year's level. I think that's fair. We're not asking them to cut it to zero.

Similarly, we are asking them not to go ahead with the proposed increase in office expenses of 133 percent. We just don't think that can be justified in a year of restraint. We're not asking them to cut to zero but to restrict themselves to last year's expenditures. We think that's fair and responsible.

Finally, we are not asking them to raise their advertising budget by 266 percent, which is what they want the committee to approve. We don't think that's responsible at all. We're asking them to keep it to last year's budget and estimate, and we're asking them to set a good, moderate, prudent and fiscally responsible example. We're asking them to approve our amendment to reduce vote 160 by $76,262. It's a simple thing. That's all there is to it.

Either they have the political conviction, guts and will to reduce public spending or they don't. It's a very simple item. I hope the government majority will listen. I realize it's a slim majority, but nonetheless they have the power; the opposition doesn't. We may win all the debates, but they win all the votes. We ask the government to be a little more consistent, philosophically a little more straightforward with this committee, and a little more willing to set a good example rather than the notoriously bad example which they're setting in this budget and specifically in this vote. I hope the government will reconsider and accept this prudent, cautious and costcutting amendment put forward by the New Democratic Party, which this year is pioneering a new approach to government expenditure by cutting waste, trimming fat and reducing unnecessary Socred expenditures in what is supposed to be a year of restraint.

MS. BROWN: I just thought I should remind the House that this minister, who is increasing his advertising budget by 266 percent and who has increased his travel budget by 192 percent, is the very same minister who is going to deprive blind people in this province of the right to use their bus passes, because it would cost $25,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, we're on vote 160.

MS. BROWN: I'm speaking in support of the amendment to reduce the budget in that vote, because that money should have been spent on people, rather than on advertising.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Whether or not the money could be spent for other purposes is not debatable under the amendment. We have before us an amendment on vote 160 to reduce the expenditure by $76,262. We can only confine our remarks to the matters covered under that specific vote. The member is well aware of that and doesn't need the Chair to point that out.

MS. BROWN: Exactly. That's why I'm doing it, Mr. Chairman. It doesn't make any sense to stand up and say "reduce the vote" without giving a reason. One has to be logical about these things.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the previous speaker covered in some detail various items regarding vote 160. But clearly the member is now on a totally different track, and I must advise her that her remarks at this particular point are out of order. We must return to the specifics of vote 160.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I am not in support of the minister's vote being increased by $76,000 — the figure the amendment is reducing it by — for a number of reasons. I'm trying to give these reasons, in some kind of logical order.

I'm not permitted to remind the House that the minister has deprived blind people in this province by cutting out $25,000....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. We cannot do in one way what we, cannot do in another. Saying "I can't do something" and then going. ahead and doing it is an abuse of the rules of the House.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to cooperate with you, because I recognize your dilemma.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair finds it difficult to see the cooperation.

[ Page 5021 ]

MS. BROWN: That's right, I know you find it difficult. That's why I'm trying to cooperate with you. And I'm trying to cooperate with you, please believe me. That's why I am not going to repeat what I said before, because I've already said it. It's not necessary. No one in the province needs to be reminded of that minister's inhumanity to people in his tenure as Minister of Human Resources. And now during his tenure as Minister of Municipal Affairs, we find that he is quite capable of raising his own travel budget — it goes up to $53,000 — while $25,000 to be spent on people wasn't there, despite the fact that those people are blind. But he finds $53,000 to be spent on his travel. There is a 266 percent increase in advertising. Maybe he is not like the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), maybe he is not going to be using it for buttons, song-books, posters and these kinds of things. I don't know what he's going to use it for. But I don't believe that a 266 percent increase in an advertising budget can be justified, when there are people in this province.... For example, in Nanaimo the women cannot get $7,000 for the operating cost of a transition house.

MR. CHAIRMAN. Order, please. Hon. member, again....

MR. BARNES: His priorities are turned around.

MS. BROWN: That's right. My colleague the second member for Vancouver Centre has expressed it in a more succinct way for me. What I'm dealing with is the minister's priorities. I think his priorities are quite wrong.

My colleague the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) said that this was waste and fat. I don't believe that. I believe that this is a deliberate overestimation of the minister's budget. I don't believe he's going to spend all of that money. I think that we're seeing in this ministry — as we saw in the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications, and in all the ministries as we've been preparing for the estimates — a deliberate overestimation of expenditures.

The public accounts record will show that they have underspent and that in fact they have not used the full amount voted to them under the estimates. Then suddenly out of nowhere, lo and behold, a surplus. Magic! What we are really saying has got to be brought to the attention of that government is that they are not fooling anyone. No one is deceived by what they are doing. We recognize that we're dealing with deliberate overestimation. We know that we're going to have deliberate under-expenditures in terms of this overestimation. We know that out of nowhere and as a result of this deliberate fiscal manipulation on their part, the porkbarrel account is going to get larger and larger. Suddenly there's going to a surplus of money to be used to purchase people's votes when the time comes.

So this is this minister's contribution to what I refer to as the pork-barrel account. That's my personal way of describing it and why I am so strongly in support of this resolution. That is why I am saying that it is unfair that people should be deliberately overtaxed — in most instances the people who can least afford it — so this government can deliberately under spend and accumulate the surplus to be used for straight political reasons when the time comes. This minister's contribution to that is particularly reprehensible when we realize the group of people who are being penalized so that he can do that. I am not going to remind us once again, because I've done it three times and I know that you caught on immediately. As soon as I moved in that direction it went "click" with you, as I'm sure it's going to click with everyone else who is listening to this. We know what group of people are being penalized so that this minister can made his contribution to this fiscal game being played by that government over there. He is carrying on in the tradition which he established when he was Minister of Human Resources, and we are not surprised by that. We are not surprised by the group he chose to use in terms of accumulating his surplus. He hasn't changed.

We were under the impression that once he had been moved by his leader into Municipal Affairs, maybe he would have seen the evil of his ways and he would have changed. He hasn't changed. It really makes us very sad that it doesn't matter whether he's in Human Resources or in Municipal Affairs. Somehow he still manages to penalize the old, poor and disabled in this province. I would like to support the resolution very strongly. I hope it gets the endorsement of those members of the government over there who do not want to be a party to this fiscal game they're playing. They deliberately overtax the people of this province, deliberately under spend their budgets and deliberately cut back on their services. Despite the fact that they have overtaxed everybody and they have the money to deliver those services, they build a surplus to contribute to what I refer to as their pork-barrel account and use that surplus to purchase votes when an election is called. It's despicable!

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I wish to take my place in the debate but I also seek the leave of the House to introduce some guests.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to introduce Ed and Helen Peneycad, who are in the members' gallery. The Peneycads and I met a year ago when I was doing a quick jog on the breakwater in February. They were out fishing, were beautifully tanned and having a wonderful time. I stopped and spoke to them, and they were telling me that they came to British Columbia for their vacation. They had such a nice time last year that they're here this year. They think B.C. Is the best place in the world. We welcome you here and I ask the House to welcome them.

In the same breath, Mr. Chairman, I would also apologize to my guests for what I suppose one should charitably call the debate that we've just heard. The hon. member certainly showed herself to be an authority on pork-barrelling. She seems to use the term a lot. I'd suggest that we have some difficulty in understanding what she means. 19m sure she'll enlighten us when she tends to....

MS. BROWN: Ask Spetifore. He knows.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Spetifore, my dear, happens to, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. minister is well aware that matters other, than the ones before us are not debatable in this particular estimate. We will have ample opportunity for that debate at a later date. I'm sure all members will help the Chair by containing their remarks.

[ Page 5022 ]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. What I really wanted to do, in, speaking against this amendment, was to bring to the attention of the public and the opposition what seems to be an incredible lack of understanding of life in the province of British Columbia. There seems to be an incredible lack of ability for them to realize that there are responsibilities to people in all parts of this province. In speaking against the amendment, I say that, while there are great benefits in living in the interior or the north of the province, there are also some penalties.

This minister, whom the opposition are trying to oppose and negate in their debate, deserves credit and admiration for the efforts that he has made since becoming Minister of Municipal Affairs to make municipal affairs, in the first place, understandable to everyone and certainly understandable to those people who live in the interior of the province. He has made himself available to meeting after meeting when people needed his help. It's impossible for the city slickers on the other side — those who practice socialism but ride on capitalism — to understand that in places such as the Okanagan, the Kootenays, the Peace River, and even northern Vancouver Island, municipal affairs have been clouded in mystique for years. Such words as "assessment" and "taxes" have been very much the prerogative of the elite in the lower mainland who were close to the source of information. This minister has come out and talked about these things. People in these areas are very nervous and unsure about such words as "planning" and how to go about establishing needed services, whether to go regional or municipal.

The vote that the opposition are attempting to discredit and cut back is perhaps one of the most important votes to the people in the interior of this province. They wanted to know what the planning act was about. They want to have their minister available to them. They want to have the staff of Municipal Affairs located in a region where they're accessible. They also want to know that those authorities can be — and they certainly have been, under this minister — free and willing to come out to meetings at the drop of a hat. I believe that the opposition are, if I can so describe it, sinful and guilty of great hypocrisy in presenting this amendment — or ignorant; perhaps that's it. But some of those members do come from the interior and I notice that they are not supporting this amendment — not verbally anyway.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. I applaud the minister and his staff for the incredible efforts they have made over these last two years to help us in the interior of this province have our rightful place and voice in government and for the opportunity for discussions that can give us the information which enables us to make decisions based on fact.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank the hon. member for speaking in support of our attempts to decentralize and provide services to people outside of the metropolitan areas of Victoria and Vancouver.

I did want to spend just a moment responding very briefly to the remarks made by the hon. member for Burnaby Edmonds (Ms. Brown). I don't want to comment on the Vancouver Resources Board, because that was an organization much more interested in politics than people services.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Members of the committee have been advised that we must be strictly relevant. Would the minister please contain his remarks to the amendment.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: My only comment with respect to the bus passes is that that was an attempt that has, worked very well to decentralize the transit services into the communities. I'm sorry that the hon. member used the bus passes for the blind as a way of scaring those people. I would assure them that we're working with the regional districts to prevent this sort of thing from happening. But then again, that came from the same hon. member who suggested yesterday....

MR. BARNES: Why is he permitted to comment on something that's out of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver Centre makes a good point. We are on the amendment, and the Chair has asked all members to be strictly relevant to the amendment of the vote before us.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I didn't see the second member for Vancouver Centre get up. He's still in his seat, leaning back against the wall.

I said that that came from the same hon. member who suggested yesterday that perhaps people's rents should go up so they could park their Cadillacs.

Mr. Chairman, we are again attempting to decentralize, and the travel vote is not for the minister, as was suggested, it's to relocate those people into their regional offices. The increase in the office vote is because of the shift of the people from the ELUC secretariat as well as the transfer of the building safety standards branch. I have explained that so many times; I hope now the members will understand, and I'm sure they would like to withdraw their amendment.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate my colleague from Victoria, who has brought forward this good amendment. He's been watching closely the waste and the fat in this minister's portfolio: these great increases in office expenditures, in his advertising budget and his travelling expenses. I was interested in the minister's saying that the increases were due to the fact that we're decentralizing — we are having people throughout the province — and there was increase of staff and so on and so forth, an increase of, I think he quoted, some 20 people, and that's why he needs more money. Well, according to the estimates, the present staff of 15 has been increased to 17 this year; that's an increase of 2. He got his zeros mixed up here.

We've got an increase of well over 100 percent in the travel expense, from $18,000 last year to $53,000 — 193 percent for an additional two people. Now I'll tell you, those two are going to be travelling. There is no question in my mind: it looks to me like travel expenses under your estimates. Now if you want to change them, I would suggest you bring in an amendment to change your estimates to put in what you're talking about. But it says here "travel expenses," and with the 190 percent increase, those two people are going to have very little time to do any work; they're going to be travelling the whole time. If there is a job vacancy in that area, I don't mind travel myself.

[ Page 5023 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I know. You used to do it a lot when you were minister.

MR. LORIMER: I didn't, compared to you. I went to every municipality in this province, with the exception of about two or three, in the three years that I was the minister.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Every one in Sweden too, Jim.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LORIMER: No, I would like to go to Sweden, but I have never been to Sweden in my life. I went to Europe, and the minister was on the same delegation that I was on; we went there together. I went at the expense of this province, and the minister went at the expense of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. That is the only trip I had. The minister can outdo me any day of the week as far as travelling is concerned. I don't think we'll hear another word about that.

Now we come to office expenses. We've got two extra people, remember, Mr. Chairman; we've got to keep that clear. We've gone from 15 to 17. How much are we going to spend for their office? From $26,000 last year to $70,000....

MR. BARBER: A 133 percent increase.

MR. LORIMER: A 133 percent increase for those two people; they're going to be awfully expensive people. The province is going to be paying for those people; those two people are going to be very expensive for the people of this province. Now that's an interesting item. What are you going to do with that money? What kind of furniture are they going to have? What kind of accommodation are you going to give them? I would imagine with that kind of increase it could be a very good suite somewhere.

Now we come to advertising and publications. This is an important one, because this is where we get our...

MR. BARBER: Socred news.

MR. LORIMER: ...Socred news, yes; where we get our picture on TV and so on. This is where we do our TV stints and so on. Last year the budget was for $2,500 and this year it's for $9,174.

MR. BARBER: That's 266 percent.

MR. LORIMER: A 266 percent increase, from $2,000 to $9,000. For two extra people we're going to spend that extra money in advertising and publications. It's obviously just straight fat in this budget — putting the taxes up so the people of this province have to pay more and more taxes in order to have this kind of extravagance and this kind of budget. I'm sure that both sides of the House will be very prepared to support my worthy colleague's amendment, especially in this vote.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, again I'll continue to point out the lack of research that has been done by the opposition, and the fact that they've never asked any questions with respect to any of these votes. This argument by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon illustrates it again, because that member once held the position of Minister of Municipal Affairs. He should understand that central ministry services is a group of 17 people that provide for all central ministry services. Central ministry services as one of its responsibilities has the acquisition of all office material for every branch of the ministry. So it's not two people here. The two-person increase here is a transfer of two engineering staff to this particular branch. They provide for all the additional staff that have come about because of the transfer from ELUC and the transfer from the B.C. building safety standards branch. I hope he now understands it.

Once more, the travel is for the relocation of the people from Victoria offices into the regions. I realize that the members opposite want to keep everything in Victoria and are very concerned about urban areas only. They don't care very much about the more rural areas of the province, but I do.

Thirdly, the advertising and publications is the transfer from another vote for the publication called the annual report for the ministry. I hope the member now understands. I realize there aren't too many members here and that they keep coming in and out. I'm sure that, one by one, they'] I all begin to understand.

MR. COCKE: That was almost an answer. The minister knows full well that when the members aren't in the House, we do like he does and listen to what's going on in the chamber on our little speakers.

The minister tends to muddy the waters. We've heard renditions of Cadillac parking in Burnaby, which is a total twist in trying to answer a question with respect to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who was talking on an entirely different subject with respect to parking for apartments. I think she made a fair discussion of it too — that each apartment should have a parking spot. What has that got to do with Cadillacs? It's just ridiculous. The former Minister of Municipal Affairs' trip to Sweden....

It's this twisting and diverting attention from his responsibilities. Then he says that we should be asking questions. What's the point in asking questions? This has been going on for two or three days. One asks the minister a question and he gets up and replies that in the NDP days of government this, this and this. They have no relevance whatsoever to the questions that are being asked of his responsibility today.

That minister, talking about decentralization — of all the people to talk about decentralization, he's the last that should. He was the one that tied the can to the resource boards, which were totally a decentralizing proposition. They will come back, because the people will demand them. They don't want all the shots called from Victoria, particularly from an unglorious government like this who don't really know what's going on out there.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, again this particular member is getting into the Ministry of Human Resources. I point out once more that I would love to debate that with him or any one of the opposition, or the whole lot of them, outside of the House. But here we should stick to my estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member makes a very good point, and I will remind the committee that we must be strictly relevant. The committee will remember and the records will show that when the minister digressed, in fact the

[ Page 5024 ]

Chair brought him back to relevant statements. I would ask the hon. member for New Westminster to continue on the amendment to vote 160.

MR. COCKE: I would like to explain that the reason I did what I did was just to point out that that's exactly what the minister has been doing all through his estimates. It's unforgivable on my part, but I thought it would be a good example for the committee to hear what it sounds like from this side of the House.

All I can suggest about this particular vote is that I see monstrous increases without any justification. I support the amendment of the hon. first member for Victoria to this particular vote, by virtue of the fact that there is too much fat and it hasn't been responsibly accounted for.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

NAYS — 28

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

Vote 160 approved.

On vote 161: transit services, $92,675,151.

MR. BARBER: I will be calling division on this vote as a means of repudiating the false claim this committee heard yesterday concerning the New Democrat commitment to the funding of public transit. We will be voting in favour of vote 161, and we will call a division in order to have that recorded. We will no longer put up with the wrong and insupportable claims of the minister responsible for transit — claims we heard yesterday, which we rejected and repudiated, and which we repudiate again today. There was the particularly preposterous claim that in 1975 our government spent all of $3 million on transit — simple nonsense, absolute and categorical nonsense. So that the minister's nonsense is assuredly corrected, we will call a division in favour of this vote.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Regarding the transit system to Maple Ridge, I'd like to ask the minister.... I understand it will be starting in the middle of 1982. Is there consideration being given to extending that system as far as Mission? I want to make it clear that I'm grateful it's going to Maple Ridge; but at this time I'd especially like to ask if there's consideration being given to going on a further 12 miles.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The transit program for the lower mainland is not only the ALRT proposal to serve the whole of greater Vancouver. At the same time we announced a commuter program which will be utilizing the CPR tracks. The system will run from Maple Ridge, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, through Burnaby into Vancouver — just another tremendous step in the provision of transit services for the people of British Columbia.

MR. LORIMER: I don't believe the minister answered the question from the hon. member for Dewdney. I want to assure the hon. member that in 1975 an agreement was basically reached between the CPR and the government of the day for a commuter service on the CPR tracks from Mission into Vancouver. There were to be two trains coming in in the morning and two in the afternoon. That agreement was never consummated after the election in December 1975. It was killed by that group over there, who call themselves your friends. I don't know if the member for Dewdney wants to change some of his votes after hearing what his friends have done to his constituency.

In addition to the commuter train service, which was cancelled by the new government, the bus services in the areas of Mission and Maple Ridge were substantially increased. So I think that's a better answer, Mr. Member, than was given by the minister.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The estimates for 1974-75 would indicate a metropolitan transit subsidy of $2 million; it was the same amount for 1975-76. There was also a provincial rapid transit fund, which had a total of $500,000 in 1974-75; it was increased to $600,000 in 1975-76. The $600,000 which they had in the 1975-76 budget wasn't enough to buy the spikes to fix the track to run the train. So any suggestion now that there was some proposal or plan to provide a commuter service is absolutely ludicrous, and the member knows that. There was no plan at all. All they were proposing was to buy more second-hand buses from Saskatoon.

Yes, the commuter service is capable of extension from Maple Ridge to Mission. I certainly would not give any information other than that which we are able to follow through on. When we say we're going to do something, we do it. We don't just talk about it. That train will initially go to Maple Ridge, and as development takes place beyond Maple Ridge, we will consider extending it to Mission as well.

MR. LORIMER: The minister probably doesn't realize this, but I'll have to explain it to him. Formerly, before the transfer of the transit system from B.C. Hydro, B.C. Hydro was responsible for transit services in the coastal areas. In addition to what B.C. Hydro supplied, the provincial government also paid into the transit services. So they had it not only through Hydro but also through the government.

I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the number of vehicles increased from about 350 in 1972, when this little group

[ Page 5025 ]

became government, until 1975, at which time it was about 800 — over a 100 percent increase. What has happened since 1975? The number of vehicles is now about 650. It's a reduction of vehicles and a reduction of service — a true history of Social Credit commitment to transit. That is the case. In addition, areas which had no service were brought into service — North Vancouver, Coquitlam, Surrey, Delta, Maple Ridge and Haney.

How this minister can stand up and talk about transit.... I would imagine he would want it to go away, because he's done absolutely nothing in the field of transit.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The total B.C. Hydro transit program was $24 million in 1972, and the total was $28.5 million in 1975. Certainly they did provide some very small amounts in budgets, and they did purchase some extra buses. A lot of those extra buses are still parked in a Burnaby junk yard.

MR. LORIMER: I might point out that in addition to the funds listed, there were warrants for vehicles which were presented during that period of time. I also want to explain the system of buying vehicles. If you want to buy new vehicles, it's difficult to get them and there's a long waiting time. I'm sure the minister is finding that out now. In areas that are going into a different type of transit, you can buy a fleet of vehicles. In that fleet you have good vehicles and you may have poor ones. But you can't pick and choose; you buy the whole fleet. The odd one of those vehicles was not fit for use, but it was useful for parts and so on for the other vehicles. Not only was this a saving to the public of British Columbia, but it gave us service immediately. The other vehicles were purchased for the purpose of taking motors from the trolleys to put into the new trolleys that were ordered, with a saving of some $20,000 on each new vehicle bought.

I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you people over there. Your understanding of transit is less than zilch. I wish that someone over there would take it up maybe as a hobby and try to understand a little bit about the transit programs.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I have to answer that, because certainly I appreciate these old buses from Saskatoon. The whole of that NDP fleet may have been bought for parts purposes. The member ought to be aware that when Jimmy Gorst bought a bunch of buses, he similarly wanted to buy a bunch of used buses for parts. That's not the role of government: to buy a bunch of junk buses to fix up other junk buses for some guy who's running a tour business or this sort of thing.

We did not cancel any bus orders that were placed by anyone. We not only carried through with whatever the orders — I don't recall the orders — but we placed the orders for new equipment. The system is now tremendously improved over anything that was there. Not only that, instead of having a service available to three small communities only — again, they were perhaps conscious of the need in greater Victoria and Vancouver, although they didn't respond — we went out and provided transit services to 20 small communities in all parts of the province. We are concerned about the north, the northwest, the northeast, the Kootenays and the Cariboo. We don't have the Victoria-only mentality. This government knows British Columbia goes beyond Victoria.

MR. LORIMER: This was a typical display from this minister. As far as the government is concerned, Jimmy Gorst never bought a bus at any time. I'm not quite sure what the minister is trying to get at.

MR. COCKE: He's twisting again.

MR. LORIMER: He's twisting, but he's doing a little better today. I would say that half the time he's telling the truth. I'll withdraw that.

MR. BARRETT: The member for Burnaby-Willingdon is like transportation: he's got the minister coming and going on that one.

I wanted to raise an objection to some of the things that the minister said. First of all, we've seen an example of how you handle transportation with the Marguerite — first it's on, then it's off. And $5 million later you blow all that money. You've got a day ferry running at night, and a night ferry running in the day — all that money down the tube and still no transportation in Mission.

This is the point I want to make: the question is service for Mission. If you hadn't blown all that money on the Marguerite, and wasted a million-dollar study on the tunnel, we'd have transportation to Mission. I want to keep this on the record. You've driven the member out of the House. He can't stand it because you haven't given him an answer. I know how embarrassed he is, because I used to serve that area. Mr. Chairman, you see this badge here? That's a display. I can't show a display or I'll be thrown out of the House. I'll put it in my pocket. Before I do, it says: "I've been adopted by North Delta." It's going to be scratched out to say, "I've been adopted by Dewdney," unless we get some transportation up there in Mission. We need that transportation in Mission.

The other thing is that some members come in here and threaten the government for bridges. They get a bridge but the consequence of getting that bridge is they get a badge saying they should be adopted. I don't want that member driven to badge campaigns. I want an answer for that member.

If the CPR is going all the way in from Mission, why can't it stop and pick up the passengers in Mission? You're afraid of the CPR, that's what you are. All this bluff talk about the CPR not being welcome in B.C. and "B.C. Is not for sale." You haven't got enough guts to tell the CPR to stop in Mission. If you haven't. we have. We'll tell the CPR to stop in Mission.

Flim-flam! Where did the SeaBus come from? Did it take the minister four years of fiddling, diddling and shoving money back onto the taxpayers and municipalities? Not on your life. Those SeaBuses were built in B.C. shipyards by B.C. workers, they're providing transportation for people right now, and that was all paid for. Mr. Chairman, do you think those SeaBuses came out of committee after committee? Do you think they weren't paid for by the taxpayers? It was that member, when he was minister, who said to that North Shore, which still hasn't heard a word about a bridge from the North Shore members or received any help from them ever since they've been cabinet ministers....

Interjection.

[ Page 5026 ]

MR. BARRETT: I know. And what have you done about it for five years? Absolutely nothing. What about the people in West Vancouver? Twenty-five million dollars was set aside. Five years have gone by and there hasn't been a move for the people of West Vancouver or North Vancouver, other than the SeaBuses bought by the NDP.

That member, when he was a Liberal member, used to stand up and fight for West Vancouver transportation. Now we don't hear a peep out of him. There are two things he hasn't said anything about: one is how much he loves Bill Bennett; and he hasn't said a word about transportation in West Vancouver.

Where are the members for North Vancouver? What transportation help have they had over there from this government? When they were in opposition those Liberal members used to get up.... I remember in one campaign they held up great big posters on the bridge saying: "Vote for us; we'll get a new crossing." It's true. That's one promise they kept. They have a new crossing: they crossed the floor into the government. That's the only crossing they got. Two of them left, and because there were two it's known as the doublecross. That's what took place.

Now that minister gets up and says he's done this and he's done that for transportation. All you've done for transportation is dump the load on the local taxpayer. You tell the local taxpayer that you would never vote for a formula that calls for escalation because there's inflation or increased costs on transportation, and 24 hours later you come in here and vote for the same thing in the provincial budget. I think the member for Burnaby was being too kind when he said you tell the truth half the time — and he had to withdraw it, with the same result.

I see nothing that this government has done in moving ahead in transportation. They were in government for years before we got elected. There was nothing in Surrey or Coquitlam. What have they done since? They've dumped all the responsibility back on the local taxpayer. Every time those people buy gas they're paying for their transportation, under your formula. We never dumped that on gasoline or on the municipalities. You've done it all.

You've got the nerve to stand and say you're going to do it all and then you say you might let it happen in Mission. You have no right to let that member for Dewdney down. If he isn't prepared to threaten to give up his seat unless he gets it, I'll threaten for him: unless he gets that in Mission, he's going to give up his seat. We have reasons. That's the way it works. If he doesn't want to stick his neck out, I'll stick his neck out for him.

I want to tell you this: Mission deserves some attention. Also, I want to hear from those Liberals on the North Shore why they haven't said a word about transportation to the North Shore. I went over to visit my mother-in-law the other night. I went over on that bridge and I went by those buses. Those buses are jam-packed and there's been no relief. How about another ferry? How about bringing back the ferry to West Vancouver? The SeaBuses go across in eight minutes. What about a 12-minute ferry ride to West Vancouver? Why not? You've got no imagination, no commitment and no drive over there to fight for the thing. Marriages last longer on the North Shore because there was a longer courtship time on the ferry rides. Now everything's rammed into the automobile and everything becomes short-term; relationships don't get established. Let's have a little romance back on the ferry across to West Vancouver. Use some imagination. You've got the integrated thing. My friend the member for Burnaby has built the space for parking cars. You can move'in. There are two SeaBuses — put two more on to West Vancouver. What's wrong with that? The thing that really upsets me is that not one North Shore member has come up with one imaginative idea for assisting transportation.

I want to conclude by saying that I support the member for Dewdney in his battle for Mission. If he doesn't get that train stopping there in six months, he's going to quit. I want to back him up on that commitment.

Mr. Minister, we know what's really underneath your whole performance today. We know that. Look, you can't have leadership by promise. You have to produce. You're able to stand up and wave your arms better than any other windmill over there. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that you've got to produce — besides waving your arms. If you want to be leader, you've got to go in there and fight and get that money and produce, even for Mission. Otherwise it doesn't count. You're going to be baffled by the present leadership. Get together with West Vancouver. Bring together a little group in the back bench. Have a little palace revolt. Take over and become number one, so we can have a train stopping in Mission to save George's seat.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I certainly would welcome any good suggestions from the opposition with respect to this particular vote or any other. To suggest that the answer to Mission is to have the CPR train stop there once every three days or so as it passes through is ludicrous.

MR. BARRETT: Half-truths again.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What we need for Mission is a regular service in continuation of the commuter service that will serve Maple Ridge that would eventually stretch up the valley and provide for all of the people there.

SOME HON. MEMBER: Half-truths!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, the term half-truth is hardly one that would be parliamentarily acceptable. I think all hon. members in reflecting upon it would have to agree that it is not conducive to the kind of debate that we sometimes see in the chamber.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll conclude that particular remark, Mr. Chairman, by saying that to simply have the CPR stop as it goes through now and again is not good enough. I liken it to their approach to providing transit in the Duncan-Cowichan area where they decided to subsidize an old, broken-down taxi service. It's this sort of thing that was their solution or their answer to transit.

AN. HON. MEMBER: What about SeaBus?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: He talks about SeaBus. Sure, the NDP took some initiative with respect to SeaBus, but they were broke. Who paid for SeaBus? This government picked up the tab for SeaBus, because they not only spent the $500 million they inherited as a surplus when they came to office, but they left a $261 million deficit when they left. They couldn't pay for SeaBus. They didn't have the money to pay for SeaBus. We finalized the SeaBus program.

[ Page 5027 ]

They talk about a fair transit-sharing program. The Leader of the Opposition said: "We didn't charge the people for transit." They soaked the people in those smaller communities for 50 percent of the transit deficit. Certainly they felt that the people in Houston, Cranbrook, Prince George, Quesnel and everywhere else could help pay for the Vancouver system through their hydro bills. They felt that the people in all of those other communities beyond the Vancouver and Victoria boundaries — that the NDP always and forever forgets; they think everything ends at Victoria — were required to pay 50 percent. That's right, and that's why the communities under the Social Credit package have come forth. We've now got 20 small communities getting transit services, and we're picking up 75 percent of the deficit.

We responded to the Vancouver request that they be allowed as a regional district to participate and that there be a gas tax instituted to pick up their portion of the deficit, which they wished and requested to assume. I was a member of that regional district at the time. I well recall the debate. We are providing transit and we've picked up the deficit for the West Vancouver line. What did the NDP ever pay towards West Vancouver? Not a penny. We picked up their share of the deficit. We are assisting West Vancouver. The NDP forgot about that West Vancouver transit system. If we wish to compare transit approaches between 1975 and now, it's like going back to the dark ages to look at those early years of the seventies.

AN HON. MEMBER: On a point of order....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, first we'll take points of order, then debate. On a point of order, the member for Prince George South.

MR. STRACHAN: Under standing order 37, I move that the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) now be heard. The vote must proceed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Firstly, for that particular motion to be put in place it cannot be done under a point of order. Therefore I will now entertain.... I believe there was another point of order? On a point of order, the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: The point of order I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is that I cannot understand — and I say this with great respect to the Chair — why it is that the Chair permits that Minister of Municipal Affairs to twist, distort and misrepresent the facts. He distorts everything that comes to mind in order to paint a particular picture, and you will not permit members of the opposition to classify that as a falsehood, a half-truth or a lie, which is exactly what it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, to even suggest that the Chair in any way can pass judgment on remarks from members of one side of the House as to their validity would be placing an impossible charge upon the Chair.

MR. HOWARD: It's not a question of validity, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please be seated, hon. member. The Chair's position is very simply that the Chair must accept the word of all hon. members in this chamber. For the member to suggest that the Chair could interfere as to whether or not an item. remark or a fact stated by any hon. member is at the Chair's discretion to interpret as being factual is totally beyond comprehension. It would simply absolutely destroy the very fibre by which we operate in this chamber.

Secondly, for the member to make those remarks....

I must ask whether directly or indirectly he was imputing any false motive to the minister. I must ask him to withdraw any such imputation.

MR. HOWARD: I state directly, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, that the minister deliberately and consciously twists facts in this House, deliberately and consciously makes misrepresentations about facts...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, that's not a point of order. Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: ...deliberately and consciously attempts to mislead this House into thinking something is true that is not.

[Mr. Chairman rose.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, when a member takes his place in this chamber on a point of order, it is anticipated that somewhere along the line a point of order and not a speech will take place. The member has ample opportunity in this debate to make the points that he's making, without making them on what could be classified as somewhat skimpy points of order, at best. We now have a debate to contend with on the motion before us.

MR. LORIMER: I want to change the debate a little bit. I want to deal with facts.

I just want to explain a couple of matters to the minister again. Firstly. regarding the cost of the SeaBus, I would like to advise the minister. In case he is unaware of it. that the SeaBus was not completely constructed prior to the election. The bills owing on the SeaBus were paid up to date at the time of the election. After the election the Social Credit Party wanted to do away with the SeaBus. They waited some seven months before they gave the order to proceed, because they couldn't sell it to Edmonton. They didn't know what to do so they had to proceed with it. In the meantime, because of increased costs of construction the SeaBus service cost substantially more, due to that delay, because the docking facilities went up in price substantially due to the lapse of time. As a result the SeaBus service cost a lot more than it should have, due to the delaying tactics of that government.

The second fact I want to explain is the question of the cost-sharing with the areas in which we supplied vehicles and so on for the interior communities. The distribution was a charge of two mills, or at least a 50-50 split in operating, with a maximum amount of two mills on the school tax base. Now they're paying money — 25 percent — on the costs with no

[ Page 5028 ]

ceiling. They're paying the whole thing, the whole 25 percent, and it's going to go up and up. They had a far better deal then than they do now.

The second thing I want to point out is that I suggested this to the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The minister was the mayor of Surrey at the time, and he opposed the lower mainland paying anything to help out in transit. He opposed that. He didn't mind the interior areas paying their share, but he was absolutely opposed to the lower mainland, Victoria and so on paying any share in transit costs.

HON. MR. McGEER: This is an interesting debate, and I wouldn't have entered it except to make an observation following the former Minister of Municipal Affairs' comments about the brilliant transportation system which the NDP introduced while they were in office, and which, I take it, was the crowning achievement of their transportation policy. This was the SeaBus.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

When I was a university student I used to work in the shipyards in North Vancouver and travelled regularly on the North Vancouver ferry. At that time the crossing, which was reincarnated by the NDP with their SeaBus, took 15 minutes — excuse me, the service ran every 15 minutes. It took eight minutes to cross, it cost 5 cents, and the service made money. The new transportation policy brought in by the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, the former member for Coquitlam, who was eased out of that by the public of British Columbia and the former Premier, when they introduced their system of the SeaBus.... It now takes 20 minutes to cross.

MR. BARBER: That's not true.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, wait a minute; it does a turnaround. It takes ten minutes to cross, not eight. It costs 60 cents.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the committee come to order. The second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) and the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) are please reminded....

The minister continues on vote 161.

HON. MR. McGEER: The member for Surrey says: Shame on you. You've never been on it." I have been on it. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that member for Burnaby.... I'm embarrassed to have her as a constituent of mine, with the argument she brings up in this House. I just want her to fulfill one promise, Mr. Chairman, that she made during her election campaign, and that's to go and live in the constituency she represents. I'm embarrassed to have any constituent of mine in this Legislative assembly bringing up the kinds of subjects under debate that that noisy member — who I wish you would bring to order, Mr. Chairman — continually does in this House.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the minister please take his chair?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you please be seated. Thank you.

We're on vote 161, transit services, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Will the House please come to order, and will the minister relate his remarks to the vote now before us. The minister continues on vote 161.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. McGEER: I'll tell you this, Mr. Chairman. With this Minister of Municipal Affairs in charge of rapid transit, it's going to be possible for that constituent of mine to live in the constituency she represents. That's the important thing. That's why she should be supporting this minister.

But I'll tell you this. To the second member for Surrey, yes, I've been on that SeaBus, and I was on the old North Vancouver ferry, which ran every 15 minutes, which cost 5 cents and which made money instead of losing $3 million a year.

When the New Democratic Party was in office they were well on their way to solving the transportation problem in the lower mainland area by providing transportation for people out of British Columbia. It would have been satisfactory to have that former Minister of Municipal Affairs' policy of buying junked buses to put in the graveyards, because there wouldn't have been any people to ride on them. If there's a transportation problem, and there is, if there's a housing problem, and there is, that's because we've had successful government in British Columbia and people are coming here to live. The policy under the New Democratic Party when they were in office.... One only has to look at the statistics to know that people were leaving British Columbia in droves. There was no mining industry. The forest industry was on the rocks. The government didn't have any money to pay for the health and educational services, because the workers were leaving British Columbia. Yes, we wouldn't have needed a transportation system. We wouldn't have needed housing development because what we needed then was jobs. That was what was going in British Columbia. That's the only way the New Democratic Party could have solved the transportation or housing problem — to eliminate the need for it because people would be leaving the province in droves.

Our problems here in British Columbia today are problems of success, not problems of failure. They're the problems created by free enterprise, not the problems created by socialism. If there's anything the New Democratic Party should be doing, it's supporting this minister who can solve the problems of success, of people coming to British Columbia, and of prosperity. Yes, if people want to have their problems solved by failure, by lack of jobs and by no money coming into government, they can put that Minister of Municipal Affairs in again. But I don't think they will. I think they'll do what they did in 1933, 1937, 1941, 1945, 1949, 1952, 1953, 1960, 1963, 1966, 1969, 1975 and 1979.

MR. LEA: It's always interesting to hear a scientific analysis of where the province is and where it's going.

About three months after I was made Minister of Highways, I joined the then Premier of the province to open up the Mission bridge. During the ceremonies opening up the Mission bridge, I jokingly said: "Isn't it nice to have an NDP

[ Page 5029 ]

government, because in just three months look at the bridge you have." Of course it was a joke, It would have been absolutely stupid for me or my government at the time to take credit in any way for the Mission bridge. It would have been ridiculous.

Three months after I was no longer the Minister of Highways, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the now Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), was in Prince Rupert to open up the bus system. Yet today we hear the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) taking credit for the bus system in Prince Rupert. I think that is politically dishonest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member will be reminded that courtesy in parliamentary language is always a good feature of the committee.

MR. LEA: Of course. Mr. Chairman, as it would have been ridiculous for me and my government to try to take credit for the Mission bridge, it is equally silly and nonsensical for the present government to try and take credit for some of the things the NDP did when they were in government. I believe that's why we have a little disorder in our House today. The minister doesn't seem to have within him the grace, the political wisdom, the humility or the respect for politics that I believe he should have.

I'd say this about the Minister of Finance: when he was the Minister of Municipal Affairs and opened the bus system in Prince Rupert, he invited me as the MLA to be with him at their ceremonies because that minister fully understood that it was the joint effort of two governments of British Columbia. But mainly it was the government that minister replaced that was responsible for the bus systems in the rural communities at that time. It would be very difficult for me to get up and criticize the Minister of Finance for his actions at that time, because I think he had the political wisdom and the sensitivity to understand exactly what he was doing.

This Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Chairman, doesn't seem to have that sensitivity or sense of fair play. They'll jump up and talk about things that they feel didn't go right when we were the government of British Columbia, as is their right to do. But it would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that it would be a much more productive exercise in this Legislature if this government were to take a look at transportation, specifically public transportation, in our urban areas and try to solve the problem as opposed to trying to blame the previous government for not solving the problem. All they seem to do is feel they can believe that they can fool the people of British Columbia by coming out with a brand new transportation policy every three or four months and talking about the great things that they'd like to do. Maybe they think that they can fool the people of this province with that kind of rhetoric. I don't think so. The one thing that we all lose from is that if all they have in a transportation planning way is rhetoric and no substance, then everybody loses — the Social Credit, the NDP, but most of all the people of this province.

I think the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) got up because he was bored, because he didn't say anything that added to the debate. He didn't say one thing that enhanced this debate in any way. I think it would behoove the Minister of Municipal Affairs to stand up and say: "One year from now, here's what we'll have. Two years from now, here's what we'll have," or three years and four years and five years, and talk about the kind of transportation systems.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I wonder if the committee could come to order. The hon. member for Prince Rupert is speaking to the vote.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, to try and solve the urban transportation problems that we have in this province is no easy task for any government. I remember meeting in Surrey when I was the Minister of Highways. One of the aldermen was a school teacher who lived in Surrey and worked in Vancouver and was complaining about the traffic tie up in the tunnel every morning and night. Obviously something is wrong with the whole system of urban planning when we have, for instance, a new factory going in that will pay X amount of dollars to the workers there, and half a mile from the factory we build houses that the wages from the factory will not support the purchase of.

So you get people who live in Vancouver and work in Surrey, and people who are exactly the opposite way around. The problem is that we have to in some way relate industrial planning, residential planning and transit planning all into one package, You cannot deal with transportation as an isolated factor and hope that it all works out. You can't allow developers to go anywhere they want and develop anything they want, and then have the province and the municipalities pick up the bill of chasing an unplanned residential or industrial strategy around. This government seems to think that anything called planning is evil, because only communists plan. They're absolutely opposed to any kind of planning whatsoever, because they think it smacks of communism or socialism or one of the other imaginary evils that they always have running around under their beds.

If you take a look at the greater Vancouver liveable regional district plan, you can look at it and you can say that it might be very nice to achieve it. But where are you going to get the politicians with enough guts — municipally, provincially and federally — to carry it out? There are certain things that have to be done if you're going to rationalize the urban community, especially in regard to transportation.

The one thing that I would like to warn this government about is the fixed-rail concept of making a public transportation system within the urban community a fixed-rail one, because it's there forever. Unless you take your transportation, your residential growth, your industrial growth and your commercial growth, and put them into one complete package, with those disciplines that look after each one of those segments working together in a planning way, you're never going to get anywhere. You're sure not going to get anywhere with a minister who says to the municipalities: "You'll do it my way, or it won't be done at all."

I have never in my life seen a group of arch-conservatives, who say that they believe in the decentralization of the decision-making process, draw to their breast in Victoria so many of the decisions that should be left in the community. That minister, who is the most arch-conservative of that group, is probably the worst offender in centralizing every decision that ever comes down the pipe into his office in Victoria, wherever it's possible to do it. If that is conservatism, then let's get rid of it. If a centralized bureaucracy is the kind of conservative policy that means that government seizes the option we should take, then let's get rid of it, because it's not what the people of this province want. They want a say in the decisions that are going to affect them

[ Page 5030 ]

immediately and personally in the communities where they live. This minister has to be the worst offender in taking away those decisions from the communities and the individuals in those communities and bringing those decisions into a centralized bureaucracy in Victoria. He must be ashamed at night. He must be ashamed as a conservative to go for all that centralized power. Or is that what this conservative group wants? Is it so they can control it? Are they so sure they're right in every instance, so sure the people out there are incapable of making decisions for themselves, on their own or in conjunction with senior government, that they're afraid to let them do it? Why are they so concerned about people in the community making decisions that will affect them? I find it absolutely incredible.

I've said it before, but I'd like to remind this Legislature that when I was the Minister of Highways, that minister at that time was the chairman of the transportation committee of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. As the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) said, he sure talked a different line then. In those days he talked about the need for local participation in the decision-making process in regard to transportation. He seemed to recognize some of the problems — regardless of the government — that we would have to face. The one area we agreed on in those days was that the local residents of a community should have some say in the decision-making process.

MR. BARBER: Today he is the problem.

MR. LEA: As my colleague points out, today he is the problem in the way of people taking some part in the decisions of solving problems. He is the arch villain against local municipal decision-making. This government has taken one piece of legislation after the other, one regulation after the other, and they've taken the decisions away from local communities and local school boards and they've taken them into Victoria so that they can have control. The only thing that remains, Mr. Chairman, is to ask the question: why? Why do they so distrust the local resident? Why do they so distrust the individual and that individual's capability of making decisions for those things that will affect him or her immediately and sometimes, if it's a wrong decision, irreparably? This government is the worst centralist government I have ever had the misfortune to view, to be associated with or to read about.

Mr. Chairman, in my opinion that minister is doing more damage to the democratic process than any other in that cabinet. The part that saddens me is that I really don't think he knows it; I don't think he appreciates it. I can't find it in my heart to condemn him as a human being. I personally like the minister and I think he knows that, but the decisions that that minister makes are actually incredible in terms of chipping away and scratching away at the democracy that holds us together. I would like to be charitable, Mr. Chairman, and say that he doesn't understand. I believe he is embarrassed. It's strange what some people will do to achieve power; it's even stranger what some people will do to maintain it. I have never in my life seen such a change of attitude and principle as I have with that minister since he was a municipally elected politician to now when he's a provincially elected politician. He didn't only cross parties; he seemed to cross into the twilight zone that leaves no room for the individual in his thinking and which is dictatorial in every aspect.

Every portfolio that he gets his hands on.... In Human Resources he said: "Do away with the community decision-making around community resource boards; do away with it." Then he gets into Municipal Affairs where he has transit, and he does exactly the same thing. With everything that he puts his hands on as a Crown minister, he takes away freedom and decision-making from the local area and brings it into Victoria into a highly centralized bureaucracy and then sits on top of it like a dictator, telling local people what they will and what they won't do, and backs off in the face of nothing. He'll never back off. He somehow seems to feel that there's strength in that. I suggest to the minister that there's strength in allowing people in on the decision-making process.

For him to stand up in this House and even try to discredit those things in transportation that the previous government did that were good, I find distasteful. I thought more of him. I thought more of him as a human being. I can understand why some politicians do it, but I find it incredible that this politician, who I had respect for in many ways, has joined his colleagues in doing nothing more than exactly the same as the Minister of Universities just did. Say nothing, and revert everything to cheap politics.

Whether that government stays in power at the next election is one question. But for the good of British Columbia, the first member for Surrey, the now Minister of Municipal Affairs, if he continues to act the way he has.... For that party's sake, for this party's sake and for the sake of the people of British Columbia, if that government remains in power, let's pray that he isn't in it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I remind the committee that Committee of Supply is simply to vote on the amount of money before us. Personal allusions are not really allowed. As a matter of fact, Sir Erskine May points out specifically that we cannot discuss the question of whether or not a minister should be in cabinet. We are on vote 161.

MRS. WALLACE: When the minister last addressed the House, he provided us with a rather fanatical presentation. He referred to the so-called worn-out taxi system which the New Democratic Party had subsidized in my constituency.

MR. BARBER: Another half-truth.

MRS. WALLACE: It certainly was a half-truth; it was hardly that.

I would like the House to recognize the fact.... Obviously that minister does not recognize the need for transportation in small communities. The so-called worn-out taxi was a brand new eight-passenger bus. That bus provided a much needed service between Lake Cowichan, Youbou and Duncan. Thanks to that minister and his policies, it's no longer providing that service because there's no more subsidy for that bus service. The only way those people in Youbou can get to Duncan on the public transit system is to leave at 4:30 in the morning, thanks to that minister. For him to stand up and talk about a broken down taxi service supported by the NDP is annoying to say the least, when people know what's going on there. It certainly points out that the arguments that he presents in this House are nothing but fantastic fabrications.

[ Page 5031 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go back to the opening of the debate on this particular vote. The first member for Victoria said very clearly that we were supporting the vote and we would even divide on the vote, because we do support it and want it made clear that we do support it. Having said that and having made a number of points, the minister got up and started talking about the NDP's performance — a performance, incidentally, on transit that reflected three years and four months in government. If you really look at it and think as I did when I saw all of Coquitlam served, many of the outlying areas served, Surrey's service enhanced, White Rock served for the first time and Delta served far more than it had ever been before.... I thought to myself that is really something to be proud of, particularly in three years and four months. This government has been government for five years and four months. Let's put that into context. We have seen an actual deterioration in transit service in the lower mainland in that five years and four months. Yet the minister gets up and is critical of the NDP.

There is a history in this province, Mr. Chairman, and the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who gets up and makes that hollow speech every two or three days — what happened in 1960, what happened in 1963, and so on and so forth.... That great stuff reflects a number of years when this province has been ill-governed. I think that transit is probably one of the areas where we can best show that there was a great deal of priority, care and concern for human needs. Out of that brief three years and four months we got sortie very great enhancement in transit; we got SeaBus and a number of other very important aspects in helping convey people from point A to point B. I agree totally with the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). There has to be a lot more than just transit planning going into this whole thing.

When I walked into the chamber a moment ago I heard the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications talking about the incompetence and inability of the NDP to deal with issues and so on during the time that we were government. When I think of the blunders that minister has made — particularly that blunder out at UBC — for him to even have the nerve to get up in this House and suggest any such thing is just beyond one's imagination.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:32 p.m.