[ Page 5745 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Attendance of Governor-General at B.C. Winter Games. Mr. Barnes –– 5745

Mrs. Dailly –– 5746

Site C dam hearings. Mrs. Wallace –– 5746

Proposed royal commission on WCB. Ms. Sanford –– 5746

Bank of Canada appointment. Mr. Leggatt –– 5747

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Communications estimates. (Hon.

Mr. Fraser)

On vote 189: minister's office –– 5747

Mr. Lockstead, Mr. Segarty, Mr. Cocke, Mr. Brummet, Mrs. Wallace, Mr. Lorimer

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 12). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On section 1 –– 5757

Mr. Cocke

On section 2 –– 5757

Mr. Nicolson, Mr. Stupich, Mr. Cocke, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Lorimer

Tabling Documents

Ombudsman annual report, 1980.

Mr. Speaker –– 5770

MONDAY, MAY 25, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today are representatives of the Australian Flying Fruit Fly Circus, who have been visiting Canada for the last five weeks. They have performed in Vancouver, as part of the Vancouver Children's Festival, and they were very well received. As a matter of fact their performances were sold out weeks in advance. This group returned yesterday from a two week stay in Edmonton, where they again performed to capacity crowds. The group leader is Mrs. Julie Ling, who is here with her husband. Their son is one of the performers. This group of performers range in age from 6 to 18. There are 27 performers, a dozen parents and several staff. The majority of this Flying Fruit Fly Circus live in Albury, New South Wales, and several come from nearby towns. The group was formed by a small group of people who believed that all children have abilities that can be easily developed, and put together with other ordinary kids they can provide very professional performances. They are here today under the auspices of Mr. Graham Bell of the Canadian Hostelling Association. I ask the House to welcome them.

MR. LEA: I ask the members of the House to welcome to the precinct and the gallery a Tory from England, Mr. Fred Eve, the father of one of our researchers, Chris Eve. He is a councillor from the English borough of Gravesham and serves on the housing and planning committee representing the swing ward of Whitehill. Gravesham, Kent, has a population of about 80,000. This would be somewhat along the lines of a district municipality in our country. He's visiting us here today and is in Victoria for ten days. I'd like to ask the members to welcome him.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, sitting directly behind you are 18 students from Nishga School District 92 of my constituency. They are with their supervisor, Dr. Ben Thomas. I would ask the House to give them a warm reception.

Oral Questions

ATTENDANCE OF GOVERNOR-GENERAL
AT B.C. WINTER GAMES

MR. BARNES: My question is addressed to the Premier. Could the Premier advise the House whether or not he intends to officiate at the 1982 Winter Games in Trail?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I have responded to every invitation to the B.C. Summer and Winter Games since their inception. So far I have been able to respond favourably to every invitation. I would certainly assume that 1982 would be no exception.

MR. BARNES: Is the Premier aware that the Mayor of Trail, Mr. Chuck Lakes, has requested that the Governor-General attend, and that he was denied the opportunity to do so at the suggestion of the B.C. Games director, Mr. Ron Butlin?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have a question?

MR. BARNES: I'm asking if he's aware of that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

MR. BARNES: I think the issue that I am asking about is this. The games are a public provincial affair and Mr. Ron Butlin has stated that no politicians would be invited to those games — that it's strictly a B.C. affair and that the Premier of the province is the only one who is permitted to attend. You say that you have no knowledge of that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member is incorrect inasmuch as members from all parties on both sides of the House, depending on where the ridings are, have been there, including — although they play no part in putting on the games either financially or in any other way — federal MPs from various parties who have been there as part of the opening ceremonies. I think everybody is there in a nonpolitical role, and they are just enthusiastic about the games. In fact, I've seen some games where the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) has also been invited and present.

I would hope that nobody would attempt to diminish the real value of the games and the sense of community, not only in a local sense but in a provincial sense, that they've inspired. British Columbians are proud of the B.C. Games and that they are the most extensive in Canada. We're able to do what most other provinces and the country as a whole have been unable to do. That's to be able to hold two very large and successful games in a year. They're growing every year. It attests to both the concept and the administration of them, which has harnessed the efforts of thousands of volunteers on the local level. I'm proud of the games. I think every British Columbian is as well.

MR. BARNES: I agree fully with the Premier. That's the way we all feel about the B.C. Games. However. I think that the director of the games, Mr. Ron Butlin, is of a different persuasion. He has been contacted by the mayor of Trail, Mr. Speaker, with reference to whether or not the Governor-General, Mr. Ed Schreyer, would be permitted to officiate at the games. He was emphatically told no, he was not, because no politicians are allowed — and, of course, the Governor-General is not a politician.

MR. SPEAKER: May we have a question.

MR. BARNES: I am asking the Premier if he is suggesting that Mr. Ron Butlin is correct in his statements — because these can be verified; he has made those statements — and if he intends to call Mr. Ron Butlin to task for discouraging the attendance of the Governor-General to the games.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the purpose of question period is to ask questions and not to enter debate. Does the Premier wish to answer?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have no reason to believe that the statements contained in the question by the second member for Vancouver Centre are correct either in their being paraphrased, in their entirety or in their concept. All I know is the games have worked well, and we

[ Page 5746 ]

are very proud of them as British Columbians. Certainly all other Canadians are welcome to come and visit us during our games; as British Columbians, we are very proud of them. For the life of me, I have difficulty understanding just what the member is questioning today.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker. Can the Provincial Secretary advise whether he instructed Ron Butlin to reject the invitation to the games to the Governor-General?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I know of no such rejection nor I have I issued such instructions.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I think it is of concern to a number of people in the province whether this is a fact or not. I would ask the Provincial Secretary if he'll come back to the House and advise us after he has investigated whether Mr. Ron Butlin did do so or not. Can we have a commitment from the provincial Secretary to return to the House with an answer?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, we are very proud of the job the games do and also the job their general manager, Mr. Butlin, does. I had not heard this information and will be happy to look into it. But I think what we're talking about here is just a rumour situation.

MR. BARNES: I'm prepared to wait until the Premier returns with his indications as to whether or not this is accurate or not. He is suggesting that we don't have accurate information. When the Provincial Secretary is suggesting that there are rumours, we're quite prepared to verify the fact that inquiries were made. I'm asking the Premier and the Provincial Secretary whether they will invite the Governor-General to the games as has been requested by one of the MPs in Ottawa. It's Mr. Lyle Kristiansen, as a matter of fact, who is representing that area. He has been told emphatically by Mr. Ron Butlin that no politicians would be invited.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Governor-General, whom I happen to know and respect very highly, has already been in attendance at one of our B.C. Winter Games in Kamloops. Mr. Butlin was the general manager then as well. I would presume that nothing has changed. However, everybody is welcome at these friendly games. Everybody's welcome to participate.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) interjects from his seat. I'm saying that everybody's welcome, Mr. Speaker. I'm not about to interfere as the second member for Vancouver Centre has suggested, and start saying who should come, or start sending out invitations from the Premier's office. As I say, everybody's proud of the games now. They're run in a very community fashion in a non-political way. I would hate anyone to start trying to use them politically for a headline; I would hate to have anyone suggest to me that I start interfering with the community and saying who should be invited and who should not. I'm not going to do that, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. DAILLY: To follow up on the Premier's last remarks: is the Premier suggesting that the Governor-General is a politician at this time?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I never said that, Mr. Speaker, nor have I ever thought that.

SITE C DAM HEARINGS

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The Agricultural Land Commission has stated its intention to intervene before the Utilities Commission, relative to their hearings on the Site C dam, in order to preserve their jurisdiction over B.C. farmland. Will the minister assure the House that the approximately 4,000 acres of agricultural land under Site C will not be removed from the agricultural land reserve without application being made and hearings held under section 12 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the member inquiring into future activities?

MRS. WALLACE: I'm asking the minister to assure the House that this will not happen. If you would prefer me to reword the question, I will ask: has the minister decided to ensure that this doesn't happen?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the Agricultural Land Commission will be putting forward a submission to the Utilities Commission hearings on Site C, within the mandate they have as the Land Commission.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'm quite aware that that is going to happen. What I want is an assurance from this minister as to whether or not he has decided that that land will not be removed from the reserve without following the normal procedures of going through the Agricultural Land Commission.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister may wish to remark on steps he has already taken. Please proceed.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the legislation in place allows for the procedures to be followed. We, as government, would follow those procedures.

PROPOSED ROYAL COMMISSION ON WCB

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Labour, it is now nearly two years since we on this side of the House called for a royal commission to examine the workings and the functions of the Workers' Compensation Board. The then Minister of Labour refused that royal commission. The deficit for the WCB increased 50 percent this year and has now reached a staggering $385 million, and worksite safety inspections are below the levels reached in 1976 and 1977. Has the minister now decided to appoint a royal commission to investigate the operations of the WCB?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

MS. SANFORD: I'm wondering what action the minister has decided to take to clean up the mess that currently exists

[ Page 5747 ]

at the WCB and to ensure that the workers in this province have a safe place to work.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is clearly argumentative.

BANK OF CANADA APPOINTMENT

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In January of this year, Mr. Ronald Longstaffe was appointed as British Columbia's representative on the board of governors of the Bank of Canada. Would the minister advise whether the federal government made the minister and his government aware of that appointment in January?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, insofar as the Ministry of Finance is concerned, to the best of my recollection the answer is no.

MR. LEGGATT: Would the minister advise whether the government was advised about this appointment, and would he also advise the House whether the minister made any recommendation to the Bank of Canada about the appointment from the province of British Columbia to that very powerful board?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I would think that it's correct to say that the government was not consulted with respect to that particular appointment.

MR. LEGGATT: On May 21 of this year, the Bank of Canada set its rate at 19.06 percent, which must be an all time high for a Bank of Canada rate. Could the minister advise whether Mr. Longstaffe, who is a representative of British Columbia even though not advised as such by this government...? Is he in touch with our representative on that board? Has he made any representations at all concerning this inflationary and disastrous interest policy being imposed on the country?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I have not made representations to an individual who is essentially and in fact an appointee of the federal government. The appropriateness of the appointment ends in the fact that this individual is from British Columbia. What I would like the member and the House to know is that clearly all members, government ones as well as those opposite, must be very seriously concerned about the high interest rate levels.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) is interjecting, and again he's out of date and out of touch.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's been away, you know.

HON. MR. CURTIS: He has been away, yes. I understand he's considering a second visit to Aukland.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), the question of high interest rates was discussed by the four western Finance ministers at a meeting just about three weeks ago in Victoria. Within a few days I will join my western colleagues again for a second meeting. I think that indicates the seriousness with which we are approaching a number of matters, not the least of which is the interest rate question, which is, after all, a federal responsibility, but should be of concern to all of us. Additionally all ten Ministers of Finance — or Provincial Treasurers, as they are known in some provinces — will be in Victoria for a full-scale two-day meeting towards the end of June. Obviously the question will be discussed at significant length then as well.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, would it be asking too much of members to extend the courtesy of the House to Clerks at the table when they are giving us the direction for the day? I think we could extend it to them. I would recommend the same to the members.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On vote 189: minister's office, $213,962.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I have a few brief questions for the minister as we get into the estimates this afternoon. The House is settling down and clearing out, so we'll just take it easy. I know that there are a lot of members on the government side and on our side of the House who have something to say under this vote very briefly and right to the point, The other day we did touch on the water transportation problems, and I want to take this opportunity to suggest to you and the B.C. Ferry Corporation — but particularly to your ministry and the government — that right now on the coast of British Columbia four new, properly constructed vessels should at least be on a drawing-board, if not actually under construction. There is a real problem, and the problem is going to compound itself. Utilizing your own figures, the anticipated increase in water traffic over the next year — we all know what those figures are; there's no point in going into all that — is going to be a minimum of 12 percent, probably more like 16 percent per year, I would bet, I'm suggesting that two new vessels be considered for the Powell River-Comox run — not the huge monstrosities, but the 24 and 26-knot vessels with a carrying capacity of 100 to 120 vehicles, and a bi-hourly service instead of the four-hour service we now have. I don't want to go into a lot of detail.

The other route we should be considering is the Prince Rupert–Sandspit route; a vessel should be constructed for that. I know the Queen of Prince Rupert was constructed to sail in those waters, but in my view that vessel is too large for that particular run and could be better utilized on another route. I'm sure that you and I have discussed this on previous occasions, but I just wanted that on record. I think you'll find that a lot of people on the Queen Charlotte Islands would agree with that point of view.

Last but not least, we need a new; vessel, properly designed — perhaps the Vancouver Princess, I'm not sure — for a direct ferry service between Comox and Vancouver.

The other topic I wanted to discuss with you briefly — we should really be doing this under your vote, but we'll save

[ Page 5748 ]

time and do it under the minister's vote; then we won't have to re-examine the matter — is the staffing of the Motor Carrier Commission. I'm sure that you, your staff and even I, as a member of the opposition, have received a great deal of correspondence — oftentimes relating to decisions of the commission, but that's another matter — about the length of time it takes for the commission to make a decision. I understand the procedures, but I understand from personnel within the commission that their main problem is lack of funding — i.e., lack of staff in order to look at the various applications that the commission receives all the time. I'd like to advise the minister that perhaps a portion of the Highways budget should be increased to meet that shortfall, so that people who own trucks, people who are applying for licences of whatever nature — taxis, you name it — at least don't have to sit on their heels wondering if they should make a bank loan or not, or pay the current high interest rates on bank loans while they're waiting for a decision from the Motor Carrier Commission. Perhaps the minister could look into that.

There are one or two small constituency items while I have the floor, Mr. Chairman. What better chance do I have than right now?

HON. MR. GARDOM: He's doing a terrific job every day.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That comes at the end, if he's doing a good job. We'll see.

I just want to mention to the minister that ever since I've been around in elected politics, one of the things I am often asked is why we don't have a road from Port Mellon to Squamish. I've been through this with your ministry on many occasions. I understand the figures and the whole thing, but I thought I would like this on record. I understand that the ferry presently serving the area is much quicker than the proposed highway link, which has to cross some six major creeks and rivers with fish spawning and all of those things — 18 miles, $3.5 million per mile, etc. Nonetheless, that particular question is raised all the time, and I must say that one of your people within the ministry — maybe your deputy; I'm not sure — said they would re-examine and get a ball-park figure for that proposed 18-mile link.

During estimates last year I raised the matter — a small thing, but a big item to people living up and down the Sunshine Coast and particularly in Powell River. There are no real, fully serviced rest stops, which means lavatories and things like that, and you did say you would have your ministry look into the matter. Have you looked into the matter? There are no rest stops along the Sunshine Coast. I think there's a need for two at the present time for those people who are travelling straight through between Langdale and Earls Cove particularly. I wish the minister would take that under advisement and assure me once again this year that that matter — it's not earth-shaking — will be looked into and something will be done.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, the minister and I have discussed this matter on a number of occasions, but I do want it on record; the proposed airport at Bella Bella. The minister is aware of that problem and the situation there. Since our last conversation, we have received some communication from the federal government that they seem to favour the Campbell Island site and are prepared to put up some funding; how much funding I don't know. If it's just a few dollars, forget it. But if they're prepared to take an actual part in significant funding for the airport location on Campbell Island, then I think perhaps we should start doing something in that area. That's a long stretch of coastline without an adequate airport. Everybody from Prince Rupert right down to Vancouver — people who are flying up and down the coast all the time, including our Canadian Coast Guard and everybody else — agree that we should have some kind of airport in that particular area. The residents of that area have been attempting for years to get an upgraded major facility or some type of facility. Perhaps the minister would care to answer that.

I have three or four other local items, Mr. Chairman, but I think I'll leave them for the present time and let somebody else get on with it.

HON. MR. FRASER: I have brief replies to the member for Mackenzie. I didn't catch the first part, but I think he said that B.C. Ferries should get on with another four new vessels. I just want to say what I said the other day: two new vessels are going in the water before July 1. As a matter of fact, I think the new Queen of Surrey is going to take its place on route 2, Horseshoe Bay–Departure Bay, on Wednesday, May 27. It's a $30 million vessel. The Queen of Oak Bay is coming on before July 1. Another $30 million vessel is going on route 1 between Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay. We have two other vessels which we're lifting and putting another deck in — the Queen of Vancouver and the Queen of Victoria. They'll be in the system with additional capacity not later than July 15, 1981, I believe.

Looking beyond that, there are plans to further lift two more vessels that we have in the system now; one is the Saanich, and I forget the other one. That will be additional capacity for 1982. The Ferries directors have not made any decisions regarding new vessels, but I believe I said in estimates the other day that possibly we should be considering at least another equivalent to the Alberni, the truck ferry. No decision has been made. That's where we're at there. Generally, the capacity has been increased about 25 percent in 1981, while the traffic is advancing about 10 percent. We have not made any decisions. We're further aware that once they are made, it will be two years before we get a brand-new vessel in the water.

Motor Carrier Commission. I think all members are getting complaints regarding the time it takes to process applications for licences or even permits. We have authorization in this budget to increase the staff of the motor carrier branch by four. I would like to say that I don't look for immediate, clearing up of that, while it's a move in the right direction. We only have a staff of 48 in the whole province. In other words, we've been authorized to increase about 10 percent, but the applications for licences and permits and so on have advanced about 200 percent.

We are going to have a problem for a while. We're going to take a whole look at the Motor Carrier Act. I'm not saying that we'll do anything about it, but we'll take a look at where we're going with the Motor Carrier Act and whether new procedures are required. It hasn't been looked at in a very intense way for quite some time. I'm not saying that we'll get rid of it or expand it, but there are some problems there that we have to deal with. The one you brought up is certainly one of them — the shortage of staff to process. I think it will clear

[ Page 5749 ]

up somewhat. It makes the applying citizens quite frustrated when they can't get answers. The Motor Carrier Commission itself has had some changes by resignations — that is people going on retirement. It's at full complement now — that is a chairman and two commissioners in place. They're kept quite busy with hearings on licensing amendments as well as new licence applications.

You mentioned the Port Mellon to Squamish road. That has certainly been looked at before. The estimate on that is about $30 million. I guess it's one of these cases with a lot of rock work. They're taking further information on it now. There could well be a move — not to complete the road but I think there are going to be some developments at Woodfibre that might see a change take place from Squamish to Woodfibre. In other words, we have a ferry running there, and while it is paid for mostly by the company, we are still involved. With developments that might take place at Woodfibre we might see a road start from Squamish to Woodfibre. That would be the general direction it would eventually go.

I'm not aware of a shortage of rest stops on the Sunshine Coast, but I will ask the staff. There is no reason we shouldn't have a rest stop or two on that busy road. Through this debate I hope that, if we haven't got them, we get on with developing at least one and maybe two.

The last item that you brought up is the airport at Bella Bella for the central coast. That has been ongoing ever since Otto Lang had something to do with public life in Canada. I guess you're aware that, first of all, our government feels that the government of Canada has some obligation here. It's my understanding that when Otto Lang was the minister, he said they'd build an airport there. I think that was in 1975 or 1976 — I'm not sure of the year — and there has been a continual discussion about it ever since. The position of our government is that they had better fulfill their promise. I also want to say that I don't think they have any intention of doing it. In the meantime, the private sector has built an airport on Denny Island, which is right across from Campbell Island. There are no public funds in that airstrip at all. I'm not saying there mightn't be at some future date, because it's a rough strip. They can land on it, but to get finely upgraded....

Regarding the location — Campbell Island or Denny Island — it was made quite clear to me in correspondence with the present federal Minister of Transport that that decision rests with the government of British Columbia. In other words, he's not favouring one over the other and they would like that decision made by us. When that decision is made, we have a commitment — they'll give some navigational aid to wherever the airport is located. In terms of dollars I think we're looking at upwards of $3 million to develop what we should have — a proper central coast airstrip, whether it be on Campbell or Denny Island. They say they'll help with navigational aids. To put it in perspective, I think that's about $150,000.

That is my interpretation of the current government in Ottawa: they're prepared to go ahead once a decision is made as to where it's going to be developed; they'll assist in navigational aids but we're on our own. That's what it looks like. We haven't made any decision at all, but in the meantime the airplanes are landing on a gravel strip there. I understand the commercial service going in there is also using that strip. Somewhere down the road someone has to make a decision to put public funds in there, but that hasn't happened at this point. The people on Campbell Island want it there. I'm aware that that's where a lot of the people live; but the fact remains that the private-sector money has developed a strip on Denny Island, which is being used. So that's where the matter's at. What I'm trying to say is that no public funds, either from the government of Canada or the government of British Columbia, have been expended on either island up to this time. I think that clears up that matter. By the way, the strip is a 2,200-foot strip. There's some irony here. I understand the people on Campbell Island are using that for transportation as well — they fly in the planes that land at Denny Island now. That's the situation as it exists.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, on the airport situation, I was informed informally that if the government of British Columbia is prepared to make a decision on site location — and this comes from Ottawa.... The minister knows because he has copies of the correspondence.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, you're not interested in that part of the coast anyway. Quite seriously, if the provincial government will make a decision on location, there is a distinct possibility of some federal funding, according to our MP who has met with the federal minister. No firm commitment has been given, and I understand what you said, but I just wanted to have that on record.

The problem with the present site that the minister talks about — the airport built on Denny Island — is that there is no real access to that airport at the present time. That's one of the problems, but the problem is further complicated. The so-called easy part, the flat part, has been built. If that airport is to be extended — and it is too short by any criteria; you're taking your life in your hands to land there, and I wouldn't do it when I'm flying — it is going to cost a horrendous amount of money, because there are whole gullies to be filled in. It's very rough.

I'm not coming out against a private enterprise airport. I can understand very well that the people have been frustrated over 20 or 30 years of attempting to get some kind of decent transportation service. They finally went ahead on their own. But at some point it's going to require federal or provincial funding to get a decent air transportation system into that area. I know you're aware of this, but I'm just putting it on record, and I'll be back in touch with you.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to rise for a few minutes and thank the Ministry of Highways and their crew for the fine job they've done in the past year in keeping the roads clear all winter from the extremely heavy snowfall that took place in my riding. I particularly thank the area managers, George Austin in Ferne and Harvey Popoff in Cranbrook. I'd just like to thank them for their cooperation over the past year, and I know it's going to continue for quite some time to come.

There are just a few areas of concern in the riding of Kootenay, particularly in the community of Sparwood in the Elk valley. There's an urgent need for the immediate replacement of the old single-lane wooden bridges on the highway north into Elkford. That's a real problem at the present time. They're causing problems with height and weight restrictions, because they're old, wooden bridges and can't carry too much heavy traffic. There's a great deal of mining activity taking place in that particular area. I wonder if the minister would give me some indication as to when he expects tenders to be called on these bridges.

[ Page 5750 ]

Another problem in the same area is a level crossing off Highway 3 onto the Elkford highway. There's a level crossing there and coal cars are getting longer and longer as the days go by. It's not fair to have people who work long hours up in the mines having to come down and wait for a long period of time for trains to go by; they want to get home from work as quickly as they can.

There is also an urgent need for the construction of maintenance garages in the growing municipality of Elkford and in the community of Yahk. I wonder if the minister would give me some indication as to where we stand with those projects.

The ministry has done a really good job in constructing the road between Cranbrook and Kimberley. It's been under construction for the past couple of years. The construction project is completed. The only thing that remains now is the bridge, and I was wondering if the minister could give me some indication as to when the bridge will be officially complete and open to traffic.

I would also like to thank the minister for widening the Crowsnest Highway 3 to four lanes from two through Cranbrook. I was wondering if there is any money in the ministry's budget to have a beautification project take place to clean up the landscape of the roadside going through the city of Cranbrook on Crowsnest Highway 3.

Looking at the future, in the next four or five years there will be a need to widen the Crowsnest Highway 3 from two to three lanes for about ten miles from Elko through the Elko bluffs and along the Moyie bluffs.

There is another situation in the Elk Valley regarding an airport. The regional district of the East Kootenays currently has a study underway which, I understand, is now completed. That study will make a recommendation on the location of an Elk Valley airport. I don't want to question the location, but I do hope there are funds in the ministry's budget this year for the construction of that airport. I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to give me some indication of when those projects will take place. Is there money in his budget for those projects?

HON. MR. FRASER: I thank the member for Kootenay for his kind remarks.

Regarding the larger issues in the Kootenay riding, because of the member I'm aware that the big issue there now is the replacement of the bridges to Elkford. I'm happy to tell him that three bridges and two rights-of-way overheads are on their way. We'll be calling the contract on the bridges in August 1981. Regarding the overheads, the railroad is subject to CDC approval, and I don't believe we have that. I don't know the specific completion date for the work we've done from Cranbrook to Kimberley, but I should be able to get that. It's definitely this year, but I don't know which month. I'm advised that hopefully it will be put in the system in July or August of this year. The future widening of different roads you mentioned will come along in their priority.

I believe you did mention beautification. We definitely have funds for beautification. If you're not getting your share, you should get in contact with us, because we're upgrading that program all over the province. While we haven't got a lot of money, it's not confined just to Blanshard Street in Victoria, where a lot of funds have been spent. There's also been a lot of good beautification money spent on the freeway from Vancouver to Abbotsford. But it applies throughout the province. We'll gladly cooperate in any way we can to beautify over there.

Regarding airport assistance, you say that you applied to the airport assistance program and that there's a study going on. If you're past the study stage we can get down and make some decisions as to where it should go. I'm not sure where it is in our priorities, but that's one program that has been very successful. While we might not complete it all in 1981, I certainly think we can get to it in 1982. I'm not aware of exactly where that is. Once we pass the study stage, and the regional district people, your local people and we all agree together, then it's a case of getting on and doing the physical work. The program seems to work excellently that way. I don't anticipate a problem with that.

MR. SEGARTY: Regarding the Elk Valley airport, the regional district of East Kootenay commissioned the study and it is complete. The three municipalities in the Elk Valley have agreed to agree that the recommendation made in the study will be the one accepted by the three municipalities. I expect they'll want to be getting on with that project this year. I hope that it will place high on the ministry's priority list.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I think that there are a number of issues I would like to take up with the minister. I know that he has had a busy time having dealings with the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and so on, as to whether he's on or off, and now he suddenly finds himself on again. But as confusing as the hon. House Leader makes things for that poor minister, I'll just try to help him along and see if I can give him some advice that he might be interested in.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I notice the member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is beginning to get a little tense. Speaking of the member for Surrey, years ago we had a delightful member for Burrard here by the name of Harold Merilees, who unfortunately died. But before he died he made a suggestion that certain plants be planted along the freeway. Those plants were to be planted, say, from Vancouver out to Abbotsford, or as far as they could possibly get them. Suddenly we saw those plants emerging — a beautiful little yellow flower that I see now is beginning to run into competition. Now that daffodil that almost became part of the freeway is being usurped by tulips, and I wonder if the member for Surrey....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the member for Surrey, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, when he went back to his homeland, Holland, last year, probably imported more tulips than he could use, and suddenly we see them sprouting up, on the freeway. Congratulations. It's at least some place to sow them, and I rather like them. But in memory of Harold I think that we should make sure that there are more daffodils than tulips on the freeway between Vancouver and Abbotsford — certainly the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) would go along with that.

Mr. Chairman, one of the things that disturbs me about a number of the roads in the province.... The particular geography of the one that's most disturbing to me is the banking of the Pattullo Bridge. Of all accidents looking for a place to happen, all they have to do is go to the north end of that bridge. I know it's very difficult for us to do anything

[ Page 5751 ]

about it, and I realize that it was done in the good old Liberal patronage days. But there have been some modifications to that bridge, and I would like to see a further modification. We are still having trucks coming across that bridge and suddenly losing their load, and once in a while we've had some very serious accidents. I have asked for a further look at that particular end of the bridge, and I've really seen very little happen lately. Oh, yes, I see all sorts of options that we're going to be given in the future. We're going to be given a third crossing to curse us, but aside from that I've seen very little being done with that particular end of the bridge. I say it's dangerous, it's always been dangerous, and there is nothing significant being done about that bridge approach and the banking.

We've got a "Slow to 20," and when you put up a "Slow to 20 m.p.h." in this province, that means that you just take your foot off the accelerator for a second, but there is just no slowing to 20. Some of those heavy trucks coming down that grade, as the minister probably well knows, are a threat to themselves, to people going the other way or to people in the next lane to them. So either we get some heavy-duty policing there, so we get everybody down to a snail's pace, which, I'm sure, will enrage those people trying to get home and trying to go to work, etc., or we're going to have to see something done in terms of the banking on that bridge.

Having said that, I really don't think that I have ever criticized the ferry fleet. I think that that was a super idea. I know that there have only been two businesses nationalized in our province: one was B.C. Electric, and the other one was Black Ball Ferries. Both were nationalized by one W.A.C. Bennett — in other words, by legislation.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Socialism.

MR. COCKE: That's right, socialism. Why did you ever join that party if you don't like that kind of situation? Anyway, they were the ones who did it. Having done it, I congratulate the concept that the then Premier had about providing fair access for the people on Vancouver Island and fair access to the people on the mainland wanting to get on the Island by use of these ferries. They're excellent. Of course we need more, and we're building more. But I heard the minister the other day suggest that one of the ways we're going to circumvent some of the problems we have — or at least we're studying this — is that we're going to move the Alberni onto a new run. For those who are not familiar with it, the Alberni is the Cowichan-class truck ferry: a super ferry with good speed that carries a tremendous load. The minister suggested that they're contemplating putting that truck ferry on a run from Tsawwassen to Departure Bay just outside Nanaimo. If that occurs, the extremely heavy demand for food on the southern end of this Island is, I think, going to be hurt. I know there's a tremendous demand for the northern end of the Island, but the southern end is the area where most of the people live.

I think what the minister should be contemplating at this time is to put some other ferry on that line temporarily, but not take the Alberni off this line. I travel the ferries — I don't happen to be a cabinet minister anymore, so I have to travel the ferries every week — and I see the loads getting on the Alberni as I see the loads getting on other ferries. I see them lined up, and I happen to know something about what they're carrying. Truck after truck is loaded with food for the tourist industry and the needs of the people on the southern end of the Island. I think it would be a disservice to this particular area to move that ferry from this run and put it on the northern run.

What would very likely occur under those circumstances would be that some of these heavy trucks would then take that run, get up to Nanaimo and then drive down over the Malahat. I believe that would be a disservice to the highway system too. I think it would be dangerous, and far too much traffic on that line coming down from Nanaimo and back up to Nanaimo to catch this ferry across.

I really hope the minister will take another look at this. We've got some ferries being fixed up and we've got some more ferries coming on stream. Maybe there is some ferry you can find to put on that run for the test run, but not the Alberni. I really hope that that is not done without an awful lot of thought, because I can think of far too many problems that could evolve from that situation.

Speaking of the Alberni, I don't know who — whether one of our people who I know had a hand in the design of that ferry, or someone else — should take the full responsibility for what I see as a damned insult. It is an insult from this standpoint. We who are the blessed ones driving cars or walking on and walking off the Queen of Nanaimo, the Queen of Saanich or whatever at least get a food service — not so great any more — where we can get a cup for our coffee, a plate for our hamburger or a bowl for our clam chowder. What do they get on the Alberni? The Alberni caters to truckers, and the Alberni gets plastic and paper nonsense. I really think that's an insult. Do you know what they charge a large 40-foot truck to get on the Alberni? It's $100 each way. Then the poor old driver goes upstairs, is faced with this lineup, and gets cold eggs — possibly warm, if he's lucky on a paper plate.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM. You'd better get your facts straight. Remember the doctors. Remember the hospitals.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: The insulting Minister of Municipal Affairs should get to work. He sits around here and ignores the municipalities in this province. He's totally lazy, and all he can do is heckle. It's unfortunate that we have to carry on this kind of debate across the floor. But when I'm encouraged, I will continue. There's not one of those big bullies over there who will stop me. The Richmond hospital will be brought up in the estimates, and we'll get down to the bottom of that. Meanwhile, there are letters on....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, yes. The minister was dead wrong, if you want to get into that one. But anyway, I'm not getting into that one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll remind all members of the committee that the member for New Westminster has the floor and is speaking to the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

MR. COCKE: I was speaking to a minister who has ears and who listens, not to one of those little hecklers back there who should be doing their work for the taxpayers of this province.

[ Page 5752 ]

Getting back to the Minister of Highways, I would suggest very strongly that we think very seriously about the question of how the truckers should be treated on that ferry with respect to food service. As far as I'm concerned, they are probably deserving of better food service than we get on the other ferries, because they're stuck with it. That's their job — back and forth and back and forth. I really think that we should very seriously think about this whole question.

Mr. Chairman, think about the whole question of the garbage on our ferries. I watch the trucks come on and go off those ferries, heaped with garbage. I suppose it may be minutely cheaper to get throw-away items than it is to get dishes washed under sterile circumstances. But anybody who knows anything about plastic knows that it is not biodegradable and knows full well that we, as a civilization, are going to suffer the consequences of the use of this non-biodegradable product to the extent that we're now using it. We're ultimately going to bury ourselves in our own garbage. It's a Crown corporation that could well be a leader in the field of the conserver society, rather than a follower. What's easier? Of course, plastic this and plastic that and plastic everything. I know if I were the ferry manager, I would be saying: "I guess I have to go that route because I have to save a buck." But are we saving a dollar at the expense of something very important — our future? Ultimately, we will either change our ways or die with the way we're really handling this whole question of disposables. They're not even disposable — that's the problem. If they were, in fact, disposable....But once that synthetic material is created, it's very difficult to destroy it.

I would hope that the minister might think about that, particularly in view of the fact that he's coming up with two more ferries in the near future and a third ferry, hopefully, in the not-too-distant future. As I understood the minister the other day, we've got two more large vessels coming on between now and the first of July. Good. You have my full applause. I just think it's super. I'm glad that you ignored the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer), the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, who wanted to build a tunnel. Heaven only knows where he came up with that idea. I presume it was in one of his dreams subsequent to the dream about the university hospital that he's now trying to get people into — advertising and all the rest of it. We warned them at the time.

MR. BARBER: They're running ads for the hospital?

MR. COCKE: They had a big open house. They're running ads about the open house and trying to get people to use the emergency. In other words: "Go out, get hurt and come in and use the university hospital. You've got to make the minister look good."

I hope that the minister will look into the whole question of the movement of the Alberni. We on this side of the House are very supportive of the whole ferry system. We certainly recognize the fact that this minister is trying to keep his handle on the timetables and so on. We find that this year they're much more convenient than they have been from time to time in the past.

One other thing. On behalf of those MLAs who do the right thing in terms of car-pooling and the conserver society, we want to thank the minister for giving us access to the employee parking lots. That way we don't have to pack our cars on and off the ferry, which inhibits others. We walk on and off, and it's making things much better. It's a reduction in the utilization of the ferry when others need to use it. It's also a reduction in terms of fuel; rather than having cars running back and forth we're able to share cars. It's a real help.

So, Mr. Chairman, let the minister be warned. If next year the ferry system hasn't got back to a little more china on the truck ferry, and has the Alberni on the northern run, he's in deep trouble. Failing that, if he starts to put things right, then he'll be making some friends and everything will be lovey-dovey — almost as it was as I was listening to the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) giving that fighting speech about the roads up in Kootenay. Unfortunately we don't have any in New Westminster. We pay for the whole thing ourselves.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member's observations. I'd just like to go over them briefly. First of all, he referred to landscaping. The idea came from our colleague at that time, the late Harold Merilees. It was his idea to plant the daffodils. Speaking to the member for New Westminster, Harold Merilees was first elected to this Legislature at the same time he was and at the same time I was. He contributed a lot, but we're continuing on a larger scale and developing it further. This year I understand there will be $1.5 million spent on landscaping.

MR. COCKE: But not too many tulips, and more daffodils.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, yes, that could well be, but I still give Harold Merilees the credit for getting the idea in the first place for beautification generally.

MR. COCKE: So did I.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm quite surprised at the observation that the north end of the Pattullo Bridge is not safe. We're not getting that comment, Mr. Member, and we'll certainly look into it. While I'm dealing with the bridge, though, we are going to do a fair amount of work on the south approach to the bridge this year to get more capacity and four-lane the Old Yale Road and Bridge Road. This is to get improved access to the bridge for the northbound traffic. I emphasize that's the south end of the bridge. It's a very busy structure. I hate to date myself, Mr. Chairman, but I remember when it was built. I watched it being built, and it was well named because it was a toll bridge. We used to call it the Pay-Tollo Bridge at one time. It's a really important bridge in our system today, and we've got to get on with improvements to it. Our engineers are concentrating on the south side at the present time.

Your observations on the ferry fleet are interesting. I just say to clear things up that we would never take the Alberni off route I and jeopardize the capacity between Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay. We are now going to take the Alberni and try it on route 2. It's a longer run and we have a lot of problems in that run. But when we do that, the Queen of Nanaimo is going to be put on, modified for route 1, to assist on route 1. So we should have the same capacity, if not more.

I might also point out that overall both these runs should end up with 25 percent increased capacity, because the Queen of Oak Bay is going on to route 1 as well. That's the first time we've ever run the jumbo vessel on that route. I agree with

[ Page 5753 ]

you that we'll start having trucks running the Malahat, and we don't want to encourage that. But I think that route 2 is getting extremely busy truck-wise because of the road right through to Port Hardy........

MR. COCKE: So put the Nanaimo up there.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, we're going to beef up both; that's really what I'm trying to say. But I think because of a decent road to the north end of the Island, commodities originally going by boat — say from Kelsey Bay to Port Hardy — are now going by wheels up the road. It puts a further load on the boat transportation from Departure Bay to Horseshoe Bay.

Your observation about garbage, plastic and paper plates leads me to say I'd like to see all the ferries back to the white linen and chinaware and silverware, but I'm afraid those days are gone. The reason is the terrific amount of people we're hauling. Last year we handled 12 million people. It's probably going to be 13 million people this year. How do you service this quantity of people in a short time? Management is saying that we're using plastic because it's disposable and fast. That's the basis. We get a lot of comments about this, but when we have one of the what I like to call jumbo vessels on there, I believe we have 1,500 people to look after in an hour and 40 minutes. It's pretty difficult if you don't have a faster service. We have contracts for the disposal of the plastic and paper cups. I haven't actually followed it to the incinerator, but I assume that's where it's going.

MR. COCKE: It's going to a land-fill.

HON. MR. FRASER: Or to a land-fill, yes. That's what's happening there.

You mentioned that truckers should have better service. I would be partial to that too since I used to be one of them, but I think they're basically happy. Regarding the price they pay, it's $1.80 a running foot. Some of our rigs are 80 feet long and they're paying even more money than you mentioned. Unfortunately, I think that before Christmas of this year, they'll be paying more again because of the necessity of increasing the rates.

The other thing I would mention concerns freight for the south end of the Island. Don't lose track of the fact that the CPR is still in there hauling freight. I hope they stay there. They are hauling to Swartz Bay now by barge. They are hauling commercial vehicles and so on. We have that capacity as well. But no, we don't want to jeopardize the capacity on route I to get more capacity on route 2, and I hope that won't happen.

MR. BRUMMET: I suppose we all see things from our own point of view and our own particular bias. It's very interesting to me to listen to a discussion of landscaping and beautification of highways — decorating the highways. In our part of the country, landscaping would include levelling out the low spots, filling in the potholes and things of that nature. That's the type of landscaping that we would really love to settle for. You hear discussions about alternate pave routes as a matter of convenience. We'll settle for the original paved routes up in our part of the country. We'd really love that.

MR. SEGARTY: Be nice now.

MR. BRUMMET: I am being nice. The temptation is, of course, to stand, jump up and down and scream when hearing a discussion about spending money on decoration and beautification of roads, when we're just looking for roads.

I know that the ministry is putting the normal amount of money into maintenance and building of roads in the northeast. I would like to suggest that that is insufficient. We have a very rapidly growing area there. The high revenue-producing industries — the oil and gas industries — have moved a lot of heavy equipment over roads that were originally designed for farm use. Logging trucks are using those roads and beating them down. I would like the minister to use whatever influence he has with his colleagues on Treasury Board to try and come up with a four- or five-year program, putting in two or three times as much as the normal increase, to catch up in that part of the country. As the minister said during earlier discussions last week, I believe, our proportion of paving is the lowest in the province — some 14 percent. We would certainly like to have a lot more paving. However, it's impossible to demand paving until we get the roadbeds upgraded and gravelled. Gravel is, of course, a scarce commodity in the right parts of that area. There's lots of gravel but it's in the wrong places. So it takes a long haul.

At this time, particularly when the oil and gas industry has taken a beating, and so many contractors are sitting there wondering whether they're going to be able to stay in business or go under because of lack of work in the oil or gas fields, an alternative would be to increase the day-labour program to upgrade and construct the roads, so we can ask for paving in the future. So as the minister will probably agree, it's a never-ending cycle. The more roads you improve, the more of them we'll want paved. However, we do feel that we are entitled to a fair proportion of the paving and improved roads in the area. Particularly at this time, we know from plans that are being made that the oil and gas industry will pick up, but it would certainly be nice if something could be done fairly quickly to upgrade the amount of money being spent in the area to tide over these contractors until such time as the oil and gas industry picks up again and until such time as some of them can get in on the northeast coal projects and other projects of that nature.

I would like to commend the minister and the ministry for the push they've put on to complete the Fort Nelson–Fort Simpson road, or the Laird Highway, as as it is known. I'm highly pleased that it is going ahead. I know that will create a loop road for tourism, and it will also mean access for British Columbia businessmen funnelled through the Peace River area into the Mackenzie Valley where pipelines and other projects are planned. That will mean a great deal to the area.

Once again, I would like to urge the ministry to try and put some extra money into the Fort St. John and Fort Nelson areas as quickly as possible this year. The Fort Nelson area is particularly hard hit because they are more dependent on the oil and gas industry than the southern part of the region. They need whatever help they can get to tide them over until work in the gas fields picks up again. I'd like to suggest that the source of that revenue could be from the oil and gas industry, even though the lease sales are down. For instance, this year the April sale of leases was only $11.3 million. It was only $5 million and $6 million respectively in the first two sales, and perhaps we could convince Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) that the sale in April could just as easily have been $9 million instead of $11 million. Two million dollars would do a great deal to boost work in the area

[ Page 5754 ]

and help these people over this period of time until the industry picks up again. A lot of that could be in road work. I'd like to suggest that as a possible source of revenue we pretend that there's a million or two less in each sale each year. It would do a great deal to help that part of the country. I know it has implications for the rest of province. Does that mean that every industry kick back into each region? I appreciate that perhaps that would be precedent-setting, but when we have the lowest portion of improved roads in the province and a great deal of activity in the area, I think some consideration has to be given even if it is of a special nature.

The one other thing I'd like to ask the minister to consider is that up along the Alaska Highway, which is federally maintained and funded north of about mile 83, there are virtually no proper signing facilities along that highway. The motels and tourist facilities there do pay provincial taxes, but they do not get provincial road work, simply because it is still, a federal highway. I would like to ask the minister if some funding could be set aside to give these people some proper signs to help the tourists plan where they're going to stop. I think the minister is familiar with the eating places, accommodation places and so on. If we could just get some money to put up proper signs along that highway at various intervals, that would be a great help.

With those two suggestions, I ask if the minister might have something to respond.

HON. MR. FRASER: I appreciate the remarks of the member for North Peace River. It is correct, I guess, that that riding has got the largest inventory of gravel roads by electoral district in the province. Only 14 percent of the roads in the riding are paved and 86 percent are gravel. My experience is that that would be fine if they were just gravel, but an awful lot of them are straight gumbo. The member has pointed out that even gravel is a problem. There is gravel available, but it might be 50 miles away from where you need it, and this is costly. I'll do all I can to get a catchup going, Mr. Member, but I don't hold out a lot of hopes. But this year we're going to get 50 more kilometres of your road paved. One large contract will be called in June 1981, and that contract will carry over into 1982 to complete it, but under that contract what the engineers call a first lift should be on there before freeze-up '81.

For the information of the committee and the member, we spent $20 million pushing the Laird Highway from Fort Nelson north, and hopefully we can get it connected in a year or so from now. The distance of the Laird Highway in British Columbia is 85 miles and in the Northwest Territories it's 158 miles, connecting Fort Simpson with Fort Nelson. The government of Canada has done a pretty good job on their 158 miles. They're moving down from Fort Simpson, and, of course, we're moving up, and hopefully we can get joined in 1982 — if not in 1982, then by 1983. Public Works Canada expect to have their road passable by the fall of 1982, and I think we will as well.

The signing that you've asked for, yes, I don't see why we can't assist. For the benefit of the committee, the Alaska Highway is roughly 300 miles, if I recall, from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson. From Mile 0 at Dawson Creek to Mile 83, we have taken over that road from the government of Canada. The remaining area is still under Public Works Canada, but we'll be pleased to cooperate with federal Public Works to build pull-offs and erect posts and framework for area identification signs, like we do in other parts of British Columbia. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that we get excellent cooperation from federal Public Works on the Alaska Highway as it runs through British Columbia. The deal the government of British Columbia has with the government of Canada is that once they get it upgraded and paved, we assume that portion of the Alaska Highway. Eighty miles have been done, with about 400 or 500 miles yet to go. I would say the government of Canada has done a good job; they've moved steadily every year, rebuilding the Alaska Highway and getting it paved, and eventually it will all be under the jurisdiction of British Columbia for maintenance purposes, building and so on.

We gladly cooperate with federal Public Works; in fact, we'll get hold of them, Mr. Member, and see what we can do to help them in arranging pull-offs and erecting posts and framework like we see in other parts of the province. I've made the trip a couple of times, and you're quite correct in that observation: you're not so sure after you've driven 100 miles whether you're ever going to arrive in another place where you can eat or refuel your vehicle, and I think that needs upgrading.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I have a variety of subjects I wish to raise with the minister, most of which are related to my own constituency. But there are a couple of a more general nature, and I'll start with them. Last year in committee, I believe it was, I raised with the minister the problem of transporting hazardous cargo. At that time the minister assured me that the federal ministry was coming out with some guidelines that were going to resolve some of my concerns. It's my understanding that those guidelines have been delayed — partially by the request of some of the rail transport people, who felt they couldn't comply with those guidelines — and I'm wondering what, if anything, this minister is doing to ensure the'it we do get something in place that will protect British Columbians as far as transportation of hazardous cargo goes. I would like to have the minister's comments on that sort of general item.

The other general item I wanted to raise with the minister is the question of the actual manufacture of licence plates. It's my understanding that this used to be done provincially — in fact, in some of our correctional institutes — but I understand that's no longer the case and that, in fact, licence plates are now being manufactured outside the province. This seems to me to be a rather strange direction for a minister of the Crown to be going, when we have in the manufacture of licence plates the kind of activity that would provide work for unskilled people. I would suggest that in this Year of the Disabled it might be very wise for the minister to review his procedures in the making of licence plates and attempt to have that returned to the province. I'm particularly concerned — as well as just the general thing and the whole labour situation in sending that job out of the province, away from the provincial economy, having it done elsewhere — with the time delays that are evidenced, particularly in those cases where people want a personalized licence plate. Some of the waiting periods have been up to three and four months for those personalized licence plates. When this first came to my attention, in fact, it was through a constituent who had ordered a personalized licence plate as a birthday present. It didn't arrive for months after the birthday, because it had to be made outside the province — at least, that was the reason given her by ministry officials. So I think that the minister should really review his policy on the production of licence plates, and I would commend to him the idea of combining

[ Page 5755 ]

that effort with the Year of the Disabled and seeing if we couldn't ensure that a workshop for making licence plates would reopen in British Columbia and, perhaps, provide some employment incentives for people who have greater than average difficulty getting jobs.

This minister is always very affable on the floor of the committee, but I think the minister has some difficulties in getting his correspondence answered. I have a letter from the Chemainus-Crofton chamber of commerce dated July 4, 1980. On July 22 I wrote to the minister enclosing a copy of this letter and asking him for some comments or some action. What the letter was requesting was that a night ferry service be placed between Crofton and Saltspring Island. I've had no response at all from the minister on this. I'm a bit remiss in not having followed it up sooner, but it got buried in my files and it only came to light when I was preparing for these estimates. I think that was a legitimate request. If the minister has responded, then certainly he didn't let me know. The chamber did address their letter to me on July 4, 1980, expressing their disappointment with the ferry service between Crofton and Saltspring. They go on to say: "It's not possible for people on Vancouver Island to visit Saltspring or attend events there without constantly having to be aware of the time early in the afternoon as the ferry does not run after 6 p.m. One must either stay overnight or not go at all."

If there's been a change in that, I would be very happy if the minister would advise me. But if that's not been changed and that's still the case, then I think the minister at least owes an answer to me and to the Crofton-Chemainus chamber of commerce to a very legitimate request that was raised back in July of last year.

Another point that I raised last year — the minister assured me that it would be corrected — was the allocation of costs to Cowichan-Malahat. This report is the 1979-1980 report, which I assume runs from April 1, 1979, to April 1, 1980. As my memory goes, the boundaries of my constituency were changed very shortly after April 1, when the writs were dropped for the last provincial election. So you might have one or two weeks work in here on some of these areas, Mr. Minister, but I find the West Coast road, for example, being charged to Cowichan-Malahat in the amount of $30,000; the Island Highway from Chemainus to Ladysmith, which certainly isn't in Cowichan-Malahat any more, being charged to the tune of nearly $40,000; and modifications to the Haslam Creek Bridge, which is no longer in the riding. Even worse is the allocation of costs for the Powell River Bridge in Cowichan-Malahat, the French Creek Bridge north of Parksville and something called the Moyie Bridge at Yahk. I really get a little concerned. Mind you, the dollars aren't very much there, but it certainly doesn't speak very well for the accuracy in calculating the costs in any given constituency.

If there are some $70,000 around, then I am inclined for once to agree with the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet). I'm not asking for beautification, but I sure am asking for some four-laning of the Island Highway south of Duncan. Every time I phone the ministry they tell me it's just going to start. That road has been a disaster area for nearly two years. There has been work done there — true. They've raised the manholes along the side of the highway. But when are you going to get on with raising that road bed, if it must be raised? Obviously your design engineers have indicated that that's the way you're going to go. You're going to raise that up on a level with the railway crossings, I guess, for safety's sake. If you're going to do it, then why can't we get on with it? I can tell you that the local merchants, particularly those that deal in the tourist industry, are very concerned that we're going to have a repeat performance of what happened when the Silver Bridge was moved and the second bridge put in. There was a practical blockade of access to local commercial concerns as a result of that highway construction. If that takes place during the summer months when the tourist traffic is on that road.... I assume that's what's going to happen, because it hasn't started yet.

It's a real disaster to those whose interests depend on that short tourist season for the major portion of their income — the motels, the hotels, all those kinds of industries; little stores and so on. They'll all find it very difficult when traffic is blocked off, and when there's construction building up a road bed, as you plan to do there, there will be a lot of dust. It's of great concern to those local people. I know they have contacted you. They've been in touch with you many times, as they have been in touch with me.

It's just not happening. I was over that road this morning, and you're still playing around with the two bridges. We seem to have a constant problem with the old bridge there. I don't know if it's the moving of it or whether it's just sort of coincidental that we find there's always some damage to that bridge which was moved over. Almost half the time the traffic is being rerouted to the new bridge. So there's still a problem there, but nothing is happening on that four-laning section from the twin bridges at the Silver Bridge over the Cowichan River down to the overpass.

While I have assurance that that will be done, it doesn't happen. You'll remember last year I raised the problem of the crosswalk, the overpass for the school children. At that time you assured me that you would get on with it. I now have a letter from you to say that it's like a chicken-and-egg situation. You have given assurance to the local parents that you won't four-lane the highway until the overpass is in. Then you say you can't put the overpass in until the highway is four-laned. This has been going on for so long, I'm beginning to believe that that's the situation. You can't seem to do one until you do the other, and vice versa.

There's really no reason for that, Mr. Minister. I would suggest that you should get on with the job of four-laning that highway and getting that overpass built so we can get that terribly congested area cleared up south of Duncan. If and when you're able to resolve the railway overpass, which was the thing that delayed it for so long, then we can get that cleared up. But at least you just have one small restriction in there, rather than continuing it over such a long distance. So I would like some assurance as to where you're proposing to go with that.

I'd like to mention again the situation up at Honeymoon Bay with the Gordon Bay Park and Walton Road. I've had a number of discussions with both you and the Minister of Parks (Hon. Mr. Chabot) relative to that particular access to the park. It always seems that it's going to cost too much money to reroute that road. But I would suggest, if this minister were to work with the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, there is a definite need to have an access to that park that doesn't use a residential road. The route is there, and it will cost a little bit, sure, to reroute and get into the park in a slightly different direction. But it's well worth the money when you consider the fact that now, in order to alleviate the situation, the Minister of Highways is proposing to upgrade the existing access, Walton Road. That will simply aggravate

[ Page 5756 ]

the situation because those campers and trailers will probably travel faster once that road is upgraded.

When you take a road that is in effect a playground for small children, which is what a lot of residential roads are, particularly in an isolated area like Honeymoon Bay, you're really asking for trouble. Surely the life of a child is worth more than the extra cost involved in putting that access in. It's going to have to come eventually because that park is going to have to be enlarged eventually. It's long overdue for it, as a matter of fact. You have to be in there at least on a Thursday if you expect to even get a spot in that park. But that's another question. The fact remains that the traffic load is very heavy, and to simply upgrade that existing small residential road to accommodate those campers and trailers is going to aggravate the problem, not improve it. I would ask the minister to take a second look at that.

A long-standing problem that I've discussed with this minister is the question of the Crofton road. There have been a lot of problems with that road, granted, but we did get around to actually getting some plans drawn up, I understand. But still nothing is happening. That's the road that accommodates the chip trucks that go into the Crofton mill. It's the road that accommodates the workers who work at the Crofton mill around the clock — three shifts. And it's the road accommodating the people who live in Crofton village as well as the ferry traffic from Crofton to Vesuvius. It's a terrible road — I'm sure you have been over it, Mr. Minister — narrow, winding and hazardous.

I want to read to you a note given to me by a member of a school class that visited the Legislature, a class of grade 6 or 7 students, I think, from Alexander School. Their teacher had obviously done some preparatory work with them before they came, and they had written out questions they wanted to ask me as their representative about what goes on in the Legislature. This little note is from a girl named Jennifer Coles. This is her question: "What can we do to get the government to build a safer road to the Crofton pulpmill? My dad and Angela Crosson's dad were both practically killed going to work on that road." Now, Mr. Chairman, when you get children coming to the Legislature with those kinds of questions, I suggest to the minister that it's high time he took the bull by the horns and got something done about that road. We've had a lot of fatalities on that road. It's one of the most heavily used roads on Vancouver Island, I think, let alone in Cowichan-Malahat, and it is one of the most winding and hazardous. Something has to be done. Just to keep on studying and reviewing is not the answer; it's not going to resolve the problem.

The final question — I'm sure the minister has been waiting for this one — relates to the Lake Cowichan road. I note in the last report that the original cost of the work done so unsatisfactorily there in the first instance, as recorded to date, is something like $60,000.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, the Lake Cowichan road was in great shape until this minister came along and tore up the surface and left it....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, it was a real disaster. You know, it's not just me saying this, Mr. Chairman, because he has admitted it. He came into Lake Cowichan and said: "It's all our fault; not the fault of the contractor, not the fault of anybody else." He was going to redo it. But in the meantime we have all these people who have suffered a great deal of damage to their cars as a result of this.

I know the minister sat in the House during discussions of the minister responsible for ICBC, and I hope that I've finally got through to that minister and that that minister has now talked to this minister and that some resolution of the problem is being made. This minister and I both thought that when you had an accident and there was a deductible, that was it. But the minister responsible for ICBC apparently took the stand that that wasn't it, and that if you broke your glass, that was one accident and if you had pock-mark paint damage on your left-hand side, that was another accident, and on the right-hand side, that was another accident, and on the front, that was another accident, and if anything happened to the back of the car, that was another accident. So you could wind up with four or five or six deductibles just as a result of one accident. I know of one instance where a person was pulling out to pass a chip truck going up the hill on the three-lane part, was caught between two chip trucks and was simply barraged by flying gravel and had five deductibles.

Now the minister has agreed to pick up the deductible for glass, and I appreciate that and so do my constituents. But the delays have been drastic, because when you sign that waiver for damage to have your glass repaired, then automatically you are also signing away any rights to any further damage. If paint damage occurred at the same time, you are automatically excluded from ever claiming for paint damage. So the people who have suffered multiple damage have just delayed signing.

At first this minister said no, he wasn't going to do anything about paint damage. One thing I will say about this minister, Mr. Chairman, is that he listens. As a result of pressure from me, from the village council and from various citizens he decided that he would change his stance slightly. On February 27 he indicated: "If those individuals who are alleging that the finish of their vehicles has been damaged because of Highway 18 seal coating wish to write to the insurance and claim officer and submit copies of estimates or invoices, he" — that is, Mr. Cavin, the insurance officer — "will send these on to the insurers. Whether or not satisfaction is made to the claimants will be the prerogative of the insurers."

When I got that letter I immediately took an ad in the local papers re vehicle paint damage, and quoted the minister's letter — and I will say I've had some expenses taking ads in the local papers to advise constituents of what's going on. I have copies of several letters that went in immediately following that. This particular ad came out on March 26. In March and April those claims went in, and no one has heard anything since then. We've had no response. Not only are all those in abeyance, but the glass claims that happened concurrently with the paint damage are also sitting there. People are beginning to get concerned that if they leave it too long they may lose even their glass claim. I hope the minister will get up on the floor and assure me he's going to get this thing resolved and how he's going to do it, and that this dreadful dragging of the feet is going to be completed.

Just one other thing about the Lake Cowichan road. I would thank the minister very much for opening up the alternate route, which again was pressured by local people and me. Whether or not he had to build such an extensive type

[ Page 5757 ]

of joining together as he's doing.... I think a couple of farm tractors could have almost pushed that through there. The $200,000 or so that you're going to spend on that could have well gone into doing something like the overpass for the Koksilah school children, getting on with the upgrading of the four-laning of the highway or even putting in an access road to Gordon Bay Park. I do certainly question the priorities in making that such a very extravagant and elaborate kind of section of the old road, which is winding in other areas. In my opinion it really didn't need that degree of upgrading. I do question the priorities of spending the kind of money that's going on that opening when we can't get these other things done. I would urge the minister to have a good look at his bookkeeping and take some of those things like the Yahk Bridge and all those things that aren't in my constituency out of our accounts. Maybe then there'll be enough dollars to do some of these things I'm asking for.

MR. LORIMER: I have one question for the minister. I'm not going to criticize him for what he has done today, but I'm going to speak about what he has failed to do.

Last year in his estimates I brought up the question of the highways work yard at Canada Way and Willingdon, requesting that beautification work be done on it, because it's strictly an eyesore in the centre of the municipality. At that time he told me they didn't want to go to the expense of beautification, because in the very near future the yard was going to be removed and relocated in another area. It's a year later, and there's been no action. It's not the centre of activity in Burnaby these days. Maybe the minister could now tell me when he intends to relocate this particular yard. I don't expect it tomorrow; June or July will be soon enough, but I certainly would like to have the matter cleared up before next year.

HON. MR. FRASER: I understand the member is on his way to the hospital, and I haven't got a reply. I'll get one and it'll be on the record.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) had several things, and at this time I believe it would be in order to adjourn.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 12, Mr. Speaker.

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

The House in committee on Bill 12; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, our Finance critic would like to have had just an instant to get here, and I'd like to have an instant...

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: What's the "ha, ha, ha" about? Go buy another suit in Calgary.

... just long enough to reach into my own drawer and find the bill. This is the bill which increases the social security tax in the province by 50 percent. Now that our critic is here, I'm sure that he'll be deciding what he likes and what he doesn't like about some sections of the bill.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, in this section we're proposing to increase tax rates.

MR. KEMPF: Are you a little disorganized?

MR. NICOLSON: Not as disorganized as you. If I were chairman of a committee and getting $4,000 a year for it, I could call meetings of that committee, my friend. Four thousand dollars a year works out to about $1,000 a meeting that he's called in the last two or three years.

Mr. Chairman, this particular section sets the percentage increases in social services tax. There are different rates for different items. I would just like the minister to seriously consider the problem of living next to the province of Alberta, where there's no social services tax, and trying to attract tourists to this province from an area which is fairly wealthy and affluent, particularly in parts of the province that are almost directly contiguous to the province of Alberta. In the Kootenays — east and west — and, I'm sure, in the Shuswap, and no doubt in other portions of the province where we attract people into the province.... I'd just like to point out this one situation, where we have somebody come into the Kootenays and they come into the small community of Kaslo. There is a potential for them to leave behind them, almost on impulse, $10,000 and $20,000 in the purchase of a boat.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The Jones Boys.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, Jones Boys Marine. The hull was probably imported from Arizona, Nevada or from some manufacturer in the States. But the rest of that and the majority of the labour component in the boat, in terms of the canopy being manufactured and sewn in Kaslo, putting all the hardware onto the boat and customizing the boat to the potential owner's specifications and a whole range of things.... That little industry is important to the community of Kaslo. If it were to shut down and relocate to a place such as Calgary, where a good deal of its market is, and shut down some of these small manufacturing things and the many ancillary types of things that go on about it, it would be as serious a blow to the village of Kaslo as the central offices of the public service being removed from the capital region. Other than that, there is a little bit of government employment in Kaslo and a small sawmill. It is a very important thing.

It isn't just Jones Boys Marine; it is this whole problem of people. We're not going to condition the people of Alberta to accept the idea of sales tax. If we lose a large sale, the provincial government loses 4 percent, 6 percent, 8 percent, or whatever the taxes are at that particular time, but we lose

[ Page 5758 ]

jobs and an industry. We lose a considerable amount if we don't consider the impact of social service tax. As the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) well knows, it has driven some of his constituents to go to Calgary to buy a suit.

Mr. Minister, in looking at variable rates, I would like to ask the minister what his ministry has done to try to come to grips not just with Jones Boys Marine but with people in the tourist industry on Windermere Lake, Columbia River, Fernie, Kimberley, Radium and various other places. It isn't enough simply to attract tourists into our area. We want to turn them upside down and jingle a bit of change out of their pockets. We don't want to discourage that. If they want to enjoy boating, we would like to see them invest in a boat from British Columbia. If they want to stay overnight, we don't want to discourage them. We would like to sell them some things — more than just little trinkets of British Columbia. I think that is how tourism can really serve us.

We sell $10,000 and $20,000 investments to people who come out to British Columbia looking for a little bit of a holiday. They have that disposable income and they make the decision to make that investment when they're in British Columbia and see the boating, fishing and those things. It is very important to our part of the country. I guess the minister does have some comments.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, if the Finance critic of the NDP wishes to speak at this point, I'll defer and deal with both points later.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I did say earlier that I intended to save most of my remarks until we get to the Finance minister's estimates. We're opposed to this particular section. I'm sure it comes as no surprise.

Reading from the budget speech of 1976, on page 29 it says: "The previous administration left the provincial financial cupboard bare." Several members opposite have been saying for some time that when the NDP arrived in office in 1972 there was $500 million in surplus. If I think of it, I intend to ask just where that figure came from when we get to the Finance minister's estimates.

Leaving that aside and reading further in the 1976 budget, it says: "Based on existing tax rates, licences and fees, and the expectation of a 14 percent growth in the economy, provincial government revenues are forecast to be $3.319 billion in the fiscal year 1976-77, an increase of 13.7 percent. However, this level of revenue falls short of balancing the budget by $295.5 million." So in 1976, after three years of NDP administration that was supposed to have left the financial cupboard bare, it was necessary for the Minister of Finance to find an extra $295.5 million.

Now we have a measure before us which follows over five years of Social Credit administration, and we find they're not short by $295.5 million. Reading from the budget today: "May I restate our problem. In 1981-82, operating revenue is forecast to be $6.011 billion in the absence of additional revenue measures. This compares with expenditures totalling $6.636 billion, for a shortfall" — not of $295.5 million — "of $625 million." After five years of Social Credit administration it is necessary to bring in new taxes or tax increases for a total of $625 million. It's based on the argument that "deficits are not necessary nor are they acceptable to this government."

On another page of the budget speech, he tells us the extent to which deficits are acceptable to this government. It says: "In the next fiscal year long-term borrowing...." Borrowing is not deficit, because it's Crown corporations. It's not us, it's them who are doing it. "Borrowing by Crown corporations is estimated at: $925 million for B.C. Hydro; $120 million for B.C. Rail; $162 million for hospitals" — that used to be included in accounts; "$70 million for schools; $111 million for universities and colleges" — that used to be in public accounts in budgetary expenditures; "$74 million for BCDC; $51 million for the Urban Transit Authority" — that expense, to the extent that it was spent, used to be in budgetary expenditures; "and $76 million for BCBC" — that, as well, used to be in budgetary expenditures, so don't call it borrowing anymore.

That kind of deficit is acceptable to this government. Now they're increasing revenues by $625 million in a period when we still believe that it isn't necessary for the purpose announced — that is, covering budgetary expenditure. We still argue that the minister in bringing in these repressive tax increases, adjustments, indexing of taxes, is simply trying to pile up a surplus.

You'll remember that the last time we talked about the sales tax increase, Mr. Chairman, was when this government announced a permanent reduction in the sales tax. That permanent reduction was announced the day before the election was called. Now the increase is coming into effect, and we, suspect that the day we hear there is another permanent reduction of the sales tax, that will be the day before the election is announced again. It's election gimmickry; it's not to satisfy the need to finance government services. It's simply to finance the need in the mind of this government to win the next election. We'll see what happens when that time does come.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to refresh our memories. I'm quoting now from Hansard for April 2, 1979. The member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, the then Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), said the sales tax rate of 4 percent is lower than the rate in effect at any time in the last 25 years. He said British Columbia is the only province that has ever lowered the general tax rate permanently — I emphasize permanently — and now has the lowest sales tax rate of any province in Canada that charges the tax.

That was marvellous rhetoric — marvellous talk. "Permanently." Who else said it was permanent? The Premier. Old Honest Bill. This is from a newspaper clipping dated April 11, 1978: "Bennett said the provincial government had known for some time that the federal government and its budget would make provision for picking up a 2 percent cut in the B.C. sales tax. He said that the B.C. sales tax cut is permanent and he added later that he cannot bind future governments."

Now we understand what he meant. He couldn't even bind his own government if it was re-elected. Most unfair. They were unkind to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) because, after hearing all this marvellous talk from his colleagues — I'm sure that, as a result, he'll at least vote against this section — he said: "Our government and our Premier have made a commitment to the citizens of British Columbia that the reduction in the sales tax is here to stay."

Then he went on to say: "There's a long-term commitment." Straightforward honesty — that's a very descriptive adjective that's required when you're dealing with honesty,

[ Page 5759 ]

particularly on that side of the House. Straightforward honesty and planning for the citizens in this province. He went on to say the opposition is frustrated. Who's frustrated, I ask that member today, and will he vote the way he talks? Will he vote with a government that has let him down and embarrassed him beyond words? How can he? How can he possibly go back to Omineca having voted with this government after this dastardly move? I wonder whether he's going to give an honest account of himself today. He thought he was giving an honest account of himself back there. Will he do so today? We all wait, holding our breath, to see the outcome of this vote.

MR. SKELLY: The maverick.

MR. COCKE: I hope the marshmallow maverick will do his thing.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, how good is the minister's word?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we might be becoming quite unparliamentary here. We cannot question the motives of any hon. member of the House. All members are honourable, and I'm sure the hon. Leader of the Opposition is aware of the parliamentary procedure.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I asked one simple question and I get this whole answer. I just want to ask the minister before I go any further in the debate: is he playing politics, a little game, a wink and a nudge, or what is it? I want to know how good is your word in this debate so I can save some time. The reason I ask the question is that the Premier gave his word that the reduction of sales tax was permanent. The Premier's word is no good.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are transgressing.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm just establishing the parameters of political debate. The Premier of the province said the B.C. sales tax was permanent, although, he added, he could not bind future governments. Now the only future government was his own. So he said that he'd never increase the sales tax again. Is that a correct conclusion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Correct.

MR. BARRETT: Correct, thank you very much. So his word is no good on the sales tax issue. Is that a correct assessment?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, parliamentary tradition does not allow us to impute improper motives to another hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I tell you clearly I am not imputing any motive. I'm just reading the record. The record is that the Premier said that the sales tax cut would be permanent. Now we're getting an increase. Ergo the conclusion that the Premier's word is no good. If you can't make a statement of fact in this place, what's left for us? The Premier promised that the sales tax would never be increased, and here we are: it's going up again.

I believe the Minister of Finance has deliberately set out to embarrass the Premier, because he wants to be Premier. Why else would the Minister of Finance bring in an increase to make a liar out of the Premier? I don't think it's nice for the' Minister of Finance to go around making a liar out of the Premier. I didn't say he was a liar. Not me. I'm just reading the record. The record is that he said it would never go up again. And there's the man, Mr. Chairman, who stands condemned as making a liar out of the Premier of British Columbia. Shame on him!

The other member has been driven out of the House by my colleague.

MS. BROWN: Oh, did he leave?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, he left. My colleague got up and read Hansard, and what did my colleague read from Hansard on this particular item? Why, he read what Mr. Kempf said: "The...Premier...made a commitment to the citizens of British Columbia that the reduction in sales tax is here to stay." That's what he said in Hansard. He goes on to say: "There is a long-term commitment, straightforward honesty.... "What we're getting today is either disconnected dishonesty or straightforward honesty. What is it going to be? Two members of the government have been made liars by the Minister of Finance. Is this a plot by the Minister of Finance to discredit the Premier and to take over the leadership? I want to know that.

I want to know if the Minister of Finance made up his own mind separately by himself and decided that he was going to increase sales tax to embarrass the Premier. I want someone over there to stand up and defend the Premier of British Columbia. I want one of those backbenchers to get up there and condemn the Minister of Finance for making a liar of the Premier of British Columbia. Who is going to be the first to stand up and defend the Premier from this vicious attack by the Minister of Finance? Who is it going to be? We know there's a fight over there over leadership. We know that there's discord over there. Who is going to be the first Social Crediter to stand up and attack the Minister of Finance for making a liar out of the Premier?

The press are going to note this. They are going to write that when this debate took place, not one Social Credit member got up to defend the Premier of British Columbia from this vicious attack by the Minister of Finance. What about that, Mr. Minister of Finance? Maybe we could clear this up. Maybe I'm wrong. Could the Minister of Finance tell me that he agreed with the Premier when the Premier said that this was a permanent cut? Maybe that's it. Maybe the Minister of Finance is fibbing too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, once again we are transgressing. The House at times has to accept many opinions, but we cannot impugn the motive of another hon. member. I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition is aware of parliamentary language and what can and what cannot be said in this chamber.

MR. BARRETT: Then I put it to you, Mr. Chairman, for your advice. Here we have a commitment from the Premier of this province that the sales tax would never be increased again. Here we have a Minister of Finance who is increasing the sales tax. We have two conflicting statements; how do I deal with them? If we go ahead and increase the sales tax we

[ Page 5760 ]

make a liar out of the Premier. I don't want to do that, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to make a liar out of the Premier, and I don't want anybody else making a liar out of the Premier, because the Premier gave his solemn word that he would never see the increase of sales tax in British Columbia. That minister is making a liar of the Premier by pushing this amendment. How do we deal with it? Do we say it didn't happen? Do we say it's not a matter of record? Or do we get the Minister of Finance to get up and say: "I've made a mistake and withdraw this section of the bill because I don't want to make the Premier of the province a liar"?

Mr. Chairman, who is the captain of his own destiny? The Minister of Finance is. If the Minister of Finance gets up and pushes this section today, he is publicly making a liar out of the Premier, and I don't want to be part of that. I'm going to vote against this section because I don't want to be a part of making a liar out of the Premier.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. But somebody over there is going to vote for this section. Everybody who votes for this section is going to make a liar of the Premier; and the author of this section, if it passes, makes a liar of the Premier. Why I wouldn't even be a bit surprised if, when the bell rang, the Premier voted for it to make a liar of himself. What do we do, Mr. Chairman? That's against the rules of this House. No member has the right to make a liar out of himself. What are we going to do about it? What are the rules to deal with somebody who gets up and makes a liar of himself? Mr. Chairman, we need a ruling on this. How can a member come into this House and vote on something and make a liar out of himself? It's going to be confusing in the annals of keeping order in this chamber. I can't think of another time when a member came in and voted to make a liar out of himself. We've got a real problem here with the rules. If the Premier comes in and votes for this, somebody will say he's made a liar of himself, and if he said that in the House, he'd be thrown out of here.

So we've got a problem. What is the problem? It's not the problem of someone telling a lie, Mr. Chairman. I'll tell you what it is and how we've got to handle it. We've got a problem of someone not telling the truth, and now we've got to find out who it is that's not telling the truth, because we can't talk about who's telling a lie. The minister says that he wants to increase the sales tax by two points, is that right? That's right. That's what we're debating — a 50 percent increase. Is that correct? That's correct. But the Minister of Finance is subservient to the Premier. Mr. Chairman, I want to know if the Minister of Finance asked the Premier if it was okay with him that he increase the sales tax. Did you ask him that?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'll respond when you sit down.

MR. BARRETT: Well, just the one question first, so we get.... Okay. Did you ask the Premier if it was okay with him to increase the sales tax?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the border problem was identified by one of the earlier speakers for the official opposition, and it is a problem. I don't think he used the term "border problem," but it is clearly a problem. It has been brought to my attention — as I assume it has been brought to the attention of previous Ministers of Finance — by members whose constituencies lie along the eastern side of the province. Certainly since I became Minister of Finance at the end of 1979, those members on this side of the House — the government members — have clearly articulated the problem as they see it and have stood up well for their constituencies in identifying the problem. There are similar difficulties in other parts of Canada, as the committee well knows, particularly when you have a sales tax rate which varies from province to province. It might assist the committee just to reflect for a moment on the rates which are now in place across the country. We all know that Alberta has no sales tax, no general-rate tax. British Columbia is now 6 percent and Saskatchewan is 5 percent, so there is a considerable border problem between Saskatchewan and Alberta, and that has been identified by elected representatives from both provinces. Manitoba is 5 percent; Ontario is 7 percent with increases in other taxation activities but not in sales tax; Quebec, 8 percent; New Brunswick, 8 percent; Nova Scotia, 8 percent; Prince Edward Island, 10 percent; and Newfoundland, 11 percent.

Mr. Chairman, as I have done previously, through the course of this year I will meet with various groups and individuals with my colleagues from the government side of the House in those constituencies in which the problem has been identified. Within a very few weeks I will be in the Peace River area to meet with a small group to hear the problem and to explain the difficulties which the province finds in this regard. We cannot exempt a particular area of the province, because then the argument could be advanced with some validity: "Well, if you exempt a particular portion of the province from the sales tax, what's so magic about the line which you have now drawn?" Should it be here? Should it be 50 kilometres to the west, 100 kilometres to the west, or whatever? As long as we have this discrepancy both to the east and to the west of the province of Alberta, and to a similar extent in some other jurisdictions in central and eastern Canada, that kind of problem is going to continue to be with us.

The finance critic for the NDP, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), alluded in his remarks with respect to this section as to the apparent surplus which is being created — and I underline and emphasize the word "apparent" as the adjective with respect to the surplus. We went through this in the budget debate. If my forecasts and the situation which we saw in the preparation of the 1981-82 budget are proven incorrect, then I will be extremely happy, because if they are incorrect it means the picture for government revenues and expenditure pressures is not as bleak as we saw it and as we still see it.

It won't be necessary for the members of this committee or this House to wait until the budget of 1982-83 in late winter or early spring next year, because there is quarterly reporting. The quarterly reporting mechanism for the first three months of this year will show our problem or lack of problem, and subsequent reports every three months — about four weeks after the conclusion of each quarter, give or take a few days — will show how accurate we are with respect to forecasting. I think I should not stray too far within this section, lest the Chair point out that the section is quite specific and that we are in committee debate. But this is part of the difficulty we saw and the difficulty for government revenues and expenditures we foresaw, which has proven to be the case thus far in this fiscal year. Admittedly we are just some seven to eight weeks into it.

[ Page 5761 ]

The Leader of the Opposition has today indulged in what I would like to call good theatre, but I don't even think it rates that, because we dealt with this in second reading debate, where the decrease in the sales tax undertaken by another minister, a predecessor minister in this government, was dealt with. I responded at the close of second reading just a few days ago, pointing out that — the members opposite may not accept the word "temporary" — the temporary sales tax reductions.... Using Ontario as an example, when the federal government took the specific measure with respect to sales tax reduction assistance, Ontario reduced its sales tax for a stated six months. In fact, we did it....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I listened quietly, Mr. Chairman. We have a problem with the chattering across the way.

MR. BARRETT: Who's been thrown out this year for chattering?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister continues uninterrupted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: In any event, some provinces did in fact reduce the sales tax as a result of federal measures for a very specific and relatively short-lived time. I think the Leader of the Opposition will want to run through this again, for what reason I know not, except to say that if there is a leader of a political party in this House who's in trouble right now, he's on that side of the House, not on this side of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before recognizing the next speaker let me just quote from Sir Erskine May, where he says to us "...that good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language, and parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate." I would commend that citation to all hon. members, and remind them that parliamentary language is a feature of this House. We should not stray from using words that are parliamentary.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the House is always well-advised to pay attention to the Chair; but perhaps, on occasion, the Chair may be ill-advised as to the timing of advice, particularly in this instance. The only minister of the Crown to have ever been thrown out of the House is that minister, and it was this session. Considering the sensitivities of that minister, I would think it might be better to counsel him in the corridor rather than the chamber, because the minister has been placed in a very awkward situation not of his own making. He makes it worse by trying to explain it away. For example, he just said.... And he didn't answer my question.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Do you want to answer that now?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I will. The Leader of the Opposition is quite right in this respect. I did not answer the question he posed just before he took his place in the previous debate. No, I did not.... Was the term "consult" or "ask"? As Minister of Finance, that decision was taken in my office with my deputy. The Premier received the information with respect to the budget at about the same time the Leader of the Opposition did on budget day.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I appreciate that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who was briefly a minister in another government, would find that difficult to believe; but that is precisely the way in which the process occurred, as far as I'm concerned.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. BARRETT: The minister has said that the Premier was notified about the same time I was. It was a couple of hours or 24 hours. Once he was notified, through you, Mr. Chairman, did he come to you and say: "Hey, Mr. Minister of Finance, I made a promise not to increase that tax"? Did he come to you and say that? It's a simple question. I want to abide by the Chair. I don't want all these flowery explanations. You just told me that the Premier found out about the same time I did. When he found out — whatever that time was — did he come to you as Minister of Finance and say: "Mr. Minister of Finance, do you know that I made a promise not to head a government that would ever increase this again?" Did he come to you and say that to you?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, this Premier — unlike the Premier in the New Democratic Party government between 1972 and 1975 — was very much aware of the difficulties in which this government was finding itself with respect to the expenditure-revenue squeeze. I'm sure that he was no happier about the increase in a variety of taxes — again we are dealing with a section of one particular tax measure in committee — than I was or than any other member of government would be. I indicated that as well at the close of second reading debate.

MR. BARRETT: I know how awkward this is for the minister. Yes, because I can tell by your answers. You're not dealing with the specific question. Let's go through it tortuously to the point that we're at. I asked you: was the Premier aware that this tax was going to be increased, knowing very well that he had made a promise that this tax would never be increased? Now you've told me that he wasn't aware any sooner than I was.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Approximately.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. It could be approximately six months, three months, six hours or whatever. It's necessary for us politicians to give us some room to manoeuvre. Mr. Chairman, who am I to dispute the minister's right to have some room to manoeuvre? It was approximately a little time before me. When he learned of it, did he say to the minister: "Mr. Minister, I have made a solemn promise that this tax was permanently reduced. How do I now handle it with the public and some perhaps intemperate people in the opposition?" I try to keep my group in control. But they do get a little intemperate on occasion, and they quote the Premier's old promises back. The Premier has said that....

[ Page 5762 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Please apologize — thank you — because it's intemperate for you to read the Premier's promises back. The Premier promised that this tax would be reduced permanently. Some of my intemperate members come in here as politicians and want to hold another politician to his word. Sometimes that's not kind.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dave told us not to mention it.

MR. BARRETT: I told them not to mention it. That's right. I only told them a few moments before the Premier found out what was happening. But you've had a lot of time to forget it, you fellows, and then you've raised it to embarrass the minister. I'm just trying to help the minister get out of this embarrassing situation. Here we have the amazing revelation that the Minister of Finance made this decision to increase the tax by himself. And that's good. Is that right? Because the Premier didn't know that it was going to be raised until a little while before I knew. So we have to assume that you made the decision arbitrarily that that's the one that's going to be raised. Is that correct?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Go ahead.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I'd like to ask that question. Is it correct that you made the decision arbitrarily to raise this tax? Did you? I ask you that, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Through the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, through the Chair: did you make you make the decision to raise this by yourself?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would simply refer the Leader of the Opposition to the remarks which I made a few minutes ago when I indicated that yes, indeed, that decision was made. The member knows that. If he feels that it's embarrassing to pursue the point, it isn't embarrassing, Mr. Chairman. It's a little bit dull.

MR. BARRETT: I would never call that a cheap shot.

We have the minister telling us that he made the decision to increase the sales tax, and just before I knew about the Premier was told. So we all know that the Premier was told at the last possible minute that this sales tax was going to be increased. Did the Premier know before the public knew? I knew before the public knew. So the Premier must have known before the public knew. We can assume that. Did the Premier say to the Minister of Finance: "Mr. Minister of Finance, I have promised that this would never be increased, and now you are breaking a promise that I've given to the people of British Columbia?" Did the Premier say that to you? I ask the minister to tell me if the Premier said that to him.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I refer the member — who is striving not so valiantly in this debate — to the remarks I gave him just a few minutes ago.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the minister didn't answer my question, and I repeat it. Did the Premier say to you: "If you go through with this increase in the sales tax you'll be breaking a promise I made to the people of British Columbia?" Did the Premier say that to you? When we get down and strip away everything, we don't get an answer from the Minister of Finance, because the Premier has been made a fool of by the Minister of Finance. The Premier said that he would never increase the sales tax, that his government made a permanent cut. It says so right here.

Well, I'd be a little embarrassed too, Bill, because you've been caught a little bit badly on this one. I'd be a little embarrassed too. This is what you said: "Premier Bill Bennett admitted today that Ottawa will pick up half the cost of the 2-cent cut in the B.C. sales tax. But Bennett said he has no qualms about accepting the money, saying it's not a gift. It comes from the B.C. taxpayers anyway, he told the news conference in Victoria, and he said that B.C.'s sales tax cut is permanent, though he added later that he cannot bind future governments."

Well, there he is. It's the same Premier, the same government. There was a confession from the Minister of Finance today that the Premier only knew about the cut a little bit before I found out about it. All I've asked the Minister of Finance to tell me is whether or not the minister was told by the Premier that if he went through with this increase he'd be making a liar of him. Now I ask the Minister of Finance: did the Premier come to you and say that if you went ahead with this increase you were going to be making a liar of him?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. I'm sure there are other ways to phrase remarks in the House. All members are familiar with the rules that guide us in debate, and I would ask the member speaking to adhere to those rules.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, if you believe that by posing the question that way I am infringing on the rules, then let me rephrase it. I ask the Minister of Finance: did the Premier come to you and say to you that if you went ahead with this sales tax increase you would put his earlier statement in contradiction with what was taking place? Did he do that? Did he remind you that he had made a promise not to increase the sales tax and that your action would be putting him in contradiction to his promise? Did he say that to you? That's all I want to know. Does the minister wish the floor to answer that specific question?

AN HON. MEMBER: Carry on.

MR. BARRETT: I don't need to carry on — it's a very simple question. We've taken about 15 minutes to hone it down to this. The background is this: the Premier promised that the sales tax would never be increased, that the cut was permanent. The Minister of Finance has brought in an increase in the sales tax and then has told the House the Premier didn't know about it until "a little while" before I did.

Having learned all of that, I ask the Minister of Finance: when he first learned that this sales tax was going to be increased, did the Premier say to you that the increase would be a contradiction of his earlier statements promising that it would not be increased? Did he say that to you?

Far be it from me to embarrass the Premier. He does it well on his own. But we have a solemn promise from the Premier of British Columbia that this tax would never be increased. We have the Minister of Finance bringing in the tax that would never be increased. I ask the Minister of

[ Page 5763 ]

Finance if the Premier said to him that he was contradicting his position.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: You know, Mr. Chairman, I can understand the discomfort, the quips, and I understand the good sense of humour and bonhomie. I know that I can't say that the Premier was lying when he made this promise. But I can say that the Minister of Finance has embarrassed the Premier by deliberately breaking a promise the Premier made. Now what is the Premier going to do about it? Who's running the show? Is it the Minister of Finance or the Premier? The Premier promised this tax would never be increased. The Minister of Finance has broken the Premier's promise. Who's running the show? Did the Premier go to the Minister of Finance and say that if you increased this you'd be contradicting his earlier statement?

We see the Premier practising these motions for whatever purpose — shaving or whatever it is. I know your discomfort. If you're uncomfortable about the fact that people remind you of the promises you made, that's all right. We all know that it's a joke with you to make a promise. If the Premier is uncomfortable being reminded of little jokes he makes with the people of British Columbia, by saying: "Don't worry, it's a permanent cut...." Here we have him sitting right next to the Minister of Finance, who's making a fibber out of him. Excuse me. I withdraw that. He's making a contradictor out of him, Mr. Chairman, because I can't say liar or fibber.

I clearly ask the Minister of Finance whether the Premier came to you and said to you: "If you increase this tax, you're making my statement...." What was the line Nixon used when they got caught? "It's not operative anymore." That's right. That was the one Nixon used before Watergate.

MR. LEA: But it was perfectly clear.

MR. BARRETT: It was perfectly clear, but not operative anymore. That's right.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You know, Mr. Chairman, I love to hear from the Minister of Universities, Science and Technology (Hon. Mr. McGeer) as well. You're doing your best to get the guy off the hook, but the statement stands. You've got a half empty hospital out at UBC as your monument.

Aside from the lovely exchange across the floor of this House and the friendly talk and banter, the fact is that the Premier's statement is now inoperative. Like Nixon said about Watergate, that story is now inoperative. The Premier said that that tax cut is permanent, and the Minister of Finance says: "Phooey on that. Up it goes." Who's running the show over there?

It's just great fun to see them chitter-chattering over there and hoping that this will all go away. But I would have thought that the Premier would stand up and say: "Look, I made a statement then that I thought was valid, and I apologize. My statement is inoperative and we have to increase taxes." Why wouldn't the Premier do that? Wouldn't that clear up this whole matter? Wouldn't it be a simple thing for the Premier to stand up in this debate and say: "Look, what I said in 1978 doesn't count in 1981?"

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You can say what you want, fellows. I throw back bouquets. I love it, Mr. Chairman. The fact is that we've got the government in a contradictory position. The Premier promised never to increase sales tax again and it's being increased. Now what is the explanation? The Minister of Finance tells us that he only told the Premier a little while before I found out. In that little while did the Premier say to you: "Hey, if you increase this tax you're going to make a contradictor out of me and you're going to make my statement no longer operative"? Some people who are not schooled in parliamentary language might say that they are making a liar out of the Premier. I'm schooled in parliamentary language, and I wouldn't say that you're making a liar out of the Premier, because it's against the rules. But I am saying that now is the time for the Premier to clear it up.

If the Premier would feel more comfortable if we cleared the gallery so people wouldn't see him confessing, it would be all right. Mr. Chairman, it's okay with me if you want to take a recess and clear the galleries so the tax-paying citizens don't hear any of this. It's okay with me, Mr. Chairman, if you want to tell the press to go in there, have a cup of coffee and just be quiet for a little while. All I want to know — no cheap shots and all smiles — is whether the Premier said to the Minister of Finance: "Hey, if you go ahead with this tax increase, my statement will no longer be operative." Did he say that to you?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Do you know what's happened while you've been away?

MR. MACDONALD: What?

MR. BARRETT: We found out that somebody is not telling the truth.

MR. MACDONALD: What, in the opposition?

MR. BARRETT: No, on the government side.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, thank goodness for that.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) has come back to find out what's going on here. Are you shocked?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, again, I must remind all members, as we did on May 14 when we discussed in this committee certain procedures that were taking place that were totally contrary to the parliamentary traditions that guide us. I'll reread: "Members using unparliamentary expressions are required to withdraw such expressions immediately upon being requested to do so, but it is the Chair's view that repeated use of unparliamentary expressions, even followed by a withdrawal, amounts to an abuse of the rules." In the same vein, so does any hon. member who says something he knows to be unparliamentary.... I think we have reached the stage in debate that we needn't practise that type of procedure. The Leader of the Opposition continues.

[ Page 5764 ]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to your attention that at no point in the last 25 minutes has anyone asked me to withdraw the words "liar," "falsehood" or anything else. If you're asking me to withdraw the word, I'll withdraw it, but let the record show that in 25 minutes no one asked for me to withdraw the word "liar."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it is the Chair's responsibility in this case. I would ask all members to abstain from the use of that word in any form of debate in the House.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, that is the first request for withdrawal. I certainly withdraw the word "liar."

We still have a dilemma, and that's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of. That's really what the crux of this little debate is about. We have here a contradiction. The Premier of this province gave a solemn commitment that the sales tax would never be increased. It was a permanent reduction. The Minister of Finance is increasing that sales tax. The word of an hon. member must never be doubted, so I assume that when the hon. member, the Premier of this province, said that the sales tax would never be increased, that was his honourable word. Now we have an action by the government that is making the Premier's honourable word come into question. By logic one could stretch the rules that you've quoted from May and Beauchesne to insist that the Minister of Finance withdraw this action, because it is bringing into question the honourable word of the Premier. It may be that this very section could be out of order by the rules of this House, because this section impugns that the word of the Premier is not honourable.

That's not twisted logic; it's very clear. Here is an honourable Premier of this province saying that the sales tax is permanently cut. Here is a Minister of Finance who, in contradiction to that statement by the Premier, increases the sales tax. I think that you could make a case that the Minister of Finance is in contempt of the House by trying to prove that the Premier's word is not honourable. It may be a question for a committee on privilege, when you think about it. I know that my colleague, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), is an expert on the rules, and I'm sure that as he listens to my argument we may indeed have here a case of a breach of privilege of this House. The good name of the Premier of the province is being smirched by his own words coming home to haunt him by the actions of the Minister of Finance. Is it a plot or is it an accident? That's a good question, even if I asked it myself.

We have a dilemma here. I will not use the words that I have been asked to withdraw — directly, indirectly or tertiarily.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not going to do it. I made the point. But the two statements are in conflict. What are we going to do about a Minister of Finance, according to the rules of this House, who is taking action that is bringing into question the honourable word of an hon. member? Maybe we should have a recess to consider that. Here is the Premier saying: "I promise there will be no increase, so help me Social Credit."

AN HON. MEMBER: You've ruined your own argument there.

MR. BARRETT: "So help me coalition, so help me voters, I promise that the sales tax is permanently cut." Then he comes in the House, sits for a few minutes, interrupts the proceedings, runs out to answer the telephone, and still won't stand up in this House and say: "Look, it's my fault." If the Premier would get up and say: "Look, when I made this statement in 1975, I thought it would be operative; but, like Richard Nixon, I found out that it's inoperative," we would pardon him. Ford pardoned Nixon. We can pardon Bill. But I think we have to hear the pleadings first. Isn't that right, Mr. Chairman? How can you pardon somebody unless they confess their sins?

What is the sin that we're dealing with here? Is it the sin that the minister has been caught, or is it the sin that the minister won't say that he made a mistake? To get the minister off the hook....

I'm trying to be fair to the minister because he's had a lot of difficulty in the House this year. It's not easy seeing that crown slipping and measuring it at a distance. When someone says something like that to him, the "cheap shot" thing happens. I don't want to go through all that again, but I want to ask the minister: did the Premier come to you as soon as he learned the sales tax was going to be increased and say: "Mr. Minister, if you increase the sales tax you're making my earlier statement an incorrect one"? That's all I want to know.

HON. MR. CURTIS: What else have you got to say, David?

MR. BARRETT: It's not up to me to say any more. It's up to you, Mr. Minister. I asked you a simple question. Did the Premier come to you and say to you: "If you go ahead with the sales tax increase you're going to make a contradictor out of me?" Did he mention to you that he had...? Let me rephrase it. Did the Premier mention to you that he had promised not to allow this tax to be increased? Through you, Mr. Chairman, was the minister aware that the Premier had made such a promise? Never mind what the Premier said to you that might be private conversation. I ask the minister: was the minister aware that the Premier had promised that this tax was permanently cut? That's just between you and me in this chamber; it's got nothing to do with a conversation. Were you aware that the Premier had promised in '78 that this was a permanent cut?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.

AN HON. MEMBER: It wasn't in '78.

MR. BARRETT: What year was it? If it wasn't in '78, then these newspapers are wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: He knew about it.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, he knew about it. He knew what year it was.

You know, Mr. Chairman, sometimes when you don't want to answer questions, you're uncomfortable....

You've got the minister just sitting there wondering what's going to happen, you ask a simple question, and the minister can't recall. I ask you, Mr. Minister, were you at any time aware that the Premier of this province promised that once the

[ Page 5765 ]

sales tax was reduced it would never be increased again? Were you aware of that at any time before we brought it up now? You were a cabinet minister then. Were you at any time aware that the Premier had promised that the sales tax was permanently cut? I think it's a fair question. I'm only asking information of the Minister of Finance. I don't care now. I've abandoned the course of trying to find out what conversation went on between the Premier and the Minister of Finance. I ask the Minister of Finance plainly and bluntly: were you at any time aware that the Premier had promised there would be a permanent cut in sales tax?

If the minister wishes to answer that question would he please signify by an eye-twitch, a nod of the head or anything that gives me an indication that he's anxious to answer this question? Were you at any time aware that the Premier had promised the cut in the sales tax was permanent?

There's no rule against sitting in silence, but I can make some presumptions. He wasn't aware of what the Premier said. He was aware of what the Premier said. If he was aware of what the Premier said, then he was trying to embarrass the Premier. If he wasn't aware, did the Premier say to him: "Gosh, Mr. Minister, I promised that tax cut was permanent"? If he was aware, did he go ahead with a tax increase flying in the face of the commitment the Premier had made? So I ask the minister: were you aware that the Premier had promised this tax would never be increased?

Would you like the floor? Mr. Chairman, a question to the minister through you: would the minister like the floor to answer the question whether or not he was aware that the Premier had made a commitment that the sales tax cut was permanent? Well, we see a very embarrassed, uncomfortable minister.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Just bored.

MR. BARRETT: Not bored. Anybody with a sense of responsibility would answer these questions. You've been placed in an embarrassing situation by the Premier and you have to carry the can for it. If you sit there in silence, are you trying to tell us in your silence that you didn't know he made that statement? It's not an intricate argument of algebra. It's just a simple matter of honesty, it's just a simple inquiry, something that we preach about as politicians so that school children will know about it. When people come into a public office, they have an idea that their politicians are always saying what they think to be true, always answering questions as truthfully as they can, always being serious in senatorial tones, always saying to the people, "Even if I get elected as a Tory, I can join Social Credit," always doing those decent things, always laying out to people exactly where they are and what kind of action they're going to take as responsible human beings in public life.

That minister is the epitome of doing those decent things. Now I ask a simple question: did the minister know that the Premier promised that this tax was permanently cut? Is that a hard question to answer? I don't think it's a hard question to answer. I think the minister is frightened to answer it. He's been placed in a terrorizing dilemma. He's taking action that is a direct contradiction of what the Premier promised the people of British Columbia. That's true. There's no dispute on that. The Premier promised that the tax would never be increased again, and the minister is increasing it.

Mr. Chairman, maybe the Minister of Finance didn' t hear the question.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, I heard the question.

MR. BARRETT: Do you have an answer now? He's acknowledged that he's heard the question. Now I ask you, Mr. Chairman, does the minister have an answer? Is the minister refusing to answer that question? If you don't want to answer the question, just tell me that. If the minister doesn't wish to answer the question, we could save a lot of time if the minister would just tell me that he doesn't wish to answer that question. I understand. If you don't wish to answer the question, say: "I don't wish to answer the question."

We have a kind of impasse here, don't we? I asked the minister very clearly: was he aware that the Premier promised that the earlier sales tax cut was permanent? I asked the minister: if you don't wish to answer that question, just tell me that you don't wish to answer it. I understand. But to sit there marks a certain lack of determination to come out with the whole story. It marks a certain weakness.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It won't fly, Dave.

MR. BARRETT: It won't fly. Here is a responsible minister of the Crown saying that it won’t fly, when he's asked to answer the question: was he aware that the Premier had made a promise that once that sales tax cut took place, it was permanent? When he was asked to answer that question he said: "It won't fly." Did you know that the Premier had made this statement?

It's really a little sad, Mr. Chairman. The minister's been placed in an impossible quandary by the Premier's earlier statement. A little touch of maturity would enable either the Premier or the minister to get up and say that that statement is no longer operative, just to get up and say: "Look, when the Premier made that statement I didn't think we'd ever have to increase it." But what we have here is a display. Do we have a determined minister willing to stand up and face questions in this House? Do we have a determined minister who is able to get up clearly and say yes or no, I didn't know or I did know? We have a minister sitting there, not knowing what to say. That's sad. Mr. Chairman. It really is.

The red light's on in this chamber, so I will take my place hoping that the minister will answer. Did the minister know that the Premier made this statement? Yes or no.

MR. NICOLSON: Parliament is founded on a high principle. When the leader of a country or people in high office make a statement on a matter which is so clear-cut, before an election, and people make a decision based on those statements and place a person such as the present Minister of Finance in a position where he can be appointed Minister of Finance, I should think the people of this province should have the assurance that what they're being told in such an area could be relied upon as the truth.

It's a shame that this debate is being carried on almost in obscurity in this House — I do notice two loyal members of the press gallery present. I think this is a very deep issue and a very important question. When I came into politics, I thought that on matters such as this. If such a change had to be made, the person who made such a statement would have resigned his seat. He would have had to resign his seat rather than face the disgrace of having a statement which he made totally turned around and disregarded. This minister is making a mockery of it. He's making a mockery of the traditions of

[ Page 5766 ]

parliament. He says: "It won't fly, Dave." You can say it won't fly, you can tell us that we're off the wall or anything you wish, but morality will never be off the wall, and it will always fly.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the member. Does the minister agree with the member? That's too difficult to answer too.

Well, Mr. Chairman, it's not unusual at any time or any place for politicians to make statements that later turn out to be incorrect. I think it's been a record of politics that that takes place frequently. They make predictions, promises and statements, and what they said turns out to be incorrect. What we're dealing with here is that the Premier of this province made a statement.... Well, the minister might laugh, and the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) might chuckle, but it's the word of the government that we're talking about. It's a little bit more than just a Socred word; it's more than Politics in Paradise, a book written by that member when he attacked Social Credit and used to call them terrible things. Now he's a member of those terrible things. Here we have a moral dilemma, as pointed out.

AN HON. MEMBER: You become what you hate.

MR. BARRETT: You become what you hate. Well, that's why I've never hated them. I love them all over there. No sinner is too far gone to repent, Mr. Chairman.

What are we dealing with here? Just a simple statement by the Premier that the sales tax cut was permanent, and now it's being increased. So the Premier's promise is no longer valid. Is that understood? The Premier's promise is being broken today. Is that understood? The question is: who's breaking the Premier's promise? The government is breaking the Premier's promise. I want to ask the minister: did the Premier come to you and tell you that he'd made this promise, or were you aware that he'd made this promise?

What is difficult for the Minister of Finance in answering that question? Is it embarrassing? Mr. Chairman, I put it to you: is it embarrassing to ask the minister whether or not he knew that the Premier promised that the tax cut would be permanent? Some politicians might stand up and say: "That was the circumstance at that time. Times have changed. It's unfortunate, but the Premier made a statement that is no longer operative, and I ask the members to accept that at face value." Could you say that? Could you just stand up and say that, so that we can look at boys and girls, men and women and senior citizens of this province and say to them: "We're all part of the government. The government governs and the opposition opposes, but there is a thread of a sense of responsibility among us. When we make statements, at the time we make them we think that we can keep those promises or commitments, but circumstances arise and no longer can we keep that promise or keep the faith on that statement."

We're presented with such a paradox today. The Premier of all of British Columbia said that the tax cuts were permanent. The Minister of Finance is bringing in a tax increase on the sales tax. Could the minister get up and tell this House that the Premier's statement is no longer operative? Circumstances have changed and we have to increase this tax, and the Premier's promise is no longer valid. Could you say that?

Somebody dug up the member for Omineca's words. "Straightforward honesty," he said. I put it to the Chair: is this straightforward honesty? Those were your words, Mr. Member for Omineca. You said that the Premier's promise that these cuts were permanent is — and I'm quoting from page 649, April 20, 1978, Hansard — "a long-term commitment, straightforward honesty...." Do you still feel that your statement is valid? Does the member feel that he's been dealt with in straightforward honesty?

Is it straightforward honesty to make a promise that a tax cut will be permanent and then have that straightforward honesty betrayed by an action of the government? I can accept a change of mind or policy, but wouldn't it be a little bit healthier and do this institution a little bit of good to have the minister stand up and say: "When the Premier said that, it was our intention at that time. Circumstances have changed it, and now we're increasing the tax. I'm sorry that impression was left with the people." Can't you say you're sorry? Does it really hurt the psyche of this government to get up and say they made a mistake when they made this promise?

All the Doug Heals in the world can't change this approach. Isn't there a little bit more at stake than just a tête-à-tête between the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Finance? Isn't there something more at stake here, really? Isn't there a sense that politicians make statements and mean what they say — if they're wrong, get up and say that they made a mistake? Isn't that part of the system, Mr. Chairman? Would it hurt the world if the Minister of Finance got up, looked everybody right in the eye and said: "Look, I made the decision to increase the sales tax; I was aware of the Premier's promise, but I'm sorry, the promise couldn't be kept"? Would that hurt anybody? Do you know what it would do, Mr. Chairman? It would make me sit down and shut up, and I'd lose the argument. It would mean that I would have to say: "Well, they were grown-up enough men to stand up and say that what the Premier promised, they weren't able to deliver on." Is the world going to condemn them for that? Are voters going to say "tsk tsk"? The voters might say: "You know, it's nice to hear a politician stand up and say that a promise he made couldn't be kept." What's wrong with that? What's wrong with a politician standing up and saying: "A promise I made cannot be kept"? Does it destroy political macho? Does it destroy credibility in the government? No, I don't think so. I think it would enhance this government's credibility if he would just to stand up honestly and say: "The Premier of British Columbia promised that the tax cut would be permanent."

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Now, Mr. Member, that's being judgmental.

MR. BARNES: I shouldn't say that. I'm sure he meant well.

MR. BARRETT: You've got to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I'm doubting the benefit now.

Bill Bennett said, and I quote.... I only use the name, Mr. Chairman, because I'm quoting a newspaper. "Bennett said he had no qualms about accepting the money. He told a news conference in Victoria: 'It comes from the B.C. taxpayer anyway.' He said: 'The B.C. sales tax cut is permanent.'" I ask the minister: did you know that the Premier had made that statement? The minister doesn't want to answer that question. It's not a case of kids standing in a school yard

[ Page 5767 ]

saying, "knock off the stick." We are grown human beings. We are responsible for expending vast sums of money that we get from the taxpayers of this province. Whether people voted for you or not they're entitled to an answer. The traditional system in committee is that we get answers. It's a simple question. What are you afraid of? I ask the Minister of Finance sincerely what he is afraid of in answering this simple question: did you know the Premier had made a promise that this sales tax would not be increased? I ask the Minister of Finance: what are you afraid of in answering the question?

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I've sat here for 50 minutes listening to the Leader of the Opposition, and I stand under standing order 43 and bring it to your attention. Standing order 43 states: "Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member, who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech...." Mr. Chairman, I ask you to do that.

The member stands up and talks about straightforward honesty.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KEMPF: I want to ask where his straightforward honesty was when he stole Plateau Mills. What would he have done to raise the money to provide the services?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KEMPF: Would he have nationalized the forest industry? Would he have nationalized the mining industry?

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the hon. member to take his place. The hon. member has correctly quoted standing order 43, which does ask us to avoid tedious repetition, and I'm sure that comment is well taken by all members of the committee. On section 2 of Bill 12, the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: I'm glad the member drew my attention to standing order 43. I appreciate that contribution to the debate. The fact is that we're talking....

MR. KEMPF: Answer my question. What would you have done? What would you have nationalized?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The committee will come to order. The hon. Leader of the Opposition continues debate on section 3, Bill 12.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If the member's interjections are to be in order he must confine his interjections to this section. This section deals with an increase in the sales tax. It's a 50 percent increase in sales tax.

MR. KEMPF: How would you have raised it?

MR. BARRETT: I want to deal with this section, Mr. Chairman, and I'll address my remarks to this section. We are dealing with....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) not to interrupt the member who is speaking.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I haven't made any reference — except in passing — to that member's comment, that the Premier's statement was straightforward honesty. Perhaps the edge of the debate is uncomfortable for that member. But that's something he has to live with. What we're talking about here is the government's intention to have this House approve a dramatic increase in the sales tax, after the Premier of this province promised that the last cut was a permanent cut. Now we've got a dilemma here, and it can be dealt with very quickly. All it would take is this: the Minister of Finance should get up and say, yes, he's aware the Premier made this commitment, yes, he knows that this action is breaking the Premier's commitment, but this is a government policy, as advocated by the member for Omineca, to meet new revenue and expenditure demands.

I don't want Hansard to show that the minister is having a cordial chat with the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Hon. Mr. Smith). Is it difficult for the minister to understand what question is being asked of him? It is difficult, is that it? Is it difficult for the minister to understand that people expect some consistency and responsibility? When you asked us to vote for or against this increase in taxes, we're confronted with the contradiction of the Premier's statement that the cut was permanent.

I'd like to hear from the minister. It'll only take you 30 seconds to clear it up — just 30 seconds. Were you aware that the Premier had promised that this tax would never be increased, and that it was a permanent cut? Were you aware of that?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the gentle, witty interruptions of that very swift minister who has such a penchant for tact and diplomacy that it is a model for all of us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) will come to order, please.

MR. BARRETT: I want to thank the Chair for protecting me from that minister. Can I come back now?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Now there's the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) who wants to interject. Mr. Chairman, could you keep order in this chamber?

We've got a contradiction. The Premier promised that the sales tax was permanently cut in 1978. It's now being increased. I want a simple explanation of why the minister decided to contradict the Premier's promise. That's all. I just want a simple explanation of why it was necessary to contradict or break the Premier's promise. Am I asking for a life-and-death statement? Am I asking for something that most

[ Page 5768 ]

school boys would deal with promptly on any question in a class or most citizens of this province would deal with promptly when asked? It's something that is expected of teachers — yes, even scientists — to answer in terms of precise information. It's just a simple question. Was the minister aware that the Premier promised this tax would not be increased?

Mr. Chairman, we are in committee. A debate is in order. The House is being asked to approve the increase of sales tax by 50 percent, in the face of the Premier making a solemn promise to the people of British Columbia at the time it was cut in 1978 that it was a permanent cut. Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Finance, do you think that the people of British Columbia are entitled to an explanation of why they were promised one thing and something else that is the opposite is happening? Do you think, Mr. Chairman, that the people are entitled to a just a few words of acknowledgement that there has been a change of mind, a promise has been broken, but you can still trust the word of the government? Is the tax-paying citizen out there entitled to just a few words from the minister to say that they're changing their minds? For just a few moments of discomfort, why won't the minister get up and say whether or not he knew that the Premier made this promise? Can you give me a reason — through, you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister — why you can't get up and say: "I don't want to answer that question?" Are you afraid of the Premier? You're not afraid of him. Are you embarrassed about this? You're not embarrassed.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, just bored.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, just bored. We're getting somewhere. He said he's not embarrassed by it, just bored. What he's really saying is that if a promise is made to the people and the promise is broken, he's not embarrassed by it. You're not embarrassed by the fact that a promise has been broken.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, I'm not embarrassed by you, Dave, just bored.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All members will be given ample opportunity to enter debate in committee.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I was well aware that the minister wasn't embarrassed by me. I didn't make this statement; it was the Premier who made this statement. The Premier promised that the sales tax cut would be permanent, and he's embarrassed. But he's not embarrassed by me; he's embarrassed by the Premier. And he's bored. Mr. Chairman, what harm would it do the minister to get up and answer the question whether or not he knew that the Premier made this promise. I ask the minister.

Mr. Chairman, I believe there's a little more involved here than just a pleasant exchange of differences of opinion. I think there's an expectation by the citizens of British Columbia to be told the truth by politicians. The valid expectation of people is that when politicians speak, they are speaking the truth. Now there's nothing wrong with that expectation. There is a significant percentage of the population who are not cynical and who believe that when a politician says something, that politician is stating the truth.

The Premier promised that the sales tax cut would be permanent. That promise is now being broken. Did the minister know that promise had been made? Did the minister know that the Premier made that promise? As uncomfortable as members might be, what we're debating here is really a test of the nature of our whole system. It is a matter of record that the Premier promised that the tax cut would be permanent, unless it's disputed by the minister. Do you dispute that, Mr. Minister? Does the minister dispute that it is a matter of record that the Premier promised that the sales tax cut was permanent?

Does the minister feel responsible for all actions he takes as a minister of the Crown? Can we assume that? Mr. Minister, did you know that the Premier had promised that the sales tax was permanently cut in 1978? Did you know that? Mr. Chairman, does the minister know that the Premier...?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will all members please come to order.

MR. BARRETT: I ask the minister why he finds it difficult to answer this question. Is it the end of your career that's at stake? Is somebody going to slap your wrist? Is something evil going to happen to you? Is something bad going to happen in caucus? Is somebody going to call you names? No, none of those things. So what is it? Why won't you answer this simple question? Mr. Chairman, why doesn't the minister answer this simple question: did he know that the Premier promised that this tax was permanently cut?

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance is allegedly a responsible minister of the Crown. He's piloting through the House a bill that places the Premier in a position of conflict with an earlier statement that the Premier made. I ask the minister whether he is aware that this bill is placing the Premier in a position of conflict with his earlier statement. Are you aware that in supporting this you're placing the Premier in a conflict over his earlier statement?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister if he is aware that by pursuing this bill and increasing the sales tax he is putting the Premier's promise into jeopardy. Are you aware of that, Mr. Minister? Perhaps the best way to deal with this is that the minister and I can just step out in the corridor, and I'll ask you the question in the corridor so the people of British Columbia can see on television. Would you like to go on television, and you and I can have a little conversation? Would you like to do that?

AN HON. MEMBER: If you ask him 1,993 times.

MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Chairman, once or twice is enough to make the point that the minister is refusing to answer in this House — for whatever reason — and is unable to deal with the conflict between the promise by the Premier and the increase in this tax. What does it mean to you, Mr. Chairman, when the Premier says that the sales tax cut is permanent? Well, what does it mean to the Minister of Finance when the Premier says that the sales tax cut is permanent? Does that mean it is licence to break the Premier's word? I find this very interesting.

Interjection.

[ Page 5769 ]

MR. BARRETT: No, I don't find it very funny. I find the response interesting, but I don't find it very funny. The whole province believes that the Premier should be telling the truth, and we have the Premier of the province giving his solemn word — I assume when he made this statement he was telling the truth; I have no right to assume anything else — and the statement was: "The sales tax cut is permanent." Something has arisen since the time the Premier made that statement and where we are now. All I'm asking is that the Minister of Finance tell us what has taken place between the time the Premier made this promise and now, for the minister to change policy and break a promise of the Premier. What was it? What has taken place that forced you to change policy and break the Premier's word? Could you tell me that?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, that's the first time for that one, but I could write it out for you, if I was sure that you'd be able to read, Mr. Member. Maybe I'll do it in block words. Oh, the red light is on again. I don't think it's difficult for the Minister of Finance to comprehend. I'm just trying to get the minister to 'fess up. Did you know that the Premier had promised that this tax cut was permanent? Just so the minister remembers the question, was he aware that the Premier had made a promise that this tax would not be increased again? Were you aware that the tax cut was permanent? You weren't aware of that? You were aware of it? You're not here? You are here? You're here. Well, we've got that. Now that you're here....

MR. LORIMER: I'm somewhat surprised that the minister hasn't taken this opportunity to explain to the House about the change in policy between having a permanent tax cut and a temporary increase. I don't intend to ask the minister any questions, because he doesn't appear to wish to answer this afternoon.

I do have a question for the Leader of the Opposition. Could you tell us whether it was just before the 1979 election when the Premier made his promise about the tax cut or whether it was just after the 1979 election? I'd be interested in knowing this.

MR. BARRETT: I want to thank the member for his question.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, can we have order in the House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The matter at stake now is the minister's own performance. The minister has simply been asked whether he was aware that the Premier had made a promise that the sales tax cut in 1978 was a permanent cut in the sales tax. Was he aware of that? This action is making a contradictor out of the Premier. The Premier promised that the sales tax was cut permanently. That was the solemn word of the Premier of British Columbia, and we have the Minister of Finance now piloting an increase through. I find it difficult to understand why any person with any gumption couldn't stand up and say: "Yes, when we made the promise we believed that to be true, but circumstances have changed and we have to break that promise." What would you lose in making that statement? What would you gain? First of all, what you'd gain is an admission of what is actually taking place — the truth. There's nothing wrong with supporting the truth. The minister could get up and say: "Yes, we made that promise; the Premier made that promise. Now we've had to break that promise and circumstances have changed." Then you would be supporting the exact truth. The truth of the matter is that the promise was made that the tax cut was permanent, and we're confronted with action in the House now that contradicts that promise. The government and the minister haven't got the guts to stand up and say that they've been forced to make a change of policy.

I'm saying that the minister hasn't got the guts to stand up in this House and say that the Premier's promise is now being broken because of a change in circumstances. There's lots of time to do it. Take 30 seconds. What would you lose?

MR. LEA: Only a chance at the leadership.

MR. BARRETT: No, he wouldn't lose a chance for leadership. It would move him up on the scale of leadership. What is it that enables some people to stand up in this House and say they've made a mistake or they backed the wrong policy or there's been a change of policy, while other ministers sit there in mute silence unable to stand up and say there's been a change in policy? What is it that makes that little fabric of difference? Some ministers can get up and deal with the circumstances they find themselves in, albeit they're a little embarrassing, and say: "My goodness gracious, the Premier promised the tax cut was permanent, but circumstances have changed, and the Premier's statement is no longer operative." What would the minister lose by getting up and saying that, Mr. Chairman? Can you tell me?

Just between you and me, Mr. Chairman, when there's been a change in government policy, don't you think, Mr. Chairman, that it would be wise for the government to say that there's been a change in policy? I could make an analogy. If certain people got elected in this House under the banner of the Liberal Party, or if certain people got elected as Conservatives, and they stood up in the House and said: "We've had a change of heart. I promised the voters that I stood for this party, but I've decided to change parties. I'd like the voters to ratify my decision...." Wouldn't that be nice to see that happen in here, when somebody's elected as a Conservative, to stand up and say: "I've changed my mind. I made a commitment to voters when I stood for office. When elected I was a Conservative member. I've changed my mind now and I want to be something else and go back to the voters and say: 'I've changed my mind. I've decided to be something else. Would you give me approval?'" Mr. Chairman, wouldn't that be logical?

I ask the minister: does he intend to answer any of these questions about a change in policy?

MR. BRUMMET: Try an intelligent one.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, perhaps some of those backbenchers don't understand the contradiction. Your Premier made a promise that the sales tax was permanently cut. You believed in the Premier's promise, and now you're being asked to vote for an increase in the taxes. Where do you

[ Page 5770 ]

stand? Do you stand with the Minister of Finance, or are you going to fight for the Premier's integrity? The Premier of this province made a solemn commitment to all the people in this province that the sales tax cut was permanent. We now have a situation where the Premier is being made out as someone who doesn't tell things accurately. An opportunity to explain the change in the policy goes by in silence. Is it a power grab? Is it a deliberate knife-in-the-back to the Premier? Are you trying to make him look foolish with his action? Come on, Mr. Chairman, we know that's not the motivation of the minister. The minister is trying to leave the impression....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, you can chat across the floor and make all the comments you want. But I say that the minister is displaying a singular lack of guts in not being able to stand up in this House and say clearly why there is this change of policy. With all the nervousness and twitching over there, the fact remains that the minister has been silent this afternoon in not responding. You and I both know that the question is in order. You and I both know that the Premier made a promise, and everybody assumes — we have no right to assume anything else that the Premier is an honest man. The Premier made the statement that the sales tax was permanently cut. Now we're being asked in this House to vote for an increase in that sales tax without any explanation as to a change in the Premier's policy. Is it unreasonable to ask the Minister of Finance to give an explanation? I ask you, Mr. Chairman, whether you think it's reasonable. Do you wish to answer the question, Mr. Minister? Is the minister prepared to stand up and give an explanation why he, as the Minister of Finance in the government he represents, has made a change of policy that puts into contradiction the Premier's promise that the sales tax would not be cut?

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Mr. Speaker tabled the 1980 annual report of the ombudsman.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.