[ Page 6509 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Compudsman Act (Bill M217). Mr. Mussallem.

Introduction and first reading –– 6510

An Act To Amend The Guaranteed Available Income For Need Act, R. S. Chap. 158 (B ill M218). Ms. Brown.

Introduction and first reading –– 6511

Oral Questions

Detoxification centre. Mr. Lauk –– 6511

Rent increase in Beach Avenue building. Mr. Lauk –– 6511

Little Mountain social housing project. Ms. Brown –– 6512

WCB investigation. Ms. Sanford –– 6512

Dumping of contaminated soil at Terra Nova landfill. Mr. Leggatt –– 6512

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Heritage Trust annual report for the year 1980-81, and the

British Columbia Heritage Trust auditor's report and financial statements as at March 31, 1981

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 6513

Ministry of Health annual report, 1980

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 6513

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1981 (Bill 31). Committee stage.

On section 6 –– 6513

Division

On section 7 –– 6513

Mr. Leggatt

Hon. Mr. Phillips

On section 10 –– 6514

Mr. Leggatt

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mr. Barrett

On section 12 –– 6516

Mr. Leggatt

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Division

On section 18 –– 6517

Mr. Lorimer

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Lea

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Mitchell

Division

On section 19 –– 6518

Division

On section 23 –– 6518

Mrs. Wallace

Hon. Mr. Curtis

On section 24 –– 6518

Mrs, Wallace

Hon. Mr. Curtis

On section 25 –– 6519

Mr. Cocke

On section 44 –– 6519

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

On section 45 –– 6520

Mr. Cocke

On section 46 –– 6520

Mr. Cocke

On section 47 –– 6520

Ms. Brown

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

On section 54 –– 6520

Mr. Lockstead

Hon. Mr. Fraser

On section 55 –– 6520

Mr. Lockstead

Hon. Mr. Fraser

On section 58 –– 6521

Mr. Lockstead

On the amendment to section 58 –– 6521

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Hall

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Division on the amendment

On section 68 –– 6522

Mr. Barber

Hon. Mr. Curtis

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Skelly

Division

On section 101

Mr. Cocke

On section 103 –– 6532

Mr. Leggatt

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mr. Hall

Mr. Stupich

On section 109 –– 6533

Ms. Brown

On section 114 –– 6533

Ms. Brown

On section 116 –– 6533

Mr. Stupich

On section 121 –– 6533

Mr. Nicolson

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Division

On section 126 –– 6534

Hon. Mr. Williams

Third reading –– 6534

Appendix –– 6534

TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Two constituents-to-be are in the gallery today: Jim and Marjorie Hughes, presently residing in Ottawa but now visiting their property in the Gulf Islands to make sure all is in readiness for their retirement. Mr. Hughes is associated with the National Research Council, and I wonder if the House would welcome them as British Columbians to be.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On behalf of my colleague the MLA for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), who has lost her lovely voice, I have the honour to introduce Mr. Gabriel Siska, his wife Veronica and their two children, John and Juli-Anne, who are in the Speaker's gallery. I would like the members to join the member for Okanagan North and I in wishing them well on their visit to Victoria, and in welcoming them to this House.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In the gallery today are visitors from Vancouver. I would like to ask the House to welcome Rev. Georgette Williamson; Miss Sharlene Reid, who is the daughter of Rev. Cameron Reid, who led us in prayer today; and Michael and Jeanie Oulton. Will the House please give them a warm and hospitable welcome.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like to introduce two visitors from Langley and their children. My former constituency secretary, Madeleine Snell, and her two sons Dan and Jimmy, are sitting in the gallery, along with Mrs. Mereda Preece and her two daughters, Sheila and Erin. Welcome.

MR. RITCHIE: Visiting the precincts today are a group of Social Credit friends from New Zealand who are visiting British Columbia. We're very pleased to have them here. I believe there are about 1, 993 of them. I ask the House to please welcome these people.

MR. BARNES: I rise on a question of privilege regarding report No. 6 of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills. The report states in part: "The preamble of Bill PR403, intituled An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, has not been approved, as the assertions in the petition are not substantiated." I attended each and every one of the committee hearings; I have read the transcripts of the hearings to refresh my memory. The committee never discussed report No. 6 or the statement in that report delivered to this Legislature. As a member of that committee I had no opportunity to discuss what the report would contain, and therefore my privileges as a member of that committee and of this House have been seriously offended by the Chairman.

In addition, the report appears to be incorrect and does not accurately reflect the deliberations of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills. The Social Credit majority voted against the preamble of the bill, and during the debate of that motion several Social Credit members gave their reasons for voting against it. None of their reasons appear in report No. 6, so in addition the Chairman has offended the privileges of all hon. members of the committee and presented a report to this House that will mislead he members. I therefore wish to move the following motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the member would have the statement passed to the Chair, I would appreciate it very much.

MR. BARNES: If approved, I'd be prepared to move a motion.

MR. SPEAKER: If you're prepared with a motion, as soon as the statement is seen to be in order.... Could we have a copy of the statement?

MR. BARNES: Should I read the motion?

MR. SPEAKER: No, the motion would not be in order until we can determine whether or not a prima facie case of privilege really exists.

MR. BARNES: I'll proceed with the motion, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you have an option. Although you are not able to move the motion now, you may wish to give us the content of the motion.

MR. BARNES: Thank you. Mr. Speaker. The motion is that a special committee of privileges be appointed to consider the matter of a report filed by Mr. W.B. Strachan, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, concerning An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, which report is erroneous in that it does not reflect proceedings before that committee, and that the said committee report its findings to the House, the said committee to be comprised of nine members to be named by the special committee of selection, and that the committee so appointed have the following powers — namely, to have all the powers and privileges of the Legislative Assembly under the Legislative Assembly Privilege Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. We will consider not only the motion but the statement having been made, and will bring a decision to the House as to whether or not a prima facie case does exist.

I must remind hon. members that this is at least the second, perhaps the third time the Chair has been alerted to problems arising in committee, which really should not be brought to the attention of the House, except by report of the Chairman of that committee. I would not like to see a motion of privilege used as an avenue to bring to the attention of the House committee matters. Nonetheless this motion will be given due consideration. and a decision will be brought back.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) has brought a question of privilege to the attention of the House. When a question of privilege is raised there are only two avenues. One is open to the Chairman of a committee if those privileges are brought to his attention. But if it's the individual privilege of a member that is in question, he has an avenue open to him and a right to bring that matter to the attention of the House, as soon as it is apparent to him that his privileges are or may be breached. I'm sure that the Speaker's remarks are not intended to discourage his rights in that regard.

[ Page 6510 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly not.

Hon. members, on Friday last the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) rose on a matter of privilege and alleged that another member had obstructed a certain proposal under consideration by the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills. The member suggested that his privileges as a member of the House had been thereby breached but did not indicate how the alleged obstruction had in fact impeded him in his service to the House. In the twelfth edition of Erskine May on page 63 it is noted:

"Both Houses of Parliament enjoy various privileges in their collective capacity as constituent parts of the High Court of Parliament, which are necessary for the support of their authority and for the proper exercise of the functions entrusted to them by the constitution. Other privileges, again, are enjoyed by individual members, which protect their persons and secure their independence and dignity."

The Votes and Proceedings show that the first member for Vancouver Centre is not a member of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills. In the absence of any suggestion to the Chair by the member as to how he has been impeded in his service to the House, based on his statements, I am unable to conceive of any way in which any privilege enjoyed by him as an individual member may have been breached. Under these circumstances there is no basis upon which the Chair is able to find a prima facie case of breach of privilege as earlier defined.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, with respect to the question of privilege that I raised on Friday last and on which Mr. Speaker has just ruled, I should point out to Mr. Speaker that it's the privilege of every hon. member of this House to bring legislation before the House. That's a privilege contained in tradition and in our standing orders. Had I known that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) would renege on his promise, I could well have brought an act before this Legislature at a seasonable time for its consideration. Because he has reneged on his promise in the twilight hours of this session, I must bring it in very late in the day at the risk of its not being called upon for debate by the House Leader. That is a breach and an imposition. It also impedes my actions as a member. Had I known that he would not keep to his word, I could have brought in an act at the beginning of the legislative session, Mr. Speaker. That is the point I thought was clear when I raised my point of privilege last Friday.

MR. SPEAKER: It appears to the Chair that the member is seeking to enter debate on the matter of privilege itself, which would not be in order at this time.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the first member for Vancouver Centre for a complete withdrawal of a statement he knows to be absolutely wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: It is difficult for the Chair to determine whether or not a statement made is correct or incorrect. I am left with only those powers that are left to me. I must therefore ask the first member for Vancouver Centre if any improper motive has been imputed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

MR. LAUK: I have nothing to withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker has just referred to having received several reports in the House of alleged irregularities in the committee on private bills on the amendments to the Vancouver Charter. Mr. Speaker will be intimately familiar with the ruling of Mr. Speaker Pooley of 1890, in which he said that all witnesses in opposition to a private member's bill must be founded upon a petition. It has come to my attention that witnesses did appear in opposition to that bill. As a member of this House but not of the committee, I would argue that my privilege in this House to take action when a petition is brought into this House to oppose a bill has been impeded, and that the appearance of witnesses in opposition to the bill without their request to oppose the bill being founded upon petition in this House offends the very considered, very detailed and very well thought out decision of Mr. Speaker Pooley, who argued that whereas it takes a petition and a waiting period to bring a bill through the House and have it referred to the private members, if witnesses can suddenly appear in opposition without any waiting period and without the proper procedure of petition, this would create a problem.

I would ask Mr. Speaker to look into the whole matter of this irregular proceeding. I would say that as members of this House we have been impeded, because there was no petition upon which that opposition was founded. Mr. Speaker, I refer again to Mr. Speaker Pooley's ruling of 1890, which is very clear in this case.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has already undertaken, last evening at the request of the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), to research the entire matter. It is indeed one which requires considerable consideration, and a decision will be brought as quickly as possible.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm not arguing that this is part of standing order 115; I'm saying that there were matters brought before that committee which were not brought properly through the House in the first instance, and that as a member of this House I have been given the runaround and not had my day. I'm not a member of that committee, but I have the right to hear the petition of opponents to that bill in this House before they have a right to appear before a committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is, I think, aware of the fact that the Speaker and the House have no knowledge of what happened in committee, unless upon a report of the Chairman. The ideal time to bring these matters to the attention of the House would be upon a report from the Chairman and perhaps upon a motion for adoption of that report.

Introduction of Bills

COMPUDSMAN ACT

On a motion by Mr. Mussallem, Bill M217, Compudsman Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced a bill which should have been introduced today, and I wonder whether it would be possible to consider it introduced.

[ Page 6511 ]

MR. SPEAKER: No, it needs to be properly introduced. The member would require leave.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce a bill.

Leave granted.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE GUARANTEED
AVAILABLE INCOME FOR NEED ACT,
R.S. CHAP. 158

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill M218, An Act to Amend the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act, R.S. Chap. 158, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

DETOXIFICATION CENTRE

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The Alcohol and Drug Commission together with the Vancouver City Police have almost completed a detoxification centre in my constituency. It is widely hailed in the constituency and the city, as it was intended to relieve the drunk tank facilities, which were most inadequate in the city of Vancouver. The fire marshal has stated recently that because of very poor and faulty construction, it is illegal for anyone to be kept in that detoxification centre overnight, which defeats the whole purpose of it.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Well, it's a very serious matter.... As you know, people die in the drunk tank, and it's a very serious matter. We wanted the proper facilities constructed. We thought we were on the right road. Will the Minister of Health indicate what steps he's decided to take to remedy and upgrade this facility?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, if the building does not comply to the fire regulations, then it will have to be modified to comply with the fire marshal regulations. Depending on who may be held responsible for that, we presume that there would be some recovery of any extra costs for seeing that it complies with the fire marshal's regulations. I'd be pleased to look into it more specifically to determine what those problems may be and how readily it may be remedied. because we can't have a building that fails to meet the fire marshall's regulations. I see no difficulty in making the necessary modifications to the building to meet that code, and that should be done as quickly as possible.

MR. LAUK: The minister took the question partly as notice. I bring to his attention that there is no intention so far, from what I understand, to use it as a drunk tank — a detoxification centre — overnight, but it would be a day patient type of thing, which would defeat its original purpose. If the minister can investigate that and reply, I'll be much obliged.

RENT INCREASE IN
BEACH AVENUE BUILDING

MR. LAUK: I have another question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing said what?

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're doing a lot of speaking today.

MR. LAUK: He said, "Get lost," I think.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister does not have the floor; the member has the floor. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: Old No Chabot.

Earlier this year during the minister's estimates I brought to his attention the plight of a tenant at 2061 Beach Avenue in Vancouver's West End. A widow on a pension was facing a rental increase of $551; that's a jump of 77 percent. Since I asked the question of the minister this woman has been forced to leave. That was her home for over 13 years. Can the minister inform the House as to what action, if any, he took to protect this woman from her gouging landlord, and what protection he is providing for her now?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, the member refers to a landlord at that address by the name of Hollyburn Properties. May I advise the member that, as I believe I indicated publicly, this ministry has undertaken an investigation of the activities of that company with respect to rental properties it owns, in Victoria as well as Vancouver, on the basis of a series of reports received by my office from various quarters alleging what appear to be unconscionable rent increases. I was advised by the rentalsman yesterday afternoon that that investigation and report will be concluded and on my desk sometime this week.

MR. LAUK: In the meantime there's a widow on a pension without a place to stay. I do wish the minister would take these questions seriously when they are initially asked. I'm asking him again, with respect to putting his money where his mouth is, whether he has decided to do something once the report is completed. Is he going to move on Hollyburn to set a precedent against these landlords who, as he says, are giving notice of unconscionable rent increases?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: There are two aspects to the question, Mr. Speaker. Firstly, any tenant in this province, regardless of whether it is a rent-controlled rental unit, who feels unfairly treated by a landlord has appeal provisions under the Landlord and Tenant Act: alternately, if they want to send particulars to my office, we'll look into them. In this particular case, as the member knows, the upper ceiling on rent review is $700 per month. As I understand it this particular apartment was renting for above that level. I can tell the member that presently we have under review all aspects of existing landlord and tenant and rent control provisions, including the issue of whether that $700 maximum should be increased. No decision has been taken as of today, but it is certainly being looked at.

MR. LAUK: I thank the minister for the bureaucratic answer. It's the same one that I get from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith).

[ Page 6512 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May we have a question, please.

MR. LAUK: Ministers of the Crown are supposed to lead, not just provide reviews.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LAUK: I brought this to the minister's attention, and he decided to launch an investigation into the activities of Mr. Jim Ritchie, a Victoria real estate agent who is using the loophole created in section 17(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancy Act to convert apartments ostensibly. Yesterday he gave an answer on another such project in the West End. I now hold in my hand a letter that this man is sending around....

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is using question period for debate purposes. May we have the question.

MR. LAUK: No, I'm asking the minister...setting out clearly what I alleged was happening on Barclay Street. Has the minister seen a copy of this letter?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I have not seen a copy of the letter, but as the first member for Vancouver Centre knows, being well versed in the law.... As I advised all members in this House yesterday, a hearing on that section is being held on July 7 — that's within a week. I would suggest to Mr. Ritchie, or anybody else who thinks they have spotted an alleged loophole under section 17(1)(e), that they would be well advised, as would be anybody interested in such circulars, to await the results of that hearing.

MR. LAUK: I'll provide the letter to the minister.

LITTLE MOUNTAIN
SOCIAL HOUSING PROJECT

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Can the minister assure the House that he has decided to fight for the upgrading of the Little Mountain social housing project in Vancouver?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is yes.

MS. BROWN: Will the minister assure the House that he has not decided to sell the project, either to CMHC or to private interests?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, that's a fairly ambiguous way of putting a question. It confuses me slightly, but I would have to say no, we haven't contemplated the disposal of these units of social housing to either CMHC or to the private sector.

MS. BROWN: The final reassurance I'd like from the minister, Mr. Speaker, is that the number of social housing units in the project will remain the same. In other words, we are not going to lose any of those social housing units.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, that's a fairly technical question. At the moment I would assume from my recollections that no, there will be no decrease in the number of social units there.

WCB INVESTIGATION

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In December 1980 a claims investigator for the WCB sent a report of his findings to the subject's employer, B.C. Forest Products. The company had requested an investigation into the activities of one of its employees, and WCB had complied. Can the minister confirm that it is now the policy of the WCB to conduct police investigations of British Columbia workers for the benefit of employers?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm not aware of the problem to which the member has alluded. Perhaps if she has any particular information which might be of assistance in helping me make the odd inquiry with respect to this allegation.... I'd be quite prepared to do it. In the meantime, I'll take that question as notice.

MS. SANFORD: The WCB claims investigator is Mr. B. Qually. He completed a report and submitted it to B.C. Forest Products at their request. By the way, this was subsequently used in an arbitration case. The investigating officer acted in complete contravention of section 95 of the WCB act. I am wondering if the minister is prepared to take action against Mr. Qually.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the member asking about future activity of the minister?

MS. SANFORD: Has he decided?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It's very difficult for me to give an answer to that question without, first of all, finding out what all the facts are. I appreciate that the member has pursued her duty and disclosed to the House what is alleged to be a contravention of a particular section under the act, but I think it's incumbent upon me to find out what other information might be available. I also said that I would take that question as notice.

DUMPING OF CONTAMINATED
SOIL AT TERRA NOVA LANDFILL

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Minister of Environment. Recently PCP-contaminated soil was taken from B.C. Place and dumped on the Terra Nova landfill site in Coquitlam. Would the minister advise, first of all, whether his department approved this action, and also whether he supervised the dumping?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yes to the first question and no to the second question.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like to deal with the "no" answer. Is the minister aware that the soil removed from B.C. Place and dumped at the Terra Nova landfill was dumped near a drainage ditch and is now leaching into the Fraser River?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, I'm not aware of that, but I'll take the member's information under advisement and discuss it with my staff this afternoon.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like the minister, if he would, to clarify the procedure under which approval is given for the

[ Page 6513 ]

transfer of this kind of substance. I don't know whether it quite qualifies as a toxic substance, but is there a procedure within the ministry where there is supervisory work done, or are specific instructions given when moving something like PCPs to be sure that the actual dumping at the landfill site is controlled, as well as the movement of the substance?

MR. SPEAKER: This question could provoke a very long answer. Is that what the member intends?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Perhaps if I get a minute after question period I'll be able to spend time with the member briefing him on just what the procedure is. At the present time there isn't a waste manifest transportation system in the province. It amounts to future legislation, which I would hope to introduce at the next session.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table answers to all the questions on the order paper. [Laughter.]

HON. MR. WOLFE: I have the honour to table the annual report of the British Columbia Heritage Trust for the year 1980-81. Accompanying the report is the auditor's report for the British Columbia Heritage Trust and financial statements, as at March 31, 1981. These reports are in manuscript form. The printed copy will be available in due course.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen tabled the Ministry of Health annual report, 1980.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 31, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1981

(continued)

The House in Committee on Bill 31; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Section 6 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS 16

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

On section 7.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister some questions about the necessity for this section, which is to increase the preferred stock from an authorization of $10 million to one of $600 million. My understanding is that that $600 million of preferred stock would be within the authorization that the government just received under section 6. But why the necessity of preferred stock at all? If you're going to take worthless paper and shove money into the railroad, go ahead and do it. But what difference does it make whether you're taking preferred stock or common stock? I don't quite understand the significance of the preferred stock section on a railway in which all the shares are always going to be owned by the provincial government.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid the member for Coquitlam-Moody is here asking a lot of legal advice on business that he should know.

MR. LAUK: You're ripping off the taxpayers.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, we're not ripping off the taxpayers; we're investing in the future of this great province. You're against railroads because they don't run through downtown Vancouver. You don't recognize the necessity for development in this province. A dollar generated in the north generates two in the lower mainland and is good for your constituents. You don't recognize all of that, my friend. You have tunnel vision. I

Actually, we want to buy preferred stock so we can redeem preferred stock. It's pretty hard to redeem common stock when you have a debt on the railroad. as you will see by section 7. In other words, we can buy preferred stock; then, when the surcharges come in, we can redeem our money through redemption of the preferred stock. Understand?

MR. LEGGATT: Would the minister now tell the House how the preference is to be divided with regard to the preferred stock? Is it preferred in terms of dividends? Is it preferred in terms of a specific percentage in regard to dividends on that stock, or is there a fixed percentage to be paid to the holders of that preferred stock?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No. We intend to capitalize the Anzac route through the purchase of preferred stock. Then, when the surcharge is paid back, we can redeem those preferred stocks.

MR. LEGGATT: If I understand the minister correctly, the preferred stock is a special issue to be allocated only to the funds the government is advancing with regard to the construction of the Anzac line — that's the single purpose of the preferred stock. Would that be correct?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the member is reading into the record words I did not say. I said that is the intention at the present time.

[ Page 6514 ]

MR. LEGGATT: Could the minister advise when the government anticipates being in a position to start redeeming its preferred stock in the Anzac line?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: When the coal starts moving.

MR. LEGGATT: I take it that we're looking at more than the life of this contract before the government expects to have any redemption on its preferred stock.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: With the world demand for coal I would anticipate that when additional contracts are signed, more tonnage moves on a surcharge. After 1989 the surcharge goes up. It depends on the amount of coal. As I've said before, you have to look at the entire project.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like the minister to again direct his attention, if he would, to the original question about the preferred stock; that is, whether the preferred stock is preferred in respect to common stock for purposes of redemption, or preferred in terms of interest to be paid on the investment of the government in that preferred stock. Is there some special dividend to be attached to the preferred stock, or will the redemption simply be dollar for dollar? In other words, for every dollar the taxpayer's putting into the Anzac line is he just going to get a dollar back out of the surcharge?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's the intention of the government to recover over a period of time both the capital cost and the interest.

MR. LEGGATT: How much is the interest?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I can't look into the crystal ball and tell you what the interest rates are going to be ten years from now.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I think it's fair to come to the conclusion that when or if ever that preferred stock is redeemed it's going to be dollar for dollar. You're going to be using inflated 1995 dollars if you do ever get it back. That's another indication of the kind of shrewd investment that's taking place on the Anzac line.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like to ask the minister some questions about the need for these changes under the law. As I read it, under the existing British Columbia Railway Finance Act the government seems to have all the authority it needs to guarantee. I don't know why you need these additional sections. Perhaps the minister would advise us about that.

Also there's some concern about the use of lease-backs for railcars. I don't know whether the minister has any intention to work on a lease-back deal as they do under the ferry system where they have this marvellous financial deal where the federal government loses tax money in order to keep the ferries running. I'm just wondering if the minister has that kind of thing in mind for the railcars.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd be most happy to answer the member's question in my usual clear and precise manner. I want to tell you something. There are some legal opinions that when we get moving the coal on the Anzac route, because we are moving it on to the CNR we may be entering into a contract which would bring the entire British Columbia Railway under the Canadian transport act and the Canadian Transport Commission. We want that little railroad to serve British Columbia. Do you understand what I'm saying? So there are some legal opinions floating around that it may be necessary to form a subsidiary company to be in charge of the contract to haul the coal over the Anzac line because it fits into the Canadian National. All we're doing here is making sure that we have the necessary legislation so that if we're faced with that we.could move at that time.

MR. BARRETT: The purpose of setting up a subsidiary company is to show that it makes a profit hauling coal out of Anzac while the debts are left with B.C. Rail. There's no other reason for it whatsoever. This government is claiming that they've made a profit on B.C. Rail. I heard the minister make the statement this morning. What he cutely forgot to mention is that the government gave B.C. Rail $70 million of taxpayers' money to pay the interest charges on the debt on that railroad. All that's taking place here is a device to pull out the transportation of the coal to make it appear profitable while money will be shovelled out of the taxpayers' pockets to pay the debt for which that minister can't even tell us the interest rates. You sign those contracts ahead, not ten years from now. The fact is that this is a load of massive debt. It's a device by the government to say that this little company is making profit when taxpayers will be subsidizing that to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, just as this year $70 million went out of the taxpayers' pockets to subsidize B.C. Rail.

There was no profit. It is all a fake and a cute game. Let's get that clear so we understand exactly what we're talking about. B.C. Rail was given $70 million out of general revenue funds from the taxpayers' pockets. B.C. Rail will have to be given money year after year out of the taxpayers' pockets. No matter how many subsidy companies you set up, how many dummy companies you play games with and how many bills you try to hide this debt in, the fact is you're loading hundreds of millions of dollars of debt on the people of British Columbia. And that story will be told out there, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As usual, the Leader of the Opposition is totally wrong. I want to inform you and the House again that the operations of the British Columbia Railway today are operations prior to servicing the debt which you loaded onto them — hundreds of millions of dollars when you were president of the British Columbia Railway. The railway is making a profit, because the railway is being very well run. When you've got the politics out of it and are not meddling in it like you used to do, trying to go over and run it from here, and have put in an independent board, the railway is very well run. Morale is up, car loadings are up, business is up and, indeed, profit is up. By putting some money into this railway we're trying to get rid of the debt which you allowed to stay there when you were president of the railway As I said, the purpose is to allow us — in case we become involved with the Canadian Transport Commission — to have the ability to set up a subsidiary company, so that the whole British Columbia Railway does not fall under the purview of the Canadian Transport Commission.

[ Page 6515 ]

It wasn't too long ago that the Leader of the Opposition was standing up on his soapbox in British Columbia saying that I'd cancelled out forming a separate corporation. Now he's saying I should form a separate corporation. As usual, you're all over the block, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, and I think you're just a little bit jealous that in five years we've been able to turn the operation of that railway around into a profit-making venture. When we put money into it today, it's an investment in the future of British Columbia. You didn't have the guts to put it in. You put out $35 million and you didn't know whether it was a loan or a grant. I remember when I was over there and we called it a groan, because you didn't know what you were doing.

MR. BARRETT: Did the provincial government give B.C. Rail $70 million last year to help defray interest charges? Yes or no.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's a matter of public record. The Leader of the Opposition is pretty wise in the way he's phrasing his.... We are picking up — as recommended by the royal commission — the historic debt of the railway to cover payments and interests. The Leader of the Opposition knows and understands that. I don't know why he's pleading ignorance here today.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not pleading ignorance. I'm doing nothing other than point out that this government has a device to attempt to hide debt payments. The minister has admitted that $70 million was paid from taxpayers' pockets to service the debt on B.C. Rail, and then he has the gall to tell us that the railroad — after being given the grant to pay the mortgage payment — actually made a profit. You can flimflam the people of this province all you want and you can play games all you want. Today we're debating — and 99.9 percent of the people in British Columbia will not hear about the debate — the fact that you are driving this railroad into massive debt with very little public accountability. It's $70 million. Every time people pay sales tax and property tax, part of that money is going to pay the debt on this railroad. The royal commission brought in by your government warned against this very thing. The hon. Justice McKenzie's record is clear in stating that the whole debt should be completely wiped out. Instead of that, you're going back to the old shell game again under this bill.

Let there be no mistake about it, it is the old shell game of where the shares shall go. This railway is going to issue shares to the government, the government is going to buy the shares, and that's the only money the railway gets. The government is going to allow the railroad to borrow money. Are you trying to tell the world that borrowing money is a way of putting money in the bank? Somebody has to pay the interest, and the interest is going to be paid by the taxpayers of British Columbia for year after year. Let's get it straight. Nobody is giving the railroad any money. This dead-weight debt is going to burden generations in this province.

We say that if we're going to spend a penny on northeast coal let's have some equity, not a subsidy. Let us have ownership rather than a giveaway. There is no guarantee of a repayment from those private companies or the Japanese. We put all the money up front and the Japanese convert it into yen and laugh all the way to Tokyo, while you try to explain that someday in the future — maybe, if everything is all right — we'll get our money back. You've been skinned again, and let's be up front about it; that's your philosophy. You'd rather give welfare to big companies than ask them to give us equity in our own resources. God put that coal into the ground for some husbanding with a sense of common decency and commitment to the people of this province. What are you afraid of equity for? You're the worst kind of socialist that anybody could imagine; you're giving money away to the companies with no commitment and no equity. Dumb-bell socialism is what you're practising, handing out taxpayers' money to those corporations, as if they need relief and no payment.

I say on behalf of my colleagues: if we put up a penny, let's have equity, let's have a share, let's have some ownership, not giveaways. Seventy million dollars — you admitted it. And you say to me: "Oh, well, the Leader of the Opposition is trying to twist something that's a fact." What is the fact? I asked you a simple question; a simple question is complicated to that minister. The simple question I asked him was whether $70 million of taxpayers' money was given to the railroad last year to help pay the interest on the debt. His answer was yes. It's a simple question. Will there have to be more money given next year? Yes. If this bill passes, that $70 million will climb to $100 million, $120 million and $140 million; S 140 million a year will come out of education and health budgets, out of road budgets, out of municipal budgets, because you are pouring it into one project without a cent guaranteed in return from equity. That's dumb-bell business.

You tell the seniors of this province why they can't have homemaker care; you tell the junior colleges why they've got to cut 20 faculty members and why 140 students have to go without education; you tell the blind seniors why they can't have the bus pass to transfer from bus to bus. I'll tell them what the answer is: you're pouring money down a rathole on a scheme that has no comeback to the people of British Columbia.

This debate will die and lull away, and this day will be forgotten. but the same legacy of debt, debt, debt that has been poured on by this government and by previous Socred governments will build up. The debt in British Columbia has doubled in six years under this debt-mad government over there. According to public accounts, not to Dave Barrett, the public debt has gone from $1,900 per person to $3,900 per person per year — and you're borrowing in Europe and the United States at rates of 16 and 17 percent. You're putting future generations in hock in British Columbia, and you don't have the guts to take 10 cents worth of equity out of it on behalf of the people.

Sure we're mad. You're darned right we're mad; but I'm telling you, if you think giveaway is the kind of policy the people in this province want, at least be honest about it and admit that we're not going to recover one penny under your dumb-bell policies. Let it be understood by every old-age pensioner, every person working in a factory or in a mill, and every young student that a part of their heritage is being mortgaged today in this omnibus bill that will have to be subsidized by the taxpayers. You can say anything you want; you can try and sell me a used car — you and I are old friends and long-time political opponents; I like you as a person and I think you like me — but I want to tell you that this is your gravest mistake for future generations, and it's being made on the backs of the people of British Columbia. It's debt that will make profits for the Japanese; it's a continuation of giveaway policies that I thought we had overcome long ago in this province.

[ Page 6516 ]

I'm sorry, but $70 million this year, $140 million next year, no schools, cutbacks in the hospitals, cutbacks in programs.... The Japanese are happy. It's dumb-bell business, as far as I'm concerned.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, it's not much wonder that the British Columbia Railway was going broke and incurred millions and millions of dollars in operating losses while the gentleman who just took his seat was the president. The debt that has been with the railway historically is now being paid off. That's what the bill is all about, that's what we put the money in for, that was the recommendation of the royal commission, and that's why we're passing this legislation. But the ironic part of it is, Mr. Chairman, that the member who took his seat, along with the federal leader of the socialist party, Mr. Broadbent, wants to give the resources of British Columbia and the future of British Columbians away to Ottawa 3,000 miles away. You talk about the future, my friend, and say that you and Broadbent have it. You want to give it all away to Ottawa and take away the heritage of all the young people growing up in this province; that's what you want to do.

You may be able to fool the people in the galleries, my friend, but you're not fooling me one little bit, because while you say we're putting money into the railroad, while you stand on your feet and play to the galleries and say that we're taking money out of the mouths of babes to put into the railway, you also recommend that we put hundreds of millions of dollars more into the coal mines. That's what you're recommending. You're saying there isn't enough money to put into the railroad to build the railroad and a transportation system, and out of the other side of your mouth you're saying we should put hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars more into developing the mines themselves. I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, he may be able to fool the people in the gallery, but he doesn't fool me. He talks out of both sides of his mouth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He knows that the royal commission recommended...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just a moment, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...that we....

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: First of all, it has been brought to the attention of many members, in committee and in the House, that we should refer to the Chair and maybe refer to debate of other members, but not to members in the gallery. Secondly, I'll ask the hon. member to withdraw the phrase "out of both sides of his mouth." It has been withdrawn in the past, and I find it unparliamentary. Will the minister please withdraw it?

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll certainly withdraw the phrase if it's unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARRETT: We could go on for quite a while, but there are just a few comments that need to be replaced. If you are asking me my choice of having equity versus debt, I'll take equity any time. What it really means is that you're telling the people of British Columbia that the best way to buy a house is to give it away to someone else and then have the privilege of paying the loan for giving it away. Do you want to talk about Ottawa? I'll tell you this plainly. I'd rather have the resources in the hands of the people through Ottawa than give them to Tokyo. Take your pick: Ottawa or Tokyo. If you want to put it that way, I'm a Canadian and I've got nothing against anybody in the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario or the Prairies if something is held in common for all the people of this country. I'm not ashamed of being a Canadian or embarrassed about Canada. If the Canadian government owns a resource, I as a Canadian citizen have a share of it just as much as somebody in the Maritimes. So don't give me that huffery-puffery and nonsense about Ottawa being someplace bad. It's the capital of this country. I'm a Canadian and I'm part of it and so are you.

If the minister doesn't like the federal government policies, let him belong to a federal party. He belongs to a little rump coalition that has no philosophy; it is a grab for power; it is a show-business government that says they're prepared to give away resources to be back in power. You want to bet what the slogan will be? I'll tell you what the slogan will be: "Rather Ottawa than Tokyo." You would fight for Tokyo; I'd fight for Ottawa. I'd fight for the people of British Columbia; you fight for the jobs in Japan. You take your pick. I think that's clearly understood. We're going to subsidize this railroad for jobs outside of Canada. You sold off Railwest. We'll have to buy railcars from other jurisdictions. The irony will be that we may have to buy railcars from an American railcar plant that is now using the equipment that was paid for by the taxpayers of British Columbia that you sold off at firesale prices. You've sold off our ferries and our railcar plant. You sold off our heritage.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. We must be relevant.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm being as relevant as this section hidden away in this bill. It's all a game. There's no conscience over there on the basis of piling debt on the people of this province. I'll tell you this. You've really put the issue down to an understanding nutshell. You asked me my choice: Ottawa or Tokyo. My choice is clear. I support Ottawa over Tokyo any single time, any day of the year.

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

MR. SKELLY: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. SKELLY: I'd like to introduce my brother-in-law and sister-in-law, Mr. Bill and Mrs. Lynn Shewchuck from Cranbrook. They are here with their sons John and Steven and are accompanied by my son Robbie. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

On section 12.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister some questions about this, which is really the key section in this whole series in many ways. This section provides:

[ Page 6517 ]

"The amount of the unredeemed securities issued by the company less the value, as determined by the Minister of Finance, of sinking funds for the retirement of those securities shall not exceed $1.2 billion." This in fact is an increase in the borrowing capacities of B.C. Rail. My estimate is it's by $200 million. That's the way the figures come out when I look at it.

It's the same question. Here's B.C. Rail $750 million in debt now. The taxpayers of British Columbia are feeding that company at a rate of $70 million a year. There's no profit in B.C. Rail. Let's admit that it's a public transportation system and quit playing the game that somehow it's a profit-making organization. It's not and never will be. If you gave this thing to the private sector, they'd put it out of business. They'd say: "This is a failure." It's $750 million in debt. If it was anybody but the government owning the shares, it would have wound up years ago. Why must we increase the borrowing capacity of this railroad at this time? If it isn't, they just confirm the giveaway on the Anzac line.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Because the economy of the province is indeed going ahead.... We are looking after jobs and economic development for the future so that there will be profits made so that We can tax them to provide the services that the people of this province enjoy today. That's what it's all about. Keep your economy rolling. Certainly we have to increase the borrowing until such time as we reduce the bottom end to facilitate construction of the Anzac line.

Section 12 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 17

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

Sections 13 to 17 inclusive approved.

On section 18.

MR. LORIMER: On section 18 and also section 19, what this is is a care package for the monopoly fish companies in this province. It prevents fishermen from disposing of their fish to people off docks or whatever is the way they have done over a great number of years. This provision will prevent them, without a lot of licensing and difficulty, from doing so and will basically force them to sell all their fish to B.C. Packers and the rest of them. On this side of the House we will be voting against both section 18 and section 19.

We've passed so many laws in Canada over the year. I suppose there are hundreds of laws being passed. This goes on year after year. Most of them are unnecessary. Here's a case where two of them should not be on the books of any jurisdiction. We've gone on for a hundred years without this type of legislation. The fishermen have proceeded in a normal course, and everybody seems to have been happy except the fish companies. We're coming out now and we're going to give them a little bit of help at the expense of the fisherman.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I believe the member is misstating the situation somewhat in this particular section. It does not prevent the individual fisherman from selling his own catch. We only require him to keep a record of those sales which are made. That is a licensing provision that already exists; however there is currently no requirement for record-keeping of it. From the point of view of inventory alone and of our species management in cooperation with the federal Fisheries and Oceans, we would like to have a record of what fish are sold by individual fishermen at the dock.

MR. LORIMER: I said in my remarks that it would allow them to, but it would be difficult for them to do so. That's the point. The problem will be the amount of paperwork they have to do, documents in triplicate and whatnot. It just won't happen. So it's fine to say it's allowed, but in actual fact what this is doing is barring it.

MR. LEA: I would very quickly say to the minister that to ask fishermen to keep records like that makes it obvious that the minister has never been on a fishboat. You're going to have fish all over the place, and you get a little piece of paper, and try to write down all the species with everything else going on.... It is impossible. All it is is a bunch of bureaucratic nonsense that the fishermen are not going to be able to comply with. Probably somebody in your department said: "Mr. Minister. It's a good idea." You looked at it and said: "Yes, it seems like a good idea." And here it is in the House. But it is crazy.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, this thing is simply a piece of.... It's just creating jobs — red-tape jobs, the kind we don't need in this province. We need jobs badly, but we sure don't need to create them in this manner. If this Social Credit back bench can support this kind of move, and they've let this thing slip through their screening process, is nothing Socred?

MR. MITCHELL: I would like a little clarification. Can the minister tell this House that this regulation says you cannot clean a fish, you cannot ice a fish or freeze a fish while either fishing or travelling? Is that what it says? I can see not packaging.... Well, this is what it says. Let's read what it says: "...in the definition of 'processing' by repealing paragraph (a) and substituting the following: (a) a licensed fishing vessel which, while fishing or delivering its catch, engages in eviscerating and icing, freezing or packaging on board the product of its catch...."

Does that mean you can't clean it, you can't freeze it, or ice it? Is that what you're saying they can't do? If you don't

[ Page 6518 ]

want to package it, fine. But why can't they clean it? Are you going to freeze it with everything inside them?

Section 18 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 17

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

Section 19 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 18

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

Sections 20 to 22 inclusive approved.

On section 23.

MRS. WALLACE: This is the section that deals with the tax on coloured gas. I think this section exemplifies the kind of bungling that goes on over in those government benches. Here we have an amendment to section (6)4, which isn't even in the statute books yet, because section 4 was passed through a bill in this Legislature just a few weeks ago. I think that points out the kind of bungling that goes on with that government. They don't know what they're doing when they pass a piece of legislation. Here we are amending subsection (4), and we're tacking onto it a proviso that every time a farmer or fisherman decides he wants to participate in this reduced tax rate for gasoline he has to show his permit. I suggest that this is simply bringing the bureaucracy to bear a little harder on the farmer and the fisherman.

I believe section 24 deals with the bona fide portion of this. I won't deal with that now, but I want to deal with it, because I have some very grave concerns about that. I would suggest that this is a section that could well be deleted, bringing more bureaucracy to bear on farmers and fishermen and making it more difficult for them to participate in this supposed tax reduction.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm sorry for the member for Cowichan-Malahat, who in a few words has criticized this government for having to amend legislation as it's been introduced. The fact of the matter is that the former NDP government in 1973 introduced the concept of a permit system for control purposes for coloured gasoline purchased by a bona fide farmer or commercial fisherman for use in a family farm vehicle or the family fishing vessel. That was exempted from tax in 1973, but it has since been determined that there was no legislative authority to do that. We are therefore correcting something which has gone on incorrectly since 1973. We can apologize for not catching it earlier, but it is caught now. We have the advice of legislative counsel with respect to this. It is an error. I would leave it to others to determine where the error originated.

Section 23 approved.

On section 24.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance how he is going to determine who is a bona fide farmer. Is this now to be left to regulation under the Lieutenant-Governor? This is a question no one seems to be able to decide yet. What constitutes a bona fide farmer or fisherman? I would suggest that this minister has had some problems in trying to decide just how sales tax is going to be applied in other areas relative to bona fide farmers in particular, where in fact he has been taken to court for collecting the sales tax improperly. Incidentally, he's lost that court case, and now he's involved — at least I would hope he's involved — in some refund of sales tax.

Here we have another situation where we're going to come up with a definition of bona fide farmer or fisherman. As far as I'm aware, there have been no accepted criteria as to what constitutes this. Is it someone who earns 50 percent or more of his income from farming or fishing? In the case of a farmer, is it someone who enjoys the farm assessment classification? Is it someone who has a sales-tax exemption number? How are you going to determine that, Mr. Chairman? I would suggest that trying to come up with a definition of a bona fide farmer or a bona fide fisherman and grant permits on that basis is going to cause all kinds of problems.

[ Page 6519 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, we would be guided by a number of criteria which are in place, not the least of which are Revenue Canada's; but there are other standards of measurement in place in British Columbia which permit us to determine a bona fide farmer or fisherman. The attempt here is not to make the situation more difficult for the legitimate farmer or fisherman who benefits, but rather for those who would abuse the lower tax rate on this gasoline. After discussion with officials in the consumer taxation branch of the ministry and with others, I'm satisfied that this, rather than complicating the problem, is going to offer a number of solutions. It takes the best efforts to ensure that not only the legislation is correct but also the regulations which follow, and I give the member that assurance.

Section 24 approved.

On section 25.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm saddened about the deletion of sections 24 and 26 in the Health Act. I knew it was coming. Since the Social Credit government has been in power, the health engineers have been pretty well put out of business.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Ostracized.

MR. COCKE: "Ostracized," as the minister from Columbia River says, and that's a shame. The only pollution control we had in this province was pollution control provided by the Health ministry. Pollution control provided by the Pollution Control Act in this province has been a joke — it's been a licence to pollute — and the only tough-minded people we had working for this government were the health engineers. What we find here is legislation enacting what has already occurred: the health engineers have been totally undermined. And now, of course, we see it in this act. I'm interested that the explanatory note says that the amendment eliminates an overlap of jurisdiction. Yes, indeed it does. But it's a very sad time in this province, because the Health ministry was worried about the health of the people as a result of environmental pollution. I suggest that the pollution control department has never really been worried about that; they've been worried about issuing licences to pollute.

Sections 25 to 34 inclusive approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall sections 35 to 42 pass?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, don't press it; will you do one section at a time? This is a very important bill, and if we skip a section, then we're likely to....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: If the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) likes, we'll get up and speak on every section of this bill. What's the matter with him?

Sections 35 to 43 inclusive approved.

On section 44.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, section 44 of this bill provides some concerns as far as I'm concerned, and these are that the director of a mental institution can act on behalf of a patient and can sign a form enabling that facility to provide treatment. I sincerely believe that there are some problems in this area. But I don't believe in a surprise piece of legislation like this on such a very important subject.

You know, I'm actually on 44 in the works, because I'm going to move an amendment on each one of them. The reason I'm moving the amendment is that I believe that the whole question should be discussed thoroughly and that there should be witnesses who come forward to tell us just exactly why we're doing what we're doing. I know some of the problems. Under our present legislation a person can be committed, can refuse treatment and can deny himself treatment. That's only for a 72-hour period. At the same time, I think we should think in terms of the liberties and rights of people, and so on and so forth. I think we should hear from both the people who run the institutions and the people who are advocates of those people who find themselves committed.

I therefore move that section 44 of Bill 31 be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and Human Resources. The reasoning behind the amendment is as follows: if the committee....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the amendment is out of order. The committee cannot refer to another committee. It can simply accept or defeat or in some way properly amend the bill. But this is not an amendment, and I so rule.

MR. COCKE: I had little doubt in my mind that that amendment would be ruled out of order. However, I am making a point. The point is that I believe that this is the kind of legislation that should very well be referred to experts other than those who give us guidance with respect to this kind of legislation. The people we hear from — that is the people the ministry hears from — are people who are more or less committed to the facilities and to the process. I really believe that there should be an advocacy group, or a number of such groups, heard from in this kind of legislation. I would like to hear from the minister as to how he feels about this.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I don't disagree with the member for New Westminster that there are many people involved in this who should be heard from, and I can assure him that many have been heard from. The amendment to section 81(a) is to make consistent a practice which is permitted under section 20 of the act now, by bringing in sections 23, 24, 25 or 25(1) to clarify the authorities of the director. It makes the act consistent within itself. The question the member brings forward is much broader than what this specific amendment is attempting to do.

MR. COCKE: That's quite right. The director has been given this kind of a carte blanche. Whether it was inconsistent or not before, the fact is that it worries a great many people. We've had very little time to discuss this with anybody. I think that the Chairman will agree that this kind of last-minute legislation is the sort of thing that should be thought about very carefully in the future. There are important changes all down the line — sections 45, 46, 47, etc. — and that's my reasoning for suggesting that this should not be something that is glossed over quickly. The minister says

[ Page 6520 ]

we've had lots of input. From where? You didn't have any input from the opposition until we had a bill given to us three days ago. Now suddenly it's before us for debate in committee. It's a very worrisome thing. Yes, we're going to have to go out, during the time that we're out of session, and find out from different groups just how this question is going to affect people.

Section 44 approved.

On section 45.

MR. COCKE: I have exactly the same arguments on section 45, Mr. Chairman. I won't move my resolution. I think you know that I have a whole sheaf of them here, but there is no point in wasting the time of the committee. But I suggest that that also should be brought before the standing committee and discussed in a public way so that people have input before we're given this treatment. There is room in our society for a White Paper. The last White Paper I can remember coming from that side was some time ago, but these are the kinds of things I believe should have public discussion.

Section 45 approved.

On section 46.

MR. COCKE: The same exactly.

Section 46 approved.

On section 47.

MS. BROWN: I certainly support the recommendation made by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) about referring this whole idea to a legislative committee. For example, in section 47 we find that this psychiatric examination and treatment, which is recommended under sections 44 to 47, should not apply when a person is in a child-care resource as defined under the Family and Child Service Act. A child-care resource as defined under the Family and Child Service Act also includes a diagnostic centre, a centre established for the treatment, training and rehabilitation of children, as well as community-sponsored homes and group living homes. If, in fact, this psychiatric treatment is indicated under sections 23 and 24 of the Mental Health Act, why has a decision been made to exclude young people who may be in a diagnostic centre or in an establishment for the treatment, training and rehabilitation of young people or in a group home? There are a number of young adolescents who come into contact with the law, for one reason or another, who, it is indicated, need psychiatric care and can get this on a day basis. It's not necessary for them to be in a containment centre, which is defined in the Correction Act as a jail, a prison, a lockup or a place of imprisonment. Why has a decision been made not to include these young people if they happen to be living in a diagnostic treatment centre, a group home, a community-sponsored home, or in a centre which is committed to their treatment, training and rehabilitation? Maybe the minister could respond to that question.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I've been trying to follow the member's question. I must admit it is not clear in my mind what that question is. The member referred to the child-care resource as defined in the Family and Child Service Act. The amendment strikes out "any jail or lockup in the province established under any act, or in any child-care resource as defined in the Family and Child Service Act," and it substitutes "a correctional centre or youth containment centre under the Correction Act or a prison or lockup operated by a police force." As the explanatory note says, that deletes the reference to child-care resources, but this is a change in language.

I'm sorry, I just didn't quite follow what the question was, and I'm mildly confused.

MS. BROWN: What I'm trying to explain is that a childcare resource as defined under the Family and Child Service Act also includes a diagnostic centre or a place for treatment, training and rehabilitation of children, as well as group homes or community-sponsored homes. It is sometimes possible for children living in these centres to need psychiatric treatment as defined by sections 23 and 24 of the Mental Health Act. Why was a decision made to eliminate that?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm advised that those youngsters can still receive the treatment, but not necessarily under the involuntary section of the act.

MS. BROWN: Now that doesn't make any sense. Maybe they could explain it to you some more.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm advised that that is not to deny treatment to those people whom you identified. It would still be available to them. But they would not be coming from some of these institutions as previously defined. I'm advised that these youngsters whom you've identified would still have treatment available to them.

Sections 47 to 53 inclusive approved.

On section 54.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have just one question for the minister on these sections dealing with the Motor Vehicle Act. By the way, this section increases the penalty on damages before you have to file a damage report from $200 to $400. But the minister has made it retroactive to January 1. I wondered why and how the minister intends to collect on this section.

HON. MR. FRASER: First of all, this amendment is in here to deal with inflation and cut down on paper work, hopefully. I can't explain why, other than the fact that they want to get the thing in order from January 1, I guess — the retroactive part of it. But the basic amendment is here to deal with inflation, and try to and cut down on paper work.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister didn't answer my question. I understand the reason for the amendment and agree with it. But I wondered how the minister intends to collect retroactively the damage reports that have already been filed.

Section 54 approved.

On section 55.

[ Page 6521 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Section 55 once again deals with the Motor Vehicle Act, and penalties imposed on drivers who are under suspension. What I wish to question the minister about in this section is this: the section seems to remove the court's discretion to grant a conditional discharge, and requires a prison sentence for a first conviction. The second question is: when this section comes into force, and because it's not mentioned in the commencement section, when does the minister expect that this section will come into force?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm not clear which section the member refers to in the first part of his remarks. But to answer the second part, all sections of this legislation will come into effect on royal assent.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The question I asked concerns the fact that the section removes the court's discretion to grant a conditional discharge to drivers. I was wondering for what reason, if any, the ministry felt that they should be taking away the court's discretion in this regard.

HON. MR. FRASER: Which section are you referring to under section 55?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Section 55 deals with a number of items. I don't have the specific area in the section, but what it does — just for the record — is remove the discretion of the court to grant a conditional discharge under section 54. That's what it appears to do, and I wondered why.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm advised that there still can be an option of the court.

Sections 55 to 57 inclusive approved.

On section 58.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It seems to me there is quite a serious action taking place under this section. It deals with penalties in relation to drivers who are suspended. There are a great many every year. For people who didn't pay their penalty points there were approximately 11,000 suspensions issued every year through ICBC alone — never mind other offences. I believe there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40,000 suspensions per year. The point I'm making here, and about which I propose to move an amendment, is that the possibility exists of an accused being convicted without having received notice and without being able to call witnesses or the officer who served the notice. In effect, we know that many people move, they change jobs and localities, and there are mail strikes. For whatever reason, we know that there are many people every year who do not officially receive notice of their driver's licence being suspended. Yet under section 58 of the act, the proposed section 94 really means that the person is unwittingly subjecting himself to a minimum of seven days in jail and up to a $2,000 fine if caught while his licence is under suspension; they wouldn't even know about it. One of the things that the minister might consider is that three people could at least be notified by registered mail. At the present time they'd have to be. In this way they would know if they were driving under a suspension or not.

In any event, what I'm going to propose is an amendment which deletes subsection 3.

On the amendment to section 58.

HON. MR. FRASER: The amendment would delete what the government is trying to achieve. We're opposed to it, but I think that the committee should know that we are going to take stronger measures to deal with people who already have a serious offence which has suspended driving. What is happening here in our province is that at the present time we have 52,000 suspended drivers. We cannot, of course, say they're all driving at any one time, but they certainly are. We have no way under the present set-up other than to give them a ticket for more points. That's my understanding.

This is all part of trying to deal with a very serious situation in our province related to high-point drivers. The causes of the suspensions are for impaired driving or dangerous driving and speeding. What we're trying to do here is to get them out of the road system. In 1980 the total fatalities in our province were 811. In 1979 there were 740. In 1978 there were 636. So there is a definite increase every year in fatals, damage claims and injuries. The pattern stays the same with injuries. In 1978 there were 32,000 citizens injured; there were 37,000 in 1979; it jumped to 41,500 in 1980. I would say that it is continuing into 1981. From January to March this year we have had 165 fatalities. So the proportionate increase is continuing out there on the road system.

Licence suspension is a significant deterrent to the average driver. If it is not enforced by heavy penalties for driving under suspension — I repeat, that is after they've had their drivers' licences suspended — it will not be effective. We have had the task force tell us that. It showed up in a long study on it. Other statistics also showed up. These drivers are the ones that cause a great proportion of our accidents. These drivers seem to have an influence on the other drivers.

Dealing with the concept of expecting a driver to know of his suspension, it's in the present act. The notification of suspension is by certified mail. When the person signs for the letter, the sheriff's service is advised; in court it's by the suspension or the driver knows on conviction. As an example, with impaired driving they know, or should know, that it's mandatory suspension.

Therefore I reject the amendment. We don't want to hide anything. We definitely are stepping up the penalty provision for suspended drivers.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I appreciate the minister's response, but the point I’m attempting to make here, and which the minister really didn't address himself to, is that there is a method by which people are notified by ordinary mail of suspensions some way or another, and some people are unaware that they've been suspended. section 58(3) says:"...creates an absolute liability offence in which guilt is established by proof of driving, whether or not the defendant knew of the suspension." The point I'm attempting to make, Mr. Chairman, is that in my view that's a denial of natural justice.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully to the minister, because I have very great sympathy for what the minister is attempting to do. The minister addressed and defended his legislation to a certain extent. He certainly addressed half of the member for Mackenzie's (Mr. Lockstead's) amendment, because this particular subsection (3) —

[ Page 6522 ]

and the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) will, I am sure, correct me if I'm wrong — seeks to do two things.

First of all it says that absolute guilt is established by simply driving the vehicle. You can't get out of it by any fancy arguments by any high-priced group of lawyers. If you're in the car and you're driving, that is guilt; you've had it — guilt, period. No "no, it wasn't me, it was my brother, it was anybody else." That's guilt.

The second thing it says in this section is that it doesn't matter whether you knew or whether you didn't know that you were suspended, you're still guilty. It's the second part that the member for Mackenzie is upset about. He's saying, just as the member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and everybody in this House is saying, that we want to get tough with the people that the minister wants to get tough with; so do 1, and so does everybody else out there. We want to see the repeaters caught. But just on the grounds of some false economy, or just because the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) may not want to send some policeman around or ICBC don't want to do some extra work, I don't want to see some people in jail because they don't know that they've been suspended.

The amendment simply would remove "...whether or not the defendant knew of the suspension." I just don't see how we can pass legislation when the so-called accused hasn't got the information to know that he's doing wrong. I think that is changing what traditionally has been the kind of law that we've been passing in parliaments for many years. Now there may be another explanation that has completely eluded us. If there is another explanation, then perhaps someone on the other side can tell us. But I can't see it; subsection (3), to the best of our ability, indicates two things: one is that proof of driving establishes the guilt; the second thing is that it doesn't matter whether the defendant knows whether he was suspended or not.

HON. MR.GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, just for the interest of the two members who were discussing this particular section, I could commend them to take a look at sections 82 and 92 of the Motor Vehicle Act. They will determine that this is dealing with court-ordered suspensions; it does not deal with the failure to pay insurance premiums and so forth. The words that were complained of by the hon. member across the way — "whether or not the defendant knew of the suspension" — are just a rearticulation of the existing law set forth under section 92(10) of the Motor Vehicle Act, which reads: "Subsection (9) creates an absolute liability offence in which guilt is established by proof of driving, whether or not the defendant knew of the suspension." So we're not developing new law in the procedure here at all; it's a rearticulation of the existing law and deals with all of the much more serious driving offences — only the very serious driving offences.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 28

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

Sections 58 to 67 inclusive approved.

On section 68.

MR. BARBER: Some 100 residents of Saltspring Island came to the capital yesterday. They made a simple request of the government. They asked the Social Credit Party to withdraw this section of the bill — specifically that which affects their interests on Saltspring Island — pending the outcome of two processes: (1) the unimpaired outcome of the court judgment, and (2) the unimpaired decision of the people of Saltspring Island to be taken by referendum to determine whether or not they wish to construct a sewer service at Ganges. These were simple, fair and reasonable requests put to the government yesterday afternoon by the people of Saltspring Island.

My first question today is to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who is also the MLA for Saanich and the Islands. I ask him whether or not he is prepared, on behalf of his own constituents, to accede to their request for a referendum in the traditional and democratic way on Saltspring Island, and accede specifically to their request to withdraw this part of section 68 which is before us now.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member should know that while I serve as a member of a constitutuency and can speak on this with the Chair's permission, this section and others in this particular part of the bill are in the charge of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm).

MR. BARBER: As the House knows, every member is entitled to speak on any section of any bill. That includes the member for Saanich and the Islands, who just declined the invitation which I now extend a second time. Will you commit yourself on behalf of the government? Will you stand up on behalf of your constituents, Mr. MLA for Saanich and the Islands, and will you announce at this time a decision by your government upon the request of your own constituents to withdraw that part of section 68 which specifically affects the residents of Saltspring Island and Ganges? The member for Saanich and the Islands is entitled to speak by virtue of his position in cabinet. He most certainly has the political authority to speak. I ask him to speak and to use that authority on behalf of his own constituents in Saanich.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can recall the words of the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) when he said a little earlier this afternoon: "A minister certainly has

[ Page 6523 ]

the responsibility to take the lead in particular situations." I think we have an example here of where the minister needs to take the lead. I'm sure the member for Victoria would agree with his colleague for Vancouver Centre that the statement he made earlier certainly has merit. There are many times when a minister must take the lead when certain actions are required.

We do have a situation on Saltspring Island where there is obviously a split. I'm aware of this, as I'm sure many members are, but me particularly perhaps, because I've received delegations and many letters from both sides. I suppose it might be argued that the situation on Saltspring is not unlike, and is perhaps best demonstrated by, the split between the two Islands Trust members, where one seems to be in support of and the other appears to be opposed to. So the split may well be 50-50. I don't know what the split is and, as you say, if there was a vote it could be that a more clear split might be established. However, we know that there is a problem. I'm sure that the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) would agree, because he is close enough to it and perhaps has been there and has spoken to various people involved.

There is a pollution problem in Ganges. It's one that needs to be addressed, one way or another, at some time. It may be delayed, but I'll agree that sooner or later that problem needs to be addressed. That point has been made by the health authorities, by the pollution control board and over again by the hospital board and by the members of the school board. I'm guessing these are all very responsible people, and they are obviously very aware of what's happening there. That's not to say that everyone in Ganges or on Saltspring necessarily agrees with all of these local people, but certainly there are many who are aware of the problem, and they know it needs to be addressed.

There has been money spent and work done. We know that whether the project proceeds or not it could well be, because of very generous provincial sharing, that it might cost more for the residents of Ganges to drop the bylaw and not have the sewer system proceed than to have it go ahead. If they proceed they'll only be charged a levy at the equivalent of 2 1/2 mills, and the mill rate on Saltspring, relative to everywhere else, certainly is low. So it could be that it may be cheaper for them to pay the 2 1/2 mills and get the sewer than not to proceed and to be burdened with the cost of the moneys that have already been spent. It wasn't necessarily their decision that those moneys be spent, but certainly the system where the regional board makes decisions on behalf of a regional district is such that they're obviously burdened with those costs. You can argue whether that is fair or not. It may be that perhaps the whole of the regional concept ought to be addressed, but I don't want to get into that debate. The fact remains that there is already a substantial cost on the area. If they proceed, the cost to the individual ratepayers will be relatively little compared to many other parts of the province, and compared to areas that are incorporated now, where there is development taking place and where they must provide for people, industry and commerce. Compared to all of those areas, the cost is very low.

One of the reasons that the cost is particularly low is because we did, for a time — only two years.... It was short-lived, granted, but there was a federal program which allotted us a sum of money which we could distribute to communities where there was a sewer installation with high costs. This particular sewer installation was fairly hefty in cost, but became more so when a decision was made — probably a very good one — that was going to cost a lot of money: to extend the outfall much further still, in order to assure all of the experts that there wouldn't be the pollution problem that some of the people had complained about. So that decision was made. The cost went up, and we then agreed that a large portion of the funds would be paid from these community grant programs. Those community grant programs will not be available after February of next year. If a decision were not made to proceed with that sewer project, or if a decision were not made right now, or if we did not know now that we could proceed, we would immediately need to make a decision to divert those moneys elsewhere.

I think in fairness to the people of Saltspring Island — certainly those who are very supportive of the project, and that's not everybody — those moneys should rightly go to this project. When you take the lead, as the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) said earlier, it's not always a popular thing, and it's not always what everyone agrees to. But a decision needs to be made in order that we might proceed and see that community receive a service which it desperately needs and which will see it develop orderly and beautifully as a fine part of the Islands Trust area.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Municipal Affairs misses the point and makes a few other points that are completely irrelevant. He wants to have it both ways. When it serves his political purposes, he blames regional districts for everything that goes wrong with planning in British Columbia. When he can credit regional districts, as in this particular instance, and grant them the authority to make a particular decision, he then has it the other way. Neither way is highly principled, to say the least; each way, however, well illustrates the traditional tendency of Social Credit to overrule the possibility of granting the free expression of opinion, through a referendum, by the residents of Saltspring Island. I don't know whether or not a sewer system is required there, because I'm not a health inspector and I'm not in a position to recommend — and neither is the minister. I don't know how the people on Saltspring Island would vote if they were granted a referendum and neither does the minister. But I do know this, and apparently Social Credit doesn't: it is the right of people to decide these things freely and democratically by referendum, and Social Credit has denied them that right.

It is typical of Social Credit to deny people democratic rights. It's part of the tradition of the injury they do to democracy in this province. However, it is not acceptable to the hundreds of people on Saltspring from whom I have heard by petition, by correspondence, by attendance at public meetings that I've been at, by phone calls and most recently by their presence yesterday on the steps of the Capitol. The residents of Saltspring make a simple request. They ask this government and in particular their own MLA to guarantee them the right to choose by referendum. This right is not a novelty, Mr. Chairman. It is not a new feature of public policy. It is, in fact, a traditional and a reasoned approach to the construction of public works like sewers. What has Social Credit done? By the personal refusal of the member for Saanich and the Islands and the Minister of Finance, who are one in the same, Social Credit has denied the residents of Saltspring that freedom of choice.

I spoke on the steps of the Capitol yesterday to those residents. I said that I was personally not competent to tell them whether or not we need a sewer system there. I don't

[ Page 6524 ]

have those qualifications. However, I'm competent to speak in favour of a high democratic principle which says that the residents of Saltspring must have the right to choose freely and openly. They've been denied that right so far. They are denied that right today, specifically by their own MLA, Mr. Curtis, and by the provisions of this amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please, we do have parliamentary rules here. I'm sure the member is quite aware of them. We do not refer to a member by his common name.

MR. BARBER: Fair enough, Mr. Chairman. By their own MLA, the member for Saanich and the Islands.

I don't know what Social Credit has to be afraid of here. Are they afraid of the free outcome of a free vote of the residents of Saltspring? If so, whose interests are they protecting? If they're afraid of a free vote, upon whose behalf do they fear a legitimate and democratic statement by the people of Saltspring as to whether or not they wish to have a sewer system? If Social Credit is not afraid of a free vote on Saltspring, whose interests are they then representing? Well, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) — because it now suits his purpose — tells us he's representing the interests of the Capital Regional District. Ordinarily this minister is hardly the champion of regional districts. On the contrary, he ridicules them and undermines their political stature in this province at every opportunity. The Minister of Municipal Affairs can barely keep his face straight when he tells us that he's defending the Capital Regional District in this instance, because he knows we know what he says about them behind their backs, and we know what he says about regional districts generally across this province. But I won't say the word — hypocrisy.

I do observe, though, that it is a wrong thing for the member for Saanich and the Islands to deny his own constituents the freedom to choose in a democratic vote in this instance. I do observe that the official opposition has asked him twice — and I do so now again a third time — to withdraw that section of this amendment and to thereby commit his government to a new and democratic course. I ask the member for Saanich and the Islands to trust the people of Saltspring Island to make a sound decision themselves. I ask him: what's wrong with such a policy and why does Social Credit reject it?

The Minister of Municipal Affairs says there's contrary and split opinion on the issue. There no doubt is. When I spoke on the steps of the Capitol I told the residents: "If we manage to obtain a referendum and a free vote for you, you might lose. Are you prepared to be bound by that?" Most of them said yes. As far as I'm concerned, they must be. If the opponents of a sewer system on Saltspring lose in a popular vote in a referendum, that's the end of the battle as far as we're concerned. They have no further recourse. The referendum — the will of the people — is the final will to be exercised and the final choice to be made.

From a medical point of view, I don't know whether or not it's required — and neither does any member of the government opposite, I would argue But I do know that the people of Saltspring have not been freely and democratically consulted by referendum. I do know that by the continuing refusal of the member for Saanich and the Islands, who most certainly has the political clout to pull this section of the bill, that popular will and its expression — no matter which way it goes — will continue to be frustrated by Social Credit. I think that is not in the interests of the people of Saltspring Island.

This section 68 is defective in law. It asks us to simultaneously amend provisions of the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act that affect the regional district of Nanaimo, the city of Prince George, the Local Services Act subsidiarily, the residents of Ganges and Saltspring Island, and the city of Port Moody. It does all of that in section 68. This is defective procedure. If you turn back — and I'll refer to it only briefly — to when the government decided to amend the Mental Health Act, they did not bring in only section 44; they brought in several separate sections. In today's bill we see the Mental Health Act amended by sections 44 to 49. When they amended the Mental Health Act they brought in several separate sections and allowed the opposition and the people a chance to debate each section individually. When they bring in section 68, the amendment to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act, they put it all under one cover. You have to ask why. You have to ask why the Minister of Finance in particular would find it in his interest to require us in this case to vote simultaneously on the issues that affect the people of Nanaimo, Port Moody, Prince George and Saltspring Island. To ask us to do so is to ask us to do a wrong thing.

It may be typical of Social Credit bungling — that could be argued — but it's not even typical of this bill. I again refer you to the fact that the Municipal Act is amended under several separate sections, starting at section 44, through to section 49. However, in this case section 68 alone has the effect of amending the letters patent, of manipulating the legitimate outcome of a court decision — if you read the bill, it makes it very clear what Social Credit's intentions are — and requires us to vote in one moment on several separate and absolutely distinct items. This is defective law-making and defective policy, and Social Credit has no business doing it. Nonetheless, what is primarily defective is the commitment of the Minister of Finance, who is also the MLA for Saanich and the Islands, to allow the residents of his own constituency to have a free vote, through a popular public referendum. That is fundamentally defective.

Let me state this for the last time, Mr. Chairman: if Social Credit has nothing to fear from the outcome of a referendum, let them hold it and be bound by the results. I believe that the residents of Saltspring are prepared to be bound by the results, pro or con, The official opposition takes no position pro or con, because we're not health inspectors or doctors, and we don't know about that, but we do know something about constitutional law, and we know quite a lot about democracy. We know simply this: there is nothing wrong with a referendum as an expression of popular opinion; there's nothing wrong with allowing the people of Saltspring Island to decide this issue by themselves through referendum, as traditionally the people of British Columbia have been granted that right for year upon year. If Social Credit is not afraid of the outcome of a referendum on Saltspring, why do they deny such a referendum to those people?

MR. SKELLY: I was hoping that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) or possibly the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) — since he's been spearheading this section of the act — would answer those questions.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs says there's a split in the community on Saltspring Island. That's quite true. The efforts of the government and of the Minister of Finance to get this sewer system through, regardless of the wishes of the people in that area, have accentuated this split and have

[ Page 6525 ]

caused serious problems in Ganges. It's your efforts that have caused this split and this problem. How do you resolve such a split in a community? What is the final way that a democratic government can resolve that problem? Simply by submitting the question to the electorate, as they should have done in the first place. That is how you resolve such a split in a community. You don't take it to the Legislature. You don't ask 57 people who represent diverse areas of the province to vote on a situation that they know very little about — located on one of the Gulf Islands. Very few members of this House have paid close personal attention to it, but the Minister of Finance knows all about it.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs also said there was a serious pollution problem taking place in Ganges. Well, the simple facts from regional district studies are that, regardless of how this sewerage system is going to be built, there will continue to be a pollution problem. It's just a matter of where you have the pollution, whether in Ganges harbour or close to the shoreline in Ganges harbour or whether you move it farther out from Ganges harbour. That's the only question that the Pollution Control Board dealt with when they dealt with this issue some time ago. So the pollution problem will persist. It's simply a matter of where the pollution is going to be isolated or sent away to. We're still going to have that pollution problem.

The biggest red herring of all that the minister dragged across the path of this legislation is that we've already spent this money; we've already spent a great deal of money to ram this sewer system down the throats of people on Saltspring Island without consulting them by way of a referendum. That is no argument at all.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

Whether too much taxpayers' money has been spent is another question that should not be resolved by people in this legislative assembly but by the taxpayers themselves, who are given that right under the Municipal Act. To date, every effort that's been made by the Minister of Finance, the MLA for Saanich and the Islands, has been to deprive the people in that area of the right to vote as to whether they should spend that money on a sewer system or not. Time after time he has been attempting to deprive his own constituents of the right to vote whether or not they want to spend that money. That's the reason this issue hasn't been submitted to a referendum in the area. The Minister of Finance knows it and knows why.

There have been other examples where it has been a bitter decision on the part of government and leadership, even though they've spent a great deal of money, to stop a project in its tracks and look at the alternatives. The Spadina expressway in Toronto is a classic example for Canadians. The Skagit nuclear plant is one that the Minister of Municipal Affairs should be aware of. Millions of dollars were spent on that project in the United States, and he was one of the people who stood up and demanded that the project be stopped. He didn't say: "They've already spent a few million dollars; they should proceed with the project." He said: "It should be stopped dead in its tracks." That was a better expenditure of public money than kicking a lot of good money after bad as we're doing in the case of the Ganges sewer system. There was the Austrian referendum on nuclear power. They had plants in Austria that were ready to produce and had already been fuelled up. Billions of dollars had been spent on those projects. The government had decided it was safe, their experts had decided it was safe, the government said it was better to start up these projects no matter how safe or unsafe they were; but to give them credit, at least that government — the government of Bruno Kreisky — submitted that issue to a referendum of the people of Austria. It passed by 51 percent to shut down the nuclear plants even though billions had been spent on them.

The people are the ones who have the right to decide in a democracy, and that's who the question should be submitted to. The people have the right to decide whether money has been wasted to this point. The people who have the right to decide are the electors of Ganges and Saltspring Island. For the minister to come into this House and say what we're doing here is to make sure we haven't wasted the tens of thousands we've spent already is a total red herring. What the government and the Minister of Finance are doing here is attempting to ram a sewer system down the throats of the people on Saltspring Island in the Ganges area — to force them to accept that sewer system whether they want it or not, because they haven't had an opportunity to be adequately consulted. Why are we doing it? Why is the Minister of Finance making such an issue? Why is the MLA for Saanich and the Islands pushing this issue? Why does he want this sewer system?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'd like to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) three questions. Will the minister.indicate what property-owners in the core area of Ganges will profit by the increased land development opportunities presented by this sewer system? Will the minister detail how many thousands of dollars Mr. Tom Toynbee, personal friend and supporter of the Minister of Finance, who assisted him in the liquidation of B.C. Housing Corporation and was recently appointed chairman of B.C. Buildings Corporation, stands to gain from the increased development potential of his property in the core of Ganges? Will the minister explain how many thousands of dollars James Richardson, former Liberal cabinet minister — one of whose companies, Jarco, owns several lots in the core of Ganges — stands to gain from the increased development potential of his property as a result of the construction of this sewer system? How many owners of property in the core of Ganges who are supporters of the MLA for Saanich and Islands stand to benefit substantially in a significant way from the construction of this sewer system? How much do those people stand to gain at the expense of other citizens of Ganges who are opposed to this sewer system?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased that those questions were asked, because I think it again establishes the real concern of the NDP. It's not so much whether there ought to a sewer system. That's not their concern. As mentioned by the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), he really doesn't know whether there should be a sewer system or not. Perhaps that's not too important to him. He doesn't appear to care that much about that particular question. The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) says that we're pushing this sewer system down the throats of the people on Saltspring Island. He forgets to mention that in fact the provincial government — our treasury, the people's money from all over the province — will pay a good 75 percent of the bill. If we were so concerned about cutting

[ Page 6526 ]

costs or whatever, perhaps we wouldn't proceed. We would follow the route suggested by the member and simply forget about Saltspring — forget that it's there, not spend the money. But no, we didn't take that option. We had a responsibility to do what's right.

The truth came out in the questions asked by the member for Alberni. What the NDP is really concerned about is that somebody might benefit in some way from the installation of a sewer system, that small business — because there's no big business on Saltspring — might in some way profit from a new service that the island needs desperately. That would be too bad if some small business person benefited from a service for which they will pay a large portion of the taxes, compared to the total taxes paid by the islanders. I don't know how many people will benefit. I have not actually gone around the island and made a count of those who own properties or what properties they own. I've never talked to Mr. Toynbee or Mr. Richardson. They have not come to me and said: "You must proceed with this sewer system. We need this sewer system. Get on with this sewer system." I have not been lobbied by those gentlemen. If I have talked to them on some occasion, it was not to do with this. I don't recall it. They have not lobbied this ministry or this minister.

I hope that their businesses will somehow prosper. I hope that the community will develop more beautifully and that Ganges might be a cleaner, prettier, more attractive and healthier area for the people, for the children, for those seeking employment, for all the people depending on a good economy. Certainly I hope that, and I think that's where we differ from the NDP. I don't mind admitting that I would like to see all the people do well in Ganges and everywhere else. If somehow this helps them, more power to them, more power to the economy of British Columbia, more power to the future for all of us.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Municipal Affairs said that the truth finally came out in my questions, and I'm sure it did. But the truth sure as heck didn't come out in his answers. The minister simply laid a number of new red herrings across the path of this issue. He said he doesn't know how many people on Saltspring Island support this sewer program. Mr. Chairman, there is one way to find out, and that's to conduct a referendum into the issue. If we believe in democracy in this Legislature, isn't that what it's all about — to give people in those outlying areas the right to make their own decisions as to whether they want a sewer system or not? That's what democracy is all about. He said 75 percent of the money is going to come from this Legislature — from this provincial government. That is not true. Every nickel that this Legislature spends comes from the people of this province, and we should be consulting those people before we spend their money on anything. Remember the statements that we heard all around the province from that now-silent Premier: "Not a dime without debate." Here the minister is saying that since we in this Legislature allocate 75 percent of the funds, we have the right to put in a sewer system wherever we want, no matter who wants it or doesn't, and he hasn't seen fit to find out whether they support it or not. That's as undemocratic as you can get: spending people's money without consulting them. There were revolutions fought over that in the United States a few years ago, Mr. Chairman.

It's another red herring. He said that the NDP is against small business. Well, again, the minister doesn't know one way or the other. James Richardson, of Richardson Securities, definitely isn't a small businessman, or the Minister of Finance wouldn't have him pushing bonds for this government in Europe and the United States and around the world.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the committee to come to order and the member to relate to section 68.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Municipal Affairs doesn't know how many small businesses are for or against this sewer system, because he's never taken the trouble to conduct a referendum in the area to test the owners and electors in the area, to find out what their wishes are on a sewer system in Ganges. So he doesn't know whether what I'm saying is against small business or in favour of small business, or whatever, because my indication is that many of those people in the Ganges area — small businessmen and otherwise — are absolutely opposed to this sewer system.

Let me outline for you a chronology of how the demands for this sewer system came about, because this is a final attempt on the part of government — the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Capital Regional District administration and the personal friends of the Minister of Finance — to ram this sewer system down the throats of the people of Ganges without their permission and their vote, and without testing how they feel about this sewer system.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: The minister says that 75 percent of the funds will come from government, but connection fees will be paid by every resident on Saltspring Island, taxes will be paid by residents on Saltspring Island to pay for the operating system, and every resident of this province will pay for the pollution that is caused in the outer Ganges harbour area as a result of the design of this system.

Let's go back to the first effort of this government and their friends and the Minister of Finance to get this system developed on Saltspring Island. In July of 1977 the Capital Regional District circulated a petition under sections 591 and 592 of the Municipal Act. The result of the circulation of that petition for about three months resulted in 25 to 30 letters from citizens of the area, accusing the capital region and their employees of harassment, intimidation and threats against those who refused to sign the petition. When the petition was finally in and certified by the administrator of the regional district, there were accusations against the administrator that names on the petition had been forged, that certain votes recorded in favour of the sewer system were not legal votes under section 591 and 592 of the Municipal Act.

In spite of those allegations by a large number of people from Saltspring Island and Ganges that the petition itself contained forgeries and illegal votes, the administrator of the Capital Regional District certified it as correct and acceptable, and confirmed that it had received the required number of names — 66 2/3 percent of the owner-electors of the area. But in fact after the petition was challenged, it was found that only 47.3 percent of the electors had agreed to it legally, and the final summary of votes indicated that an insufficient number — 58 percent — had petitioned in favour of the sewer system. But when that petition was challenged, what did the Minister of Finance, the Capital Regional District and the

[ Page 6527 ]

personal friends of the minister do when they found out that the petition was defective and illegal and that it contained forgeries and illegal votes? Did they say they would not go by way of petition, challenge the administrator of the regional district to go a different way, find another way to bypass the rights of the citizens and the owner-electors of Ganges, find another way to get around a referendum, and find another way to sabotage the democratic rights of the citizens of the Ganges area?

On January 11 members of the capital regional board requested — at the suggestion of the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, the MLA for Saanich and the Islands (Mon. Mr. Curtis) — an order from the director of pollution control instructing the CRD to build the Ganges sewer system, whether the citizens of Ganges wanted it or not. Six days after the letter by the administrator of the capital region to the director of pollution control, the order was issued. It was a setup to bypass the wishes of the people of Ganges; it was a setup to bypass a democratic vote of the people of Saltspring Island. The director of pollution control issued the order within six days. He also indicated in his order that, as a result of this order, the citizens of Ganges were not entitled to a vote of the owner-electors pursuant to section 253(1) of the Municipal Act.

I'll just wait while the Premier is taking leave of the House, Mr. Chairman.

I should say that pursuant to the order of the director of pollution control, cabinet passed supplementary letters patent for the regional district, saying that pursuant to this order they could build the sewer system and could levy the cost of that sewer system from the owner-electors of the Ganges area, whether they wanted it or not, without a vote.

The concerned citizens of Ganges and Saltspring Island went to court on this issue. Judge Gould, who heard the case in March of this year, had the following to say about it: "This device — that is, obtaining an order from the director of pollution control — might be described by the word 'tricky'. The officials involved were, so to speak, caught in the embarrassment of the vote by the owner-electors having failed. They obviously believed, and to this day believe, that this is the way around it. The interesting question is: is it?" So the judge, Mr. Justice Gould, struck down the order of the director of pollution control and said it was ultra vires the director of pollution control and the Pollution Control Act.

Having failed in that effort to bypass a democratic vote on the Ganges sewer system on Saltspring Island, what did the regional district do? Did they say: "Well, we failed this time, and we failed last time. Now let's go to the people and consult with the people to find out if they want a sewer system or not. Let's not waste any more money on court action, let's not waste any more money on supplementary letters patent, and let's not waste any further money trying to ram this issue down the throats of the people of the area whether they like it or not"? Is that what the Capital Regional District board, the minister and the friends of the minister, who stand to profit from this legislation, said? No. They said there was another way around a free democratic vote on the issue.

The third effort to pay off the minister's friends was to attempt to impose the sewer system by way of the supplementary letters patent. Unfortunately, the supplementary letters patent say that they were issued pursuant to the order of the director of pollution control. The citizens of Ganges, who were concerned about the procedure and the undemocratic way in which they were being treated, took that issue to court. It appeared before Mr. Justice Legg, a few weeks ago in Victoria. Even before the hearing before Mr. Justice Legg the Capital Regional District knew that they were going to fail in that attempt and that they wouldn't be able to bypass a democratic vote that way.

In spite of the advice of their legal counsel that the citizens of Ganges were going to win in court and that they would lose again in their efforts to thwart a democratic vote of the citizens in the area, even before the hearing in court they attempted another route. That route was that they came to the cabinet ministers involved. They came to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. This is not the first time they came to the present Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Chairman. One time before they did come to him and they asked him to take a look at the petition that was circulated on Saltspring Island. The minister said: "It's a fraud. We're going to have to refer this to the Attorney-General." He said the petition was a fraud. Knowing that petition was a fraud and knowing that every other attempt that the Minister of Finance and his friends in Ganges have made to bypass the right of the citizens of Saltspring Island to vote on this issue...and knowing that he was serving his friends and those people in the core area of Ganges....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mon. member, we must not impute improper motives to another member of this House. I'm sure the member is quite aware of what is parliamentary.

MR. SKELLY: I'm aware of that, Mr. Chairman.

Even before the decision of the judge was rendered in the case, the Capital Regional District directors came to cabinet to ask for an amendment to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act to legitimize all the dirty tricks that have been perpetrated against the citizens of Ganges and Saltspring Island over the past four years by the Minister of Finance, by his friends in Ganges and by this cabinet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mon. member, once again I must remind you that good temper and moderation are a feature of parliamentary language, and that we cannot impugn the motives of another hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: You know that I'm very even tempered and that I wouldn't lose my temper, except over an issue like this. You know that I generally use temperate and parliamentary language. You know that I wouldn't impugn any other member without reason.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There are processes through which that can be done, but it cannot be done in committee on a bill. I would ask the member to remain parliamentary and to proceed in the proper parliamentary fashion.

MR. SKELLY: I will do so, Mr. Chairman. Look at the piece of legislation we are now dealing with. In the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), hidden in a section that covers about three or four pages so that we can't deal with it as a separate issue and vote against this one, as opposed to some of the other sections which we would possibly support.... It's not considered a separate section of this statute. It's an attempt to hide it. They are embarrassed by the way they are ramming this issue down the throats of the people in the minister's constituency.

[ Page 6528 ]

Look at the wording of the act, Mr. Chairman: "Notwithstanding a decision of a court to the contrary, made before or after the coming into force of this section...." In other words, the right of a citizen in this province to take an act of local or regional government to court in order to protect their rights is being denied. Even if a judge comes down with a decision that the citizens of Ganges, who took this petition to court in the first place, are correct, what we're saying in this section is: "Too bad for them. It doesn't matter." They went the proper way. They went to court. The government is now going to serve its friends and eliminate their right to go to court even after they've gone through the effort and even though the judge hasn't come down with a decision, "notwithstanding the provisions of the Municipal Act" — in other words, the act that governs all municipalities in the province, the act that governs the regional districts of the province — and notwithstanding any provision in that act, about which people develop expectations.

If we're going to develop the community of Ganges, if we're going to consider community planning for the community of Ganges or anything in any other community of this province, it's the expectation of developers and citizens that it will be done pursuant to the Municipal Act. This act says it is notwithstanding anything in that act. It doesn't matter what we wrote in that act, We're going to change the rules in the middle of the game. We're going to change the rules in the middle of the court case, because the friends of the Minister of Finance may lose out. So we're going to protect them at the highest level in the province. We're going to deny them every right of access to the courts, deny them every right they have under the Municipal Act as owners and electors, deny them every right they have through the heavy-handed approach of this government in this Legislature, in the way it operates to protect its friends and to scuttle the interests of the community as a whole. That's what we're doing in this section of the act.

You must be ashamed of yourself. I can't see any reason at all why you would try to hide that material in a bill like this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, once again I must remind you that we cannot impute an improper motive; we cannot make personal allusions in this House. The member is fully aware of what parliamentary language is, and I'm sure that he can debate in a fine parliamentary fashion.

MR. SKELLY: I know that, Mr. Chairman. In spite of the history of this Ganges sewer problem, I find it difficult not to impugn the motives of any member, but I'm trying not to do SO.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member is fully aware of what the parliamentary process is and what our standing orders say, and I'm sure the member can relate his debate in a parliamentary fashion to what he wants to say and not impugn the motive of another hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, this is the most shameful piece of legislation that's been passed in the history of this government since 1976. It's not only that it will pollute Ganges harbour, it's not only that it pays off the friends of the minister in Ganges at the expense of those less able to pay their own costs....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That comment must be withdrawn, hon. member. I have warned the member many times in this debate. I will have to ask the member to withdraw that last statement. Will the member please withdraw?

MR. SKELLY: Which statement is that, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The allusion to friends of another member. That is imputing a false and dishonourable motive to another hon. member. I must ask the member to withdraw.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, if that is not a true statement....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm asking you to withdraw, hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: To withdraw a true statement?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm asking you to withdraw that comment with respect to another hon. member of the House. Will the member please withdraw?

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, in spite of the facts I've presented in this speech, in spite of the truth of the statement...

MR. CHAIRMAN: It must be unequivocal, hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: ...you're asking me to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is unparliamentary, and I ask you to withdraw. Will the member please withdraw? This is for the third time, hon. member. Otherwise, you leave me no recourse but to take further action.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I cannot withdraw that statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, hon. member. Hon. member, for the last time, I will order you to withdraw.

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will all hon. members come to order. On numerable occasions in the last 20 minutes the Chair has asked the committee to not make any allegations against any other members, particularly when they refer to false or improper motives on the part of another hon. member. For the last time, I'm asking the hon. member for Alberni to withdraw the statements made about another hon. member in this House. Will the member please withdraw?

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I have other things to say about this issue...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the member withdraw?

MR. SKELLY: ...but I cannot withdraw that statement. I have never been thrown out of this Legislature.

[ Page 6529 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Under standing order 20 I must report the circumstances.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, during committee the Chairman asked the hon. member for Alberni to withdraw an unparliamentary remark. The member has declined to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, M. Chairman. I must then ask the hon. member for Alberni, having had an opportunity to give some thought to the matter, if he would now voluntarily withdraw.

MR. SKELLY: No, I will not.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry. I'm left with the responsibility to order the hon. member for Alberni to withdraw an unparliamentary statement.

The member refuses. Standing orders 19 and 20 — perhaps you'd like to review them both — leave the Chair no alternative but to ask the member to withdraw for the remainder of the day's sitting. I order the member to withdraw.

The House in committee on Bill 31; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The committee will come to order. Hon. members, please come to order.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Throughout the long and often heated discussion with respect to the installation of a sanitary sewer system for the community of Ganges on Saltspring Island, I have been accused outside this chamber, directly and indirectly, of using my influence, of having a conflict of interest, of having a direct interest and of having an indirect interest in the community of Ganges. I have been accused indirectly with respect to my wife and members of my family by those who for one reason or another feel compelled to descend to that level. It saddens me and has saddened me over a number of years. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) indicated that the community is sharply divided on this issue, as indeed is the nature of some communities to be sharply divided on a number of issues.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I've listened quietly, Mr. Leader of the Opposition.

However, today I think the debate has reached an unacceptable low through the efforts — for a good number of minutes — of the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), and then the member who has now been asked to leave for the balance of the sitting, to construct this once again. I reject it categorically. I know one of the owners in the community, ML Toynbee. I apologize to no one for that. I did not know him a number of years ago. I don't know how he would feel about it. I think it is perhaps an overstatement to describe us as personal friends. Personal friends visit regularly back and forth; that is not the case. I have many personal friends in the constituency of Saanich and the Islands. I hope I have a number of friends around the province.

The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) spent some time developing another theme with respect to "friends." He indicated that James Richardson and Sons or the Richardsons have property in or near Ganges on Saltspring Island. I do not know if that is the case or not. I've never bothered to determine that. He went on, however, in the debate on this particular section, section 68, to say that this is a firm which is peddling bonds for British Columbia in — I believe he said — Canada and Europe, or the United States and Europe. Mr. Chairman, Richardson Securities is not a member of any underwriting group serving the province of British Columbia or any of its Crown corporations. It is not a member of the Canadian group or the U.S. group, and it is not a member of the European group. However, it developed over a good number of minutes, did it not, not only that there was a personal friendship with a man named Toynbee, but also that a firm which was "peddling bonds" owns land in'an area which is under debate today.

Mr. Chairman, it is not a question of my word. The record will show that Richardson Securities is not a member of any group representing the province of British Columbia or a Crown corporation. I submit that the member who has been asked to leave this chamber, by that kind of vicious and unfortunate....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that has been handled by the House. If we relate our debate to the section before us, the committee will be well served.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I will take your guidance. It has gone on for some time, and I feel understandably distressed by it. The inferences are categorically untrue, and I invite any member to say anything to the contrary outside this chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, as I pointed out to the hon. Minister of Finance when he was speaking, a great deal of latitude has been allowed in this debate. There has been some heated debate and a serious action in the House. However, I must remind all members of the committee that we are on Bill 31, discussing section 68, and that we should be reminded of our standing order 61, which tells the committee to be strictly relevant to the section of the bill that is before it. Fm sure all members are aware of our standing orders and in particular of standing order 61.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, the only aspect of this debate which is unacceptably low is the position of Social Credit in it. It is the position of Social Credit to deny the people of Saltspring Island a referendum. That is unacceptably low. It is the position of the Minister of Finance, who is also the MLA for Saanich and the Islands, to deny the people of Saltspring Island a referendum, and that is unacceptably low. It is the position of this bill to deny the courts an opportunity to assess the issue before them fairly and without political interference, and that is unacceptably low. It is unacceptably low on all three counts and for all three reasons. This section should fail.

What is equally unacceptable is the Minister of Finance's pitiful attempt to dissociate himself from Mr. Toynbee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, we are once again reminded that abusive and insulting language is also not acceptable. We should always be parliamentary. Good temper and moderation are features of debate.

[ Page 6530 ]

MR. BARBER: Who is Thomas Toynbee, Mr. Chairman? Apart from having been a fiscal agent for Social Credit, a fund-raiser for Social Credit in the constituency of Saanich and the Islands and a fund-raiser for the minister personally on Saltspring Island, he was also personally appointed by the minister when he was Minister of Municipal Affairs to head the Housing Corporation of B.C. That is who Mr. Toynbee is. Further, Mr. Toynbee was also appointed to the board of directors of the B.C. Development Corporation on the personal recommendation of the member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. CHAIRMAN: First, I must ask the hon. member if that is relevant to the bill. Secondly, I must ask the hon. member if he is imputing any improper motive to another member of this House.

MR. BARBER: No, Mr. Chairman. I'm describing the true facts, which are simply as follows. First, Thomas Toynbee has a long political relationship with Social Credit and with its MLA for Saanich and the Islands. Secondly, Thomas Toynbee has been appointed not once but twice to senior positions in Crown agencies of the Social Credit government. It is, in our opinion, unacceptably low that the Minister of Finance now turns his back on his friend Toynbee and pretends he hardly knows him.

Mr. Chairman, I stand to be corrected; I think I said the Development Corporation; I meant to say the Buildings Corporation. My apologies in regard to Mr. Toynbee.

What is principally at issue here, though, is the question as to why Social Credit has taken such pains to deny a referendum to the people of Saltspring Island on the issue of whether or not they wish to construct a sewer at Ganges. We now know that certain residents of the island have successfully prosecuted their case in the courts and indeed currently have a decision — or did until this hour — pending in the court of Justice Legg. Why is it in the political interests of Social Credit to refuse a referendum? We're certainly prepared to be bound by it; I believe the residents of Saltspring are — no matter which way it turns out. Why is Social Credit not willing to be bound by the free vote that results from a free referendum? What have they got to lose?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There have been many, many outbursts, and I must remind all hon. members that they cannot be permitted.

MR. BARBER: As the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), who is well known in this House to be one of the best researched of its members — on either the government or opposition side — has demonstrated, the courts actually found that the petition which allegedly represented the opinion of the people of Saltspring Island was defective, faulty and untrue. What did Social Credit do in reply? Did they decide to clean up that mess of a fraudulent petition found in the courts to be so, by seeking the public will and its free expression in a referendum? No, they didn't. They sought to get around that by making a deal with the director of pollution control. When the courts held that that order of the director of pollution control was invalid, did Social Credit attempt on a second occasion to seek the will of the people of Saltspring Island? No, Mr. Chairman, they did not. Once more they attempted to subvert the free democratic process as it has traditionally been exercised through the holding of referenda on sewer issues and other public enterprises, and in this case once more the member for Saanich and the Islands had his way.

The people of Saltspring Island took it to the courts again, as my colleague for Alberni has pointed out, in the typically excellent way in which he does research; once more letters patent were issued supplementary to the original ones granted the Capital Regional District to allow them to overcome the two previous hurdles. This time the argument in courts was that those letters patent would likely prove invalid because they were based on a defective order of the director of pollution control. Social Credit has been up to the bat three times on this issue. They've lost twice, and most observers of the judiciary have concluded they were about to lose a third time. Three times Social Credit policy has, in this instance, been tested, and three times it has failed. What is Social Credit's reply? Does the member for Saanich and the Islands order his cabinet colleagues — which he is certainly able to do; he has the clout; he is the Minister of Finance — to require of the regional district that they hold a public referendum and allow the chips to fall where they may and the people's voice to be heard? No. Once again Social Credit attempts to subvert the free expression of the public's will and we see this section in front of us.

The two most offensive passages in it are as follows: " (a) Notwithstanding a decision of a court to the contrary, made before or after the coming into force of this section, and (b) the provisions of the Municipal Act, the supplementary letters patent of the Capital Regional District dated...shall be deemed to be in compliance." The minister may well reply that that's very similar to what appears in subsection 245 in regard to Port Moody, or the Local Services Act in subsection 243 or subsection 242, the validation of a bylaw at the city of Prince George. That's true, Mr. Chairman, the language is precisely the same. If we had a chance to debate the other instances separately, as we should — if this government knew what to do they would give us that chance — then we would make separate and identifiably distinct arguments.

For instance, the city of Prince George, which is also governed by the section we are now debating, thanks to the defective procedures of Social Credit, has a reason to seek recourse under the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act. Why is that? Because one woman in the city of Prince George said that she did not receive a letter advising her of a rezoning hearing. As a result of that the city of Prince George was taken to court, and they lost. Therefore this bill is here today.

We support the city of Prince George, and we support the subsection which we're now debating. The city of Prince George has an honourable option and has made no attempt whatever to subvert or undermine the public will. We don't object to that at all. Even though the language is identical, the content is quite dissimilar. I hope we will not hear any pathetic and lame attempt by this government to tell us that the reason we have to approve the offensive language under the Saltspring Island section of this bill is because it appears somewhere else for some other reason. The point is that if it appears somewhere else it belongs somewhere else and not in this section. The point is that if there is another reason, we should hear it and not have it presumed that we shall be obligated to draw a similar conclusion in each case because of the similarity of language. That would be a stupid and irrelevant argument.

[ Page 6531 ]

What's relevant in this case, Mr. Chairman? Regardless of the personal relationship of the Minister of Finance with any citizen in his riding, the political relationship that minister should have with his whole riding is to require a referendum, and that's what we ask. If Social Credit is not afraid of the results of such a referendum, let them hold it and let them announce that they're going to do so today.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs tossed in another of his notorious red herrings when he said something about a February 1982 deadline. I guarantee the minister that if there is a federal deadline to be met in February 1982, the people of Saltspring Island would be prepared to have a vote 30 days from today, and 31 days from today we would know what your policy is. You wouldn't miss the February deadline and that particular red herring would be exploded for what it is. You could do it 30 days from today. It's a small community.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: Just to clear up the record, Mr. Toynbee was appointed chairman of the B.C. Buildings Corporation by Social Credit. He's also a partner in the firm of Miller and Toynbee Realty Ltd. which is active in a current attempt to develop a 250-unit plan in Ganges on Saltspring Island. Why the Minister of Finance turns his back on his friend Mr. Toynbee I don't know. I do know this, though. Social Credit is turning its back on the people of Saltspring Island. Social Credit is turning its back on the last opportunity, which will expire at 6 o'clock this afternoon, to give those people a democratic right that everyone else in this province has enjoyed for a long time. The people who have been to my office, who have phoned or written and who appeared here in the demonstration on Monday represent every political party. Many of them have been, and may still be, prominent supporters of the Social Credit Party. I want this committee to understand clearly that many of the people who oppose the heavy-handedness of Social Credit in this instance are members of the Social Credit Party. I congratulate them for their political courage. I wish the Minister of Finance had it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Once again, personal allusions are unacceptable to the House.

MR. BARBER: I'm not talking about personal courage. I'm talking about political courage. Unfortunately, they are different things.

Given the following facts — (1) twice in court the procedures have been found defective; (2) the petition itself, which allegedly justifies this construction, has been found in court to be fraudulent; (3) given that Social Credit knows full well there is a decision currently pending in the courts and the provisions of this section, with all respect, subvert the ability of the court to do its job as it should; and (4) given that the residents of Saltspring Island have made it perfectly clear that they are prepared to be bound by the outcome of a referendum either way it goes — I finally ask Social Credit: what have they got to fear, to lose or to hide? Why do they refuse the democratic right of people to express their view on a sewer or any other public enterprise in this instance by allowing the people of that island a referendum?

The Social Credit defence this afternoon is the largest, weakest and thinnest we have heard for months. The speeches of the members opposite are pitiful, inept and irrelevant, and they are inexcusable admissions of the incompetence of their own policy. The only way Social Credit can recover from this blunder is to withdraw this section and to require a referendum. If they did that, we and the people of Saltspring Island would be satisfied; if they don't, we and those same people will continue to object and object until finally the democratic rights of those people on Saltspring Island are preserved.

Section 68 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 20

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

Sections 69 to 100 inclusive approved.

On section 101.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, there are some very good prescriptions in section 101. The School Act is going to be prescribing programs for children with exceptional educational needs. It's going to be establishing programs for children with educational needs, and prescribing that boards carry out the programs. Mr. Chairman, the one thing it doesn't do is give the school boards the money to carry out the job. Therefore I'm going to give the government an opportunity to provide that money. I therefore move that section 101 be amended by adding the following clause: "(m) that the minister shall provide funds for the operation of programs pursuant to clause (j), (k) and (1) above, from such moneys as are appropriated for this purchase by the Legislative Assembly.''

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that would violate standing order 67.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that the minister will accept it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair cannot accept it, hon. member. The minister may wish to address it. The amendment is not accepted.

[ Page 6532 ]

Sections 101 and 102 approved.

On section 103.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, this is a section which amends the Special Funds Act that this House passed in 1980. I've looked at the Special Funds Act and I can't quite understand why any amendment is necessary. It did seem to provide authority under that act for the kind of spending that the minister is looking for. Perhaps the minister could address himself to this. Why did he need to add "and for the coordination, planning and administration of the coal project," since the coal project is already referred to? Is it because there are some expenses from the previous promotional activities that have not yet been paid and perhaps the minister didn't have quite enough authority under the old act? Why do we need this section?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the member's question, I'm sure he realizes that this megaproject is a very huge and complex one. We're going to need some coordination in order to bring all of the players together and make sure that everything goes down the road together. If any one single player in the game drags his feet or has problems, we're not going to meet our deadline. So we have established a coordinator's office. This amendment gives us the authority for that.

MR. LEGGATT: I wanted that confirmed. This apparently, then, is for Mr. Basford's contribution to the coordination of northeast coal. I take it that the minister didn't feel he had authority under the previous act, and this will now allow him to set up the office of coordination which he has in Vancouver under the jurisdiction of Mr. Basford. This has nothing to do with the minister's efforts in coordination; it's this hireling he has from Vancouver who's going to have to be paid out of this particular section. He's nodding his head; he's in agreement. The Special Funds Act now provides for the coordinating office. Maybe he would like to bring the House into his confidence and tell us what it's costing us annually for that coordinating office in Vancouver.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the member knows full well that all those figures will be made available in due course.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, expenses to date out of the special funds are $6.5 million. Could the minister tell us how much of the $6.5 million has gone already to coordination, to the coordinator's office and toward the retroactive aspects of this getting the players on-side, getting them all on the same team and all in place at the same time? Pushing or pulling, as the case may be, in the same direction 1 think were the minister's words.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the member's question: none.

MR. LEGGATT: How is the office now being paid? Where is the money for Basford's coordinating office coming from?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, out of my funds.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the Special Funds Act, March 31, 1980, showed a balance in this fund of $20 million; as at March 31, 1981, the balance in the fund was $13.5 million. What we're asking is how the $6.5 million was spent in the 12-month period between April 1, 1980, and March 31, 1981 ?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'll be happy to answer that question. Some of it was spent for preconstruction planning, some for further studies.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could tell us what he means by preconstruction planning? Who was engaged to do the preconstruction planning? What was the other factor involved? We're talking about $6.5 million; that's quite a bit of money. Could you give us a little more information as to how you spent $6.5 million in that 12-month period?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The member is very knowledgeable. He's been a member of this House for a long time. He realizes that all these expenditures will be accounted for. We've been criticized in the past for not doing sufficient planning and engineering. Some of this money has been forwarded to the British Columbia Railway for detailed engineering on the Anzac line. We have hired the best engineers that we can hire to ensure that we don't run into the same problems that we did on the Dease Lake line.

MR. STUPICH: I want to make sure I heard the minister correctly. I think he said that some of this $6.5 million was granted to the B.C. Railway to do planning for the Anzac line. Is that right? If so, how much money has been given to B.C. Rail in this 12-month period? My concern is that the legislation before us right now is apparently giving the minister authorization to spend money that he has spent as much as 16 months ago. I think we deserve some explanation.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Never, Mr. Chairman. The original deal was for construction, and engineering for construction is part of construction, right?

MR. STUPICH: For B.C. Rail?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly. It's all part of the coal deal.

MR. STUPICH: The minister's asking me a question. Certainly when we discussed the Special Funds Act over a year ago, we were never told that any of this $20 million was going to go to B.C. Rail for planning. At least I was never told that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The largest part of northeast coal is the rail line. Isn't that construction?

MR. STUPICH: The minister's asking me a question again. I like this question-and-answer bit. The B.C. Rail line is construction, but the money was put into a special fund that was going to be spent by the government in direct services for northeast coal development. The direct services did not include at that time any explanation to the effect that it was going to be done by B.C. Rail. Maybe you need some more amendments to give the authority to give that money to B.C.

[ Page 6533 ]

Rail to do the planning. So far there's been no legislative authority to spend part of that $20 million fund on work to be done by B.C. Rail.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the engineering studied were commissioned jointly with British Columbia Rail and my department so that the engineering would be properly done. There were also planning studies done. That's all part of construction.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, this time he didn't leave me with a question to answer.

Initially the money was going to be spent by the government. Then the minister said it was spent by B.C. Rail — it was given to B.C. Rail by the government. Now the minister is telling us that it's joint spending by B.C. Rail and the government. He's changing his position as he goes along, hoping that we'll accept some kind of an answer. Obviously he doesn't know anything about the $6.5 million. He has no idea what it was spent on, and he's trying to confuse the members in the House to the extent that he is confused himself.

MR. LEGGATT: To give us a little more information about this fascinating operation of the coordinator and the office that he is running, could he tell us if he has a Mr. Kedgley employed as a coordinator with regard to the coal deal?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the answer to the question is no.

Sections 103 to 108 inclusive approved.

On section 109.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to amend section 109. Before I submit my amendment, which I'm sure you'll find in order, I'd like to explain that what I'm trying to do is give the secretary, as defined under this particular section, some additional responsibilities. The amendment is going to allow the secretary to be the person responsible for issuing passes. The amendment reads: In line 10 after the words Municipal Act, add the words "...and is a person responsible for issuing bus passes to the blind and other disabled people." The reason for this is that the Urban Transit Authority has to take the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the $25,000 which is needed for the 4, 892 blind persons in the lower mainland to be able to use their bus passes either in Vancouver or Victoria.... The areas covered by the Urban Transit Authority — the lower mainland and the area around Victoria are the ones which, through the secretary, have to have the authority to issue these passes and to ensure that they are transferable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill, as there is no provision in the bill at this point for issuing, so this amendment would go beyond the scope. I rule that the amendment is out of order.

Sections 109 to 113 inclusive approved.

On section 114.

MS. BROWN: I think we're still dealing with the Urban Transit Authority legislation. Once again, as I have done on every occasion possible this session, I'm trying to find some way to help the government find $25,000 for the bus passes which the 4,892 blind persons in Victoria and Vancouver must have so that they can travel in either city. I want to amend this section by adding a new section: "...ensure that bus passes for the blind and disabled be transferable on transit services in the areas including the greater Vancouver metropolitan area and the greater Victoria metropolitan area." That's the section dealing with operating a public passenger transportation system.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it would offend standing order 67: "It shall not be lawful for the House to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue or any tax impost to any purpose that has not first been recommended to the House by message of the Lieutenant-Governor...." On that basis the amendment fails.

MS. BROWN: I certainly accept your ruling, but I wonder whether the minister responsible for urban transit would now like to tell the house whether this government has been able to secure $25,000 somewhere so that the 4, 892 blind persons in the lower mainland — who have no other means of transportation except by public transit, because they can't see to ride a bicycle or drive a car — have bus passes which are transferable.

Sections 114 and 115 approved.

On section 116.

MR. STUPICH: In voting for section 116, which increases the borrowing authority for the Urban Transit Authority by $800 million, I think it's worth recalling that section 4 increased the borrowing authority of BCBC by $400 million and the sections to do with B.C. Rail increased borrowing authority and share sales to the extent of $1.3 billion — a total increase in borrowing of $2.5 billion in a bill that was introduced just two sitting-days ago. At today's rate of borrowing — let's say at 18 percent — the additional impost on the people of British Columbia to service this new debt alone in this bill is $450 million a year. I ask the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) to bear that in mind when she looks for her $25,000.

Sections 116 to 120 inclusive approved.

On section 121.

MR. NICOLSON: To use just the explanatory note, this section says that this amendment allows non-residents who are Canadian citizens to be licensed as guides. This section means that many Canadian citizens who might have lived in the United States for the past 15 years and yet retained their Canadian citizenship will be able to flip into this country during the guiding season, get their guiding licence and guide to the resources in this province. I say that if people want to guide in this province they should damn well live in this province.

[ Page 6534 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS: I explained it to the official critic, but unfortunately he's not able to be with us for this part of the discussion. This section is to deal with the people who live along the Alaska Highway who are residents in the Yukon territories and yet work in British Columbia. Some of the people are in Alberta and do the same thing. They are Canadian citizens, but not resident in British Columbia. It is not designed to accommodate people from the United States.

MR. NICOLSON: That's very fine. You bring in a bill that says this is a bill to accommodate Yukon citizens who live along the border within 150 miles of the B.C.-Yukon border or are residents of the Yukon and want to guide in British Columbia. But this act as it is presented in this House means that somebody can live in Tucson, Arizona, all year long — they could have been living and resident down in the United States for the past 15 years and retained their Canadian citizenship — and can come up here and get a guiding licence. They have a right to do it, and if you deny them, they can go to the ombudsman and have the full force and effect of the laws and protections of this province because you brought in this piece of legislation. If my colleague from Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) votes for this, I will certainly not let it go unnoticed.

Section 121 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS 20

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

Sections 122 to 125 inclusive approved.

On section 126.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move an amendment to the first subsection, by adding the words "55 to 58" after the figure "52." The purpose of this is to ensure that the Motor Vehicle Act amendments come into force on proclamation.

Amendment approved.

Section 126 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 31, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1981, reported complete without amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill considered as reported?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 31, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1981, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:20 p.m.

Appendix

1 Mr. Barber asked the Hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs the following questions:

1. What was the total cost of producing the half-hour, prime-time television program, featuring the Hon. W.N. Vander Zalm, aired on BCTV, Sunday, November 16, 1980, including a reasonable estimate of staff time and use of in-house facilities?

2. What was the cost of purchasing broadcast time for this program?

3. What was the cost, if any, of publicity and advertising for this program?

The Hon. W.N. Vander Zalm replied as follows:

"1. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs was journal vouchered $2,000 by the Ministry of Health for production costs for 'The Planning Act—A TV Show for

[ Page 6535 ]

Discussion.' Other production assistance consisted of a few hours of the time of my Executive Assistant.

"2. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs paid $8,250 to BCTV for broadcasting the show.

"3. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs paid $2,375 to BCTV for the broadcasting of two commercials."

10 Mrs. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Transportation and Highways the following questions:

1. Between December of 1979 and December of 1980, what is the total cost of upgrading the Cowichan Road including: scarifying, temporary paving, resurfacing and sweeping?

2. What is the total expenditure of the Ministry on reimbursing drivers for the deductible portion of ICBC insurance coverage of glass damage due to the condition of the Cowichan Road?

The Hon. A.V. Fraser replied as follows:

"1. From December 1979 to December 1980 expenditures on Highway 18 including: scarifying, temporary paving, resurfacing and sweeping: scarifying, $53,000; pavement reshaping, $309,229; surfacing sealing, $325,999; sweeping, $7,547; total, $695,775.

"2. During the period from December 1, 1979 to December 31, 1980, the Ministry has authorized payment of $22,461.67 to reimburse automobile owners for the uninsured portion of glass damage due to loose gravel on Cowichan Lake Road."

13 Mr. Lea asked the Hon. the Minister of Forests the following questions:

1. What were the revenues from timber sales, rents, and royalties received by the Crown from the blocks of Tree-farm Licence 39 located on the Queen Charlotte Islands for the years 1975 through 1979, broken down by year and by type of revenue?

2. What were the revenues the Crown received from the Moresby Blocks of Tree-farm Licence 2 for the years 1975 through 1979, broken down by year and by type of revenue?

3. What were the revenues the Crown received from TFL 24 for the same period broken down the same way?

4. What were the revenues the Crown received for the same period from the Public Sustained Yield Unit Lands on the Queen Charlotte Islands broken down the same way?

The Hon. T.M. Waterland replied as follows:

"1. Crown revenues (excluding taxes) from the Q.C.I. blocks of TFL 39:

[ Page 6536 ]

"2. Crown revenues (excluding taxes) from the Moresby Blocks of TFL 2:

"3. Crown revenues (excluding taxes) from TFL 24:

"4. Crown revenues (excluding taxes) from lands in the Queen Charlotte PSYU: The Ministry of Forests does not have records of actual revenues received from the PSYU for past years broken down as requested, but it has records of timber volumes cut and scaled and other information which have enabled the compilation of the following estimates of the revenues in response to the question:

* Unable to estimate accurately."

17 Mrs. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Transportation and Highways the following question:

What was the total cost of repairs made to Tzouhalem Road subsequent to flooding in 1980 and in 1981?

The Hon. A.V. Fraser replied as follows:

"$9, 926."

18 Mr. Lockstead asked the Hon. the Minister of Transportation and Highways the following questions:

With reference to the upgrading of the road between Tumbler Ridge and Dawson Creek—

1. What is the estimated cost in 1981 dollars?

2. What is the total distance of work in kilometres?

3. What distance in kilometres is classified as "arterial highway"?

4. What distance in kilometres is classified as "secondary highway"?

5. What surface type classification is assigned over what distances? (If part of the answer is surface type 'A', please distinguish between Portland Cement Concrete and Bituminous Plantmix.)

[ Page 6537]

6. How many kilometres of the road are new construction?

7. How many kilometres of the road are reconstruction?

8. For the distance identified in No. 7, what is the nature of the reconstruction and over what distance in kilometres? (For example, new diversion 'x' kilometres, widening 'y' kilometres, etc.)

9. What is the anticipated completion date of the highway?

10. For 15 years after the anticipated completion date, what is the estimated maintenance cost in each year in 1981 dollars?

The Hon. A.V. Fraser replied as follows:

"1. Dawson Creek–Tumbler Ridge (via Tupper), $25.3 million.

"2. Tupper–Tumbler Ridge, 142.4 kilometres.

"3. Nil.

"4. Nil.

"5. 1981, gravel; 1983, bituminous plantmix.

"6. 136.4 kilometres.

"7. 6 kilometres.

"8. Widening, 6 kilometres.

"9. 1983.

"10. $300,000 per year."

20 Mr. Lockstead asked the Hon. the Minister of Transportation and Highways the following questions:

With reference to the new highway to be constructed between Chetwynd and Tumbler Ridge—

1. What is the total estimated cost in 1981 dollars?

2. What is the distance of work in kilometres?

3. What distance in kilometres is classified as "arterial highway"?

4. What distance in kilometres is classified as "secondary highway"?

5. What surface type classifications are assigned over what distances? (If part of the answer is surface type 'A', please distinguish between Portland Cement Concrete and Bituminous Plantmix.)

6. What is the anticipated completion date of the highway?

7. For 15 years after the anticipated completion date, what is the estimated maintenance cost in each year in 1981 dollars?

The Hon. A.V. Fraser replied as follows:

"1. $81 million.

"2. 93.4 kilometres.

"3. Nil.

"4. Nil.

"5. 1981, 23 kilometres gravel; 1984, 93.4 kilometres bituminous plantmix.

"6. 1984.

"7. $250,000 per year."

28 Mr. Howard asked the Hon. the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs the following questions:

1. Does the Government of British Columbia regulate the sales or prices of alcoholic beverages on airplanes flying within the Province?

2. If so, why is Canadian Pacific Airlines permitted to charge $1.50 for beer sold on flights within the Province when that same airline charges $1 for beer sold on its flights to California?

[ Page 6538 ]

The Hon. P.S. Hyndman replied as follows:

"1. The Government of British Columbia through the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch has the power to regulate sales or prices of alcoholic beverages on airplanes licensed in the Province. At the present time the price of wine is the only thing which is regulated.

"2. The answer given to No. 1 also answers this question. Because the price of beer is not regulated it would be up to C.P.A. to establish its own price. A possible explanation for the difference in price is that C.P.A. is able to obtain beer for its flights to California at a lower cost. This is because the price it pays for beer for such flights is free of excise and sales taxes."

29 Mr. Mitchell asked the Hon. the Minister of Transportation and Highways the following questions:

With reference to the east-west highway in Langford—

1. Has a decision been made as to the alignment of the highway?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, (a) does the alignment conform to the highway as proposed in the Western Community (Langford) Settlement Plan and (b) does the alignment conform to the Western Community Secondary (Glen Lake Area) Plan?

3. Has Greg Singer of the Ministry's highways planning department met with local community groups and received public input on the location of the highway?

4. Has Mr. Singer or any official of the Ministry met with the owners of the Can West Shopping Centre that is proposed to be constructed at or near Jacklin Road?

5. If the answer to No. 4 is yes, did the owners request any particular alignment of the highway?

6. If the answer to No. 5 is yes, (a) what was the alignment proposed by the developers; (b) did the Ministry accept the developer's alignment, or did the Ministry make a counter-proposal; (c) if the Ministry made a counter-proposal, what was the alignment proposed; and (d) do the developer's proposal and any Ministry counter-proposal conform to the Ministry's design standards in every respect?

7. Has the Ministry made any commitment to the owners of the Can West Shopping Centre that the Provincial Government will spend public funds to buy private land for a road right-of-way to connect this shopping centre to other parts of the community not now connected or proposed to be connected under the provisions of the existing Western Community Plan?

8. If the answer to No. 7 is yes, has the Minister decided to hold public hearings to obtain community input before the funds are spent?

9. Has the Ministry decided to extend Kelly Road through to make Jenkins Road–Glen Lake Road part of the major east-west highway system?

10. If the answer to No. 9 is yes, what studies have been made of the impact on that residential area?

11. What is the cost of construction for the alignment identified in No. 1?

The Hon. A.V. Fraser replied as follows:

"The proposal is not for a highway but rather for a major collector type street. It is an integral part of the network of major streets serving the internal travel within the Colwood, Langford, Glen Lake urban area.

"In response to the specific questions:

"1. Yes, but it is designated as a collector street, not a trunk highway.

"2. (a) The Western Community Settlement Plan dealt only with trunk highways and not collector streets and (b) yes, the alignment was in fact jointly selected by the Capital Regional District and the Glen Lake Area Residents Association.

[ Page 6539 ]

"3. Yes. Mr. Singer dealt with the Glen Lake Area Residents Association. He indicated the Ministry preferred a line to the north of Jenkins through an undeveloped area. The Association and Capital Regional District selected Jenkins instead. This was acceptable to the Ministry.

"4. Yes.

"5. No. The owners followed the Secondary Plan and showed an alignment connecting to Jenkins.

"6. See No. 5.

"7. No. Right-of-way has been acquired on opportunity over the past several years for the Millstream extension and the Kelly Road extension. This process is continuing by dedication where appropriate and by purchase elsewhere.

"8. My Ministry has had many discussions with the Capital Regional District who have been developing a transportation model. We anticipate that the Capital Regional District will initiate public discussions in the future.

"9. Yes, it will be a collector street.

"10. This connection was included in the Glen Lake Settlement Plan.

"11. No estimate has been made."

35 Mr. Howard asked the Hon. the Minister of Transportation and Highways the following questions:

1. Has any money from the $100,000,000 allocated by the Special Purpose Appropriation Act, 1980 for "accelerated highway construction" been spent?

2. If so, for the periods ending on (a) December 31, 1980, and (b) March 31, 1981, what amount of such money was spent in each of the electoral districts of Atlin, Prince Rupert, Skeena, Omineca, Prince George South, Prince George North, South Peace River, North Peace River, and Cariboo?

The Hon. A.V. Fraser replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. As per statement:

FISCAL YEAR 1980-81

Summary statement of expenditures incurred by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways under Bill 5 — Special Purpose Appropriation Act, 1980 (Accelerated Highway Construction) as at December 31, 1980 and March 31, 1981 in the electoral districts indicated.

38 Mr. Lockstead asked the Hon. the Minister of Transportation and Highways the following questions:

1. What is the total cost of all radio advertisements containing the voice of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, which were aired during the period of the Easter vacation?

[ Page 6540 ]

2. On which radio stations were these ads run, what was the number of airings in each radio station and what was the total bill submitted by each radio station for this ad campaign?

The Hon. A.V. Fraser (Minister of Transportation and Highways) stated that in his opinion the reply to Question 38 should be in the form of a Return and that he had no objection to laying such Return upon the table of the House and thereupon presented such Return.

40 Mr. Skelly asked the Hon. the Minister of Transportation and Highways the following questions:

During the fiscal years 1976-77 to 1980-81—

1. What pesticides did the Ministry purchase in each year, in what quantities and at what cost?

2. What quantities of each pesticide were used in each year, for what purpose and what was the total cost of each program?

3. What amount of each pesticide remained in storage or was disposed of at the end of each year?

4. What pesticides, in what quantities are presently in the possession of the Ministry?

The Hon. A.V. Fraser (Minister of Transportation and Highways) stated that in his opinion the reply to Question 40 should be in the form of a Return and that he had no objection to laying such Return upon the table of the House and thereupon presented such Return.

43 Mr. Skelly asked the Hon. the Minister of Environment the following questions:

During the fiscal years 1976-77 to 1980-81—

1. What pesticides did the Ministry purchase in each year, in what quantities and at what cost?

2. What quantities of each pesticide were used in each year, for what purpose and what was the total cost of each program?

3. What amount of each pesticide remained in storage or was disposed of at the end of each year?

4. What pesticides, in what quantities are presently in the possession of the Ministry?

The Hon. C.S. Rogers (Minister of Environment) stated that in his opinion the reply to Question 43 should be in the form of a Return and that he had no objection to laying such Return upon the table of the House and thereupon presented such Return.

44 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Transportation and Highways the following questions:

1. What was the deficit or subsidy required to support the Gabriola Island ferry during the fiscal year 1980-81?

2. What is the estimate of the magnitude of this cost or subsidy during the 1981-82 fiscal year?

The Hon. A.V. Fraserr replied as follows:

[ Page 6541 ]

"The estimated revenue and expenditures for the Gabriola Island ferry are:

47 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Transportation and Highways the following questions:

With respect to a possible new major ferry terminal on or near Gabriola Island—

1. Is this proposal under review by the Minister's Ministry and/or British Columbia Ferry Corporation?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is "yes", at what stage is preliminary or basic design for the facility and where is it to be located?

3. If the answer to No. 1 is "yes", will the Minister make public such basic design before detailed working plans are authorized?

The Hon. A.V. Fraser replied as follows:

"1. Yes, by the British Columbia Ferry Corporation and presently at the very preliminary basic review stage only.

"2. Preliminary or basic design for the facility, and location, will be considered only after the basic review of the need for the facility is completed.

"3. Information on the basic design will be made public after the basic preliminary review is complete."

53 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Transportation and Highways the following questions:

1. Does the British Columbia Ferry Corporation have an exclusive contract with a specific operator for the provision and operation of coin operated games on B.C. Ferries?

2. What are the details of any contract referred to and replied to No. 1?

3. What is the number of coin operated games on each vessel in the B.C. Ferries fleet and what is the number of coin operated games installed in each of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation terminals?

4. Does the contract referred to in Nos. 1 and 2, specify an amount to be charged per play on each of the coin operated games, and if so, what are the specified charges?

5. Have there been any instances of these specified charges being violated?

6. For each vessel referred to in reply to No. 3, what is the revenue received by the British Columbia Ferry Corporation from coin operated games?

7. For each terminal listed in reply to No. 4, what is the revenue received by the British Columbia Ferry Corporation from coin operated games?

8. Are the contracts referred to in Nos. 1 and 2 open to competitive bid, and if so, on what basis and at what interval?

The Hon. A.V. Fraser replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2.

–– Three-year contract with the Ryan Company of Nanaimo and Victoria.

–– Supplier must maintain games in near to new condition.

— Supplier to provide full exchange dollar bill changers.

–– Supplier to provide latest type of game.

–– Supplier to provide 24-hour, seven-day service.

[ Page 6542 ]

–– Supplier to provide meters with second audit counters at B.C.F.C. request.

–– Games must have full C.S.A. or acceptable equivalent approval.

–– All games must be solid state circuits that will not generate heat during continuous use.

–– All games must be of low flame material and able to function even when subject to gross abuse.

–– Games are restricted to a 25 cent per play charge.

–– The B.C.F.C. shall be sole judge of game suitability compliance.

–– The Chief Steward shall collect all revenues and send the supplier monthly cheques for supplier's portion of the revenue.

–– Each game equipped with secure doors and revenue boxes. All revenue boxes will carry B.C.F.C. locks.

–– All service must be to the satisfaction of the B.C.F.C. and the contract is subject to cancellation on 14 days notice of default.

–– The supplier shall be responsible for all loss or liability.

–– Supplier will be responsible for complying with all B.C.F.C. rules and regulations.

"3. There are five or six games on each vessel depending on the space available. The terminals will have up to two games.

"4. A 25 cent per play charge is specified as part of the agreement.

"5. Yes, on one new machine. The supplier was advised and asked to insure that all games were 25 cents in accordance with the agreement.

"6. Major vessels average $300 per day in the winter and $475 in the summer (gross revenue).

"7. Only two terminals have video games revenue. These terminals report a total gross summer daily average of $35 and a winter average of $25 per terminal.

"8. Contracts are open to competitive bids every three years. Published requests for quotations are administered by the Purchasing Commission."

56 Mr. Lauk asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

1. How many publications have been printed at Provincial Government expense to promote the Pier B.C. project, and what were their names?

2. What quantity was printed for each publication listed in reply to No. 1?

3. What was the cost of printing each of these leaflets?

4. What additional cost (in-house or contracted) was incurred in the preparation of these publications?

The Hon. G.M. McCarthy replied as follows:

"1. (a) Postcards (Trade and Convention Centre information) and (b) trade paper (Capture the Pacific).

"2. (a) 10,000 postcards and (b) 400,000 trade papers.

"3. (a) $538 and (b) $20,387.44.

"4. None."