[ Page 8847 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Land Title Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 70). Hon. Mr. Williams

Introduction and first reading –– 8847

Northwest Baptist Theological College Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 65).

Hon. Mr. Williams

Introduction and first reading –– 8847

Oral Questions

Dome LNG contract award. Mr. D'Arcy –– 8847

B.C. Railway borrowing. Mr. Leggatt –– 8848

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Hyndman)

On vote 20: minister's office –– 8849

Hon. Mr. Hyndman

Mr. Levi

On the amendment to vote 20 –– 8853

Mr. Barber

Mr. King

Mr. Lea

Division

On vote 20: minister's office –– 8859

Mr. Kempf

Division

On vote 21: ministry operations –– 8860

Mr. Levi

Provincial Debt Refinancing Act, 1982 (Bill 35). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Hon. Mr. Curtis closes debate –– 8861

Division –– 8861

Election Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 13). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

On section 1 –– 8862

Mrs. Dailly

On section 2 –– 8862

Mrs. Dailly

On the amendment to section 2 –– 8862

Hon. Mr. Wolfe

Mrs. Dailly

On the amendment to section 3 –– 8862

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Levi

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications estimates. (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

On vote 84: minister's office –– 8864

Ms. Brown

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Brummet

Mr. Mitchell

On the amendment to vote 84 –– 8869

Division

Appendix –– 8869

MONDAY, JULY 19, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. REE: I think all members are aware of the great effort of Hansard staff in recording the elegant words of members of this chamber. One of the staff, Eileen Nightingale, has relatives visiting from England who are in the gallery today. I ask this House to welcome John and Jean Eaglen and their two children, Claire and Joanne, together with Mrs. Doris Smith and Mrs. Cissie Hackworthy. Welcome to Victoria.

MR. MACDONALD: In the gallery we have a very popular alderman of the city of Vancouver, Bruce Eriksen. I ask the chamber to make him welcome.

MR. STRACHAN: Visiting one of our researchers today are two guests from The Pas, Manitoba. Would the House please welcome Elaine Bollman and Arlene Wilson.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is Mr. Doug Beech, manager and coach of the Merritt junior women's softball team, which participated in the B.C. Junior Women's Softball championships in Victoria this weekend. Accompanying Doug is one of his players, Darlene Garay.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today I note a frequent visitor, but one who's rarely introduced. He is a former member of this Legislative Assembly, Mr. Lew King.

Introduction of Bills

LAND TITLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Land Title Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill 70 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.

NORTHWEST BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL
COLLEGE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Williams, Bill 65, Northwest Baptist Theological College Amendment Act, 1982, 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.

Oral Questions

DOME LNG CONTRACT AWARD

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The minister has admitted that he made a tenfold blunder in calculating the benefits to British Columbia under the Dome LNG award. Can the minister advise which figure he was using when he made the decision to award the project to Dome Petroleum?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Contrary to what the member for Rossland-Trail says, I've admitted no such blunder. If the member, Mr. Speaker, will read the Hansard report of my statement in the House last Thursday afternoon, he will see that the figures I used were that over the 20-year life of the LNG project the return to British Columbia in terms of royalties to BCPC would be $3.5 billion.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, the minister distinctly told this House and the media that the benefits would be in the neighbourhood of $400 million a year — not over the life of the project. In view of the minister's abysmal knowledge of arithmetic, has he decided to reassure the B.C. taxpayer — and the competitive bidders, Transpac and Rim — that the Dome award was fair and reasonable by allowing a full and open disclosure of the data on which he made the decision?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Once again I would ask that the member read Hansard, and if that member can find anywhere where I said to this House that the project would be $400 million per year, I would be extremely surprised. Secondly, he will find that what I told this House on Thursday afternoon was that it would be a $3.5 billion benefit to British Columbia over the 20-year life of the project. Mr. Speaker, if that's correct, and that's what appears in Hansard, I suggest that this member owes this House an apology.

MR. DARCY: Why are we giving the Japanese a better deal on the export of natural gas than we are giving our customers in the United States — or our potential export customers in other countries?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We are not giving the Japanese any better deal. As the member should know, having been the critic for Energy for some time, we developed a formula over the last several years by which we would calculate the sale of the export of manufactured products made from British Columbia natural gas on the basis of the difference between the export and the domestic price, in terms of other benefits which would come to British Columbia. It's a value-added approach, and it's one which will return maximum benefits to the province of British Columbia. On that basis, based on the construction of the plant over the three-year period, jobs created — some 1,200 people working for 10,000 man-years of employment — plus the benefits, both direct and indirect, over the 20 years of this project, we are not giving anything away. We're setting the stage for a sound economic base for this province for a long time down the road.

MR. D'ARCY: One of the problems in dealing with this minister and this government is that they don't realize how stupid they sound when they give these silly reasons for what they're doing.

Is the Minister of Energy prepared to give B.C. consumers and industry the same deal on price increases as he is giving Dome and the Japanese?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No. Mr. Speaker, I don't think the citizens of B.C. could stand that. We now subsidize the domestic price of gas to the tune of about 60 cents a thousand cubic feet. No, we're not going to subsidize the gas to be exported to Japan, as that member has just asked us to do; we're going to get full value for it, fair value for the citizens of British Columbia. It's because we're getting fair value for the export of our natural resources that we're able to

[ Page 8848 ]

give the citizens of British Columbia a decent break in the purchase of natural gas. Mr. Speaker, if that member and that party opposite think that it's silly to provide jobs for British Columbians, then they should apologize to this House and resign.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is not necessary for the answer to go beyond the scope of the question, and there is no debate in question period for the questioner.

MR. D’ARCY: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate to the House why he feels that an export price to the Americans of $3.56 now, versus an export price to the Japanese in terms of benefit to the British Columbia treasury of $1.08, is somehow not a subsidy by the B.C. economy and American export customers to the Japanese? How can he explain that difference?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I advise the member for Rossland-Trail that he obviously shouldn't be using Gary Lauk as his research officer...

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: ...because he would be far better off using some other, more sensible research. First of all, there is no $3.56 price. I don't know where the member got that; it is wrong. The $1.08 price is not the selling price of the LNG; that is wrong. The premise of the whole question was wrong, which makes it very difficult to answer it correctly. So, Mr. Speaker, I won't try.

B.C. RAILWAY BORROWING

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, and it concerns northeast coal. On Thursday the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) indicated to the House in answer to a question of mine that discussions were going on with B.C. Rail concerning financing methods for the Anzac line. Could the minister advise now whether those discussions have ended, and is he now ready to admit to the House that long-term debt will be foisted on B.C. rail as a result of the decision to proceed with the Anzac line?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, my answer will be the same as that of the Minister of Finance: negotiations are ongoing until the matter is completely resolved to the satisfaction of everybody. There wouldn't be any negotiations or anything if the socialists opposite had their way, because there would be no northeast coal deal to worry about.

MR. LEGGATT: In explaining the financing arrangements for northeast coal, the minister said on many occasions that that project would be pay-as-you-go in terms of the construction arrangements with B.C. Rail, and that there would not be long-term debt to B.C. Rail. Would the minister now confirm, as a representative of his government, that this now indicates a change of policy, given the fact that he has decided to enter discussions surrounding long-term debt for B.C. Rail and the Anzac line? Is it a change of policy?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, I have to say that the question is based on an incorrect assumption. As I stated, the Minister of Finance is the minister responsible — the fiscal agent — for the British Columbia Railway. This government has put more money into the British Columbia Railway to offset the long-term debt than any previous government. We have lived up to our commitment. I also want to say that under this government, British Columbia Railway is better run than it has ever been in the history of the province of British Columbia and the railway.

MR. LEGGATT: During the minister's estimates, he tabled a cost-benefit analysis at long last. We've now had a chance to look at it. That analysis tabled by the minister estimates that the in-place cost of the Anzac line in 1984 will be $477.3 million. It assumes 14 percent interim financing costs during construction. In view of the fact that BCR is borrowing at half a point below prime, or 17 percent plus, can the minister advise the House now how much that line is going to cost to complete, in view of the errors in the cost-benefit analysis?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Again, it gives me a great deal of difficulty to stand in this House and listen to questions from the member for Coquitlam-Moody that are always based on incorrect assumptions. I wish that member, who has made so many incorrect assumptions about the northeast coal deal — and now that the facts are out he won't even believe them — had taken the time to go to the press conference held on Friday morning with the economists who put the project together to explain to all British Columbians the basis on which the cost-benefit analysis was done. Then we took the program over to Vancouver so that the business press and everybody else who was interested could hear the facts about the cost-benefit analysis. I wish that member had availed himself of the opportunity to learn something about the economics of northeast coal so that he wouldn't continually stand in this Legislature and make incorrect assumptions.

MR. LEGGATT: I wish this minister would start answering some questions in the House; that's where he's supposed to answer questions.

That same cost-benefit analysis states that 14 million tonnes of coal have to be shipped over the line for 20 years, starting in 1984, to recover the taxpayers' investment. The same study shows that in all of Canada we can't hope to win more than four million tonnes of additional contracts before 1990. Will the minister now explain how the annual deficit on the line is going to be financed?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That member continually tries to give a false impression. We have said that on the Anzac line itself the first two contracts are not going to totally pay for that branch line. Never in the history of any railway expansion in North America has the first contract paid for the total cost of the line. If he looks further, he will see that in 1980 dollars, with the cost of the branch line, port and everything else that is being put in completely written off, there will be a return to the taxpayers of Canada, after a 10 percent social discount, of over $464 million. That is not on the same basis as the Price Waterhouse report, in that it does not take into consideration the personal income tax from the thousands and thousands of jobs that will be created in Canada, in a time when we need them.

[ Page 8849 ]

Therefore I have to state to the member that you cannot take one segment of the total picture and isolate it. It's good for the whole of Canada, it's good for British Columbia, and it's good for the British Columbia Railway, because they still make a profit on moving that coal. Over and above that, the Japanese steel industry are paying a surcharge — unheard of in the history of any railway development ever — for the construction of the railway branch line.

MR. LEGGATT: I'm glad the minister referred to the Price Waterhouse study — which, by the way, shows that one-half of all the mining equipment would go overseas. We were curious as to why Price Waterhouse said that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LEGGATT: My question is this. In the Quintette-B.C. comprehensive agreement, on page 58, article 14, there's a Pollyanna statement about procurement policy which says, just follow the policy of the province of British Columbia. That would be a bit disastrous. Why didn't the minister put any requirement in the master agreement that British Columbia contractors and workers would be given first preference on that contract rather than this Tinkerbell system he's got where we all close our eyes and hope for the best? How come you've got a Tinkerbell procurement policy on the whole contract?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to inform the member for Coquitlam-Moody that British Columbia has always said that it is a good strong member of the Canadian team. I also want to remind that member that there are a lot of British Columbia businessmen doing business in neighbouring provinces such as Alberta, Saskatchewan and into the province of Ontario. Although the rest of Canada will benefit more, we have always said that British Columbia will be a leader in Canada and that if you keep British Columbia strong, Canada will be a much stronger nation.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

On vote 20: minister's office, $165,160.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: The Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has had a busy and a productive year. I would like to open these estimates, Mr. Chairman, by reviewing a number of the activities of the last year and then make some comments about the future. Joining me on the floor in a few minutes will be my deputy minister, Mrs. Jill Bodkin, and my executive director of finance and administration, Mr. William Stewart.

At the outset, I would like to acknowledge the valuable work done over the last year by the senior division heads of the ministry. They comprise Mr. Robert Wallace, general manager of the liquor distribution branch; Mr. Allan Gould, general manager of liquor control and licensing; Mr. Jim Patterson, our rentalsman; Mr. Stewart Goodings, assistant deputy minister in charge of the consumer affairs division

Mr. Maurice St. Jorre, who, although the registrar of companies, served very ably during the last year as the acting assistant deputy minister of Corporate Affairs.

In addition, I would like to pay special tribute to the hard-working office staff in my office — in this building — headed by my ministerial secretary, Virginia Spring. Both Mrs. Spring and all of her staff have worked very hard and helped to make the office year busy and productive.

Mr. Chairman, the members of the committee might find it helpful if I briefly reviewed the interesting scope of this particular ministry. It includes a consumer affairs division and a corporate affairs division. It separately includes the office of the rentalsman. It includes the two aspects of liquor policy: liquor control and licensing; secondly, the liquor distribution branch. Additionally, recently this ministry was assigned responsibility for Expo 86. In all, this ministry is responsible for some 57 pieces of legislation. With respect to its liquor distribution branch alone, it has a major responsibility as a retailer in this province; in fact, it is the largest retail organization in the province. Gross sales of the branch this year will approach the $1 billion mark. We operate 275 retail liquor outlets with a staff of about 3,000. That's only one aspect of the ministry.

The new responsibility for Expo 86 adds to the responsibility of the ministry a project that will generate about $400 million in gross revenues in terms of its own operations. The ministry itself operates on a relatively modest budget. This year members will note the estimates provide for $19.8 million, a rise of about 10 percent from the 1981-82 estimates. I am pleased to note that for the fiscal year just ended the ministry was brought home at a taxpayer saving of $220,000 under budget.

In terms of major personnel changes in the ministry over the last year, several are very important and worthy of note. Mr. Thomas Cantell, QC, who has a distinguished career in the professional public service of British Columbia, served very ably as an acting deputy minister for about half the year and retired late in the fall. I want to acknowledge not only his fine career record of service to the province but also the particular assistance he provided me as an acting assistant and then acting deputy minister as our search was underway for a new deputy minister.

In September we appointed a new deputy minister, Mrs. Jill Bodkin, which is a very important appointment. She is the first woman deputy minister appointed in the history of our province. I want to acknowledge that Mrs. Bodkin has had excellent cooperation and assistance from senior executives in the ministry. Members will recall that the throne speech last fall placed some emphasis on the government's intention to open up and pay more attention to career opportunities for women in our public service. I am pleased to note that in this ministry — in addition to the appointment of Mrs. Bodkin — there have been several significant appointments of women to important positions in or related to government in the last year.

First of all, with respect to the Vancouver Stock Exchange and its board of governors, as a public governor we appointed Mrs. Risa Levine of Vancouver who is a very accomplished tax and commercial lawyer. Because of the fact that in British Columbia today many investors on the Vancouver Stock Exchange are, in fact, women, I think it's important to have a woman as one of the public governors, quite apart from the fact that in her own right, Mrs. Levine brings an excellent expertise in financial and securities matters to the

[ Page 8850 ]

board of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. In addition, we recently appointed the first woman member to the Credit Union Reserve Board. I refer to the appointment of Mrs. Sally Pipes. She, again, reflects an emphasis in this ministry to consider able women as well as able men in terms of opportunities for service in or related to government.

During the last year there have been two other important appointments in the ministry. To succeed Mr. Vic Woodland, who retired after a colourful and important career as general manager of the liquor control and licensing branch, Mr. Allan Gould has been appointed. Mr. Allan Gould had been the deputy general manager of liquor control and licensing. He's now been in the saddle for some time and is performing admirably. Additionally, we recently appointed a permanent Assistant Deputy Minister of Corporate Affairs, Mr. David Edgar. Mr. Edgar had served this ministry as our senior legal officer, on loan from the Ministry of Attorney-General. We are pleased that we were able to persuade Mr. Edgar to officially join our ministry in that senior capacity.

Mr. Chairman, may I turn to several of the divisions of the ministry and make some comment about activities in the last year. I would first like to deal with the consumer affairs division of the ministry. The consumer affairs division, in part, operates four consumer centres around the province, and we also provide assistance to 14 funded groups to allow them to provide consumer services in the field around the province. Over the last year, these consumer centres and consumer-funded groups were able to provide mediation services in respect of about 12,000 complaint files. They handled a total of about 125,000 inquiries, and more than $1 million in consumer rebates were negotiated.

Also, in the last year we have provided increased grant support to the B.C. branch of the Consumers Association of Canada. The new president, Mrs. Barbara Rolls of Victoria, has done a first-rate job in carrying forward the work of the B.C. branch of the Consumers Association. I particularly want to salute the work of the B.C. branch of the CAC with respect to certain of the B.C. Tel hearings, and the consumer point of view represented there.

In recent years the Better Business Bureau of Vancouver has taken a more active role in relation to consumer issues and matters. They have provided a growing arbitration service, which is very effective in its own right and eases some of the pressure on our consumer centres. Additionally, the Better Business Bureau has published in the last year what it calls its "Blue Book," which is a very helpful guide to consumers seeking general guidance about the offerings of service agencies throughout the lower mainland and parts of British Columbia.

In the consumer enforcement section of the ministry, in the last year 28 enforcement actions were undertaken. I also think it's important, given the pace of the economy in the last year, to note that I as minister have made some effort to stay in touch with the British Columbia branch of the Canadian Bankers Association. I've been concerned to follow what general policies or steps the banks are taking, particularly relative not only to consumer loans but to foreclosure practices.

I've been in regular touch with the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bankers Association. I'm pleased to report my understanding that as of today, in this difficult economy with home foreclosure such a concern, all of the major chartered banks in British Columbia have in place internal review committees. Those committees, in their respective banks, have the function of reviewing or monitoring what may be so-called hardship cases with a view to providing every consideration possible in lieu of foreclosure in such cases. Currently Mr. Ralph Franklin, who is the senior vice-president of the Bank of Montreal, serves as chairman of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bankers Association. His immediate predecessor was Mr. John Cleghorn of the Royal Bank. I think both those gentlemen are due acknowledgement for the work they have done in seeing that all of the banks now have these internal review committees at work.

One of the annual customs and practices of the ministry is to join in the nationwide salute to consumers and Consumer Week. We did that again this year. We decided on a somewhat fresh theme, which was "Give a Bouquet to Business." We felt that for a change, there were many consumers who wanted a chance to toss a bouquet, as opposed to a brick, particularly to the favourite small business of their choice or a small business which in their community has rendered either long-standing or particularly fine service. So we devoted the Consumer Week to the concept of giving a bouquet to worthy businesses in communities across the province, and we had a good response.

In the spring we also provided a very helpful and sold-out workshop for consumers in the lower mainland, entitled "Foiling Inflation." The workshop was co-sponsored by us, the Royal Bank of Canada and the Vancouver Sun newspaper. It featured Michael Grenby, the well-known financial counsellor and writer from the Vancouver Sun. We had the attendance sold out well in advance, and about 500 lower mainland citizens were able to enjoy at a very modest price a very educational day on ways and means of foiling inflation.

Mr. Chairman, given the more difficult economy of the last year, it's not surprising for me to observe that the debt-counselling division of the ministry has faced heavier challenges and a much heavier workload. During 1981-82 about 5,000 families availed themselves of the services of our debt-counselling division. In the last several months, with the increasingly difficult economic statistics being reported, the workload falling upon our debt-counselling services has increased sharply, and that workload is approaching about double last year's rate. In response to that, we shall be attempting to shift internal resources to provide an ongoing level of service to the larger number of individuals and families in B.C. turning to our debt-counselling services.

It may be of interest to members, Mr. Chairman, if I indicate by some of the regional statistics the degree to which debt-counselling service requests have increased in the province in the last two months. It is a rather interesting comparison for different parts of the province. For example, in greater Victoria requests for debt-counselling assistance have risen by about a third, and that's a fairly modest increase given some of the other figures I'll now quote. In greater Vancouver the increase in the debt-counselling workload in the last couple of months has been in the order of 80 percent; in Prince George it's up by about 100 percent; Kamloops by about 160 percent; Nanaimo by about 250 percent. That gives us some reading on the economy in different parts of the province. As I say, we're attempting to shift internal resources to increase the capacity of the debt counselling division within the ministry to serve the growing number of applicants for help.

Also on the consumer side, Mr. Chairman, the issue of UFFI — urea-formaldehyde foam insulation — has been a major one to many consumers in this province over the last 12

[ Page 8851 ]

months. This ministry has maintained a regular and very keen interest in this problem and on a regular basis maintained liaison with our federal counterparts in Ottawa, the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. We've tried to lead the fight across Canada for commitments from the federal government to assist affected consumers in resolving their problems in their homes, in which consumers have unwittingly become, by virtue of their own symptoms and reactions, victims of UFFI. As I think the evidence is showing, not every house, not every citizen may be affected; but certainly some homes and some of our citizens have suffered negative consequences from the installation of UFFI, and we feel strongly that the federal government has an obligation to provide assistance and support to those affected consumers. At the federal consumer ministers' conference last fall our delegation led the fight to seek a commitment from Mr. Ouellet, the federal minister, for both technical and financial help to affected consumers, and that commitment was forthcoming in December.

The homeowner action group here in British Columbia is, I think, the best organized and the most effective in all of Canada. It's chaired by Dr. Penny Tilby, and in the last year we have provided two separate grants to this organization to assist their office in its operations and in the work that it is doing on behalf of consumers.

We are continuing to monitor both the ongoing evidence and reports about reaction to UFFI across the country, and also to monitor the implementation by the federal government of its relief program. My colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) earlier this session introduced a very important piece of relief legislation that will assist consumers here in British Columbia affected by this problem. That was legislation which would expand the normal statute-of-limitations period and permit consumers afflicted with the UFFI problem a longer period of time within which to consider their rights and preserve their rights, then decide what action, if any, to take.

Mr. Chairman, another highly topical interest on the consumer side of the ministry in the last year is the topic of supermarket scanners. The members will recall that early in 1981 we acted to place a moratorium on the installation of further scanners in supermarkets, pending the research, work and results of a task force that we established headed by Prof. Stanley Shapiro of Simon Fraser University. That report was completed late in the year. We released it and announced our policy on scanners early in 1982. It is a policy which seeks to provide a permanent choice for consumers, by providing that over the next several years no greater than one-third of the supermarket outlets in British Columbia may become scanner-equipped. We seek to provide that consumers will have a choice as to where they want to shop between a scanner and a non-scanner store. If over time the scanner stores indeed turn out to provide lower pricing or better hold the line on pricing, consumers will be at liberty to shop in such stores. If they prefer to shop in stores with the traditional pricing, that choice will be available to them. We have also implemented a scanner code of conduct for those stores which may be permitted to install scanners; we'd like to see them abide by the so-called scanner code of conduct. That policy we've announced, Mr. Chairman, seems to be working very well to the satisfaction of all concerned.

Also on the consumer side of the ministry, in the travel business British Columbia travel agents, prepaid tours and the Travel Assurance Board occupied major attention during last year. The members will recall that at approximately Easter of 1981 there were several major failures in the wholesale side of the travel industry. Through the work of our Travel Assurance Board and the Travel Assurance Fund, we were able to preserve and protect the holidays of British Columbians and in appropriate cases provide refunds, so that in the result, notwithstanding those collapses, holidays were protected or restitution was made. In the wake of that a report was commissioned, by Mr. Frederick Shandro, a Vancouver lawyer and an expert in insolvency and bankruptcy. Late in the year he brought in a major report containing about 40 recommendations with respect to the organization of the travel industry and the Travel Assurance Fund. The ministry has been assessing those, Mr. Chairman, particularly in light of a rapidly changing economy. The economy of today and recent months is much different from the British Columbia economy in which Mr. Shandro began his original research. However, we anticipate before too long making some major announcements with respect to changes in the structure and operations of the Travel Assurance Board and the Travel Assurance Fund.

We have recently moved to fill the vacancy on the so-called retail side of the Travel Assurance Board caused by the retirement of Mr. Malcolm Nicholson from the board. Recently we appointed Mr. Kurt Maurer, the proprietor of Hagen's Travel Service, to fill the retail position on the Travel Assurance Board. We anticipate meeting again with the British Columbia executive of the travel agents' organization. We met with them about two months ago to receive and review their recommendations as to the Travel Assurance Board, the fund and the applicable legislation. We propose to meet with them again before coming to any final conclusions.

Mr. Chairman, another very important consumer topic — and it relates also to the corporate side of the ministry — which has engaged our attention over the last year is that of the proposed new federal competition act. Members will recall this has been announced as a federal initiative by the Hon. André Ouellet, the federal Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Again, at the federal consumer ministers' conference last fall, British Columbia took the lead in promoting discussion on this topic. Unlike some provinces, without having seen the legislation we do not take the new view that any new competition act must be bad and a step backwards. Rather, we think, if properly drafted with proper content and with proper consultation, a new competition act can be of major importance not only to British Columbia consumers but to British Columbia business, large, medium and small. While many think that a new competition act must necessarily somehow be against business and only promote the interests of consumers, we believe that if properly framed and with proper content, a new federal competition act can be good news for consumers, good news for big business, small business and medium-sized business. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that in particular small and medium sized business can earn and receive some much-needed protection in our British Columbia and Canadian economy from modern and fresh provisions in a new federal competition act. We await that legislation and its content. As I said, if it is sensible, fresh legislation that will advance the interests of consumers and business, we look forward to supporting it.

May I turn to the corporate side of the ministry and address some remarks on the activities of the corporate division. The securities law and regulation division of the corporate ministry has had a very active year. Our jurisdiction

[ Page 8852 ]

includes the Vancouver Stock Exchange. The VSE has really moved into its own in the last several years. Last year it commenced recording some of the highest trading volumes of any stock exchange in Canada. Over the last several years the Vancouver Stock Exchange has developed policies to upgrade the quality of its operations, the quality of its listings and the quality of its staff.

The VSE has become a major employer in our B.C. economy. About 200 attractive white-collar jobs are now involved at the VSE. So a healthy and strong VSE is important for many reasons, not the least of which is job availability in the greater Vancouver financial community. In the past year the exchange moved to brand new facilities, paid for by exchange members. About $200 million worth of new facilities and new technological equipment give the VSE some highly competitive technological trading advantages.

The VSE also recruited a new president to succeed retiring Bob Scott. The new president is Mr. Don Hudson, who brings excellent executive and retail experience to the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

Through the ministry we've attempted to maintain a very regular liaison with the exchange, its board of governors and its senior executives over the last year. Certainly as the VSE has grown, the other exchanges in Canada, particularly the Toronto Stock Exchange and the Montreal Stock Exchange, from which the VSE has taken business, have announced plans to counterattack economically and win back some of the business which has been lost. I think, therefore, the ministry has a job to do in assisting the VSE and the Vancouver financial community in keeping the business that has been won and brought here, in achieving the VSE goal of developing the Vancouver financial community as a unique venture-capital market.

Recently it's been announced that the Montreal Stock Exchange has been lobbying federal Members of Parliament, the federal government and the Quebec government with a view to creating Montreal as an international tax haven, with respect to international financial transactions. We will be following those efforts very closely. If the Montreal Stock Exchange, on the eastern side of Canada with its window to Europe, seeks from the federal government a special tax status with respect to international financial transactions, we think an equally good argument can be applied with respect to Vancouver, our Vancouver financial community and the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Our area on the far western Pacific side of Canada is deserving of such treatment too.

Members will also know that an important amendment has been proposed for the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act this session, providing for dealing in certain kinds of financial options.

During the year there was considerable concern about the time-frame required with respect to the Vancouver Stock Exchange and our own broker's office for the processing of prospectuses and statements of material fact. The argument was that the unnecessarily lengthy time-frame would mean delays in processing prospectuses and statements of material fact, that it would would be costly to the investor and would cause further quality investment in the Vancouver financial community to go elsewhere, by virtue of the red tape and delay involved in getting them ready for public marketing. In response to those concerns, early in 1982 we commissioned Mr. Peter Stanley, a former governor of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, to undertake an extensive look at the problem. He produced what we call the Stanley report, which we issued in the fall. He proposed a number of remedies, a number of which we have implemented. It appears that the backlog that had existed is now virtually eliminated, and a number of his recommendations are now in place.

With respect to both the proposed new Securities Act and the Stanley report, we have certain basic goals and objectives in our securities legislation, which I'll be referring to in a moment.

Also of importance to members is the proposed new Securities Act of British Columbia. The new Securities Act was introduced earlier this session as a so-called exposure bill, so that we might have comment from the affected parties. Under that act, we proposed that a good deal of the content be relegated to the form of regulations to provide in the future some greater flexibility for amending the rules, and also some greater capacity to respond in a timely way should competitive financial markets and stock exchanges seek to compete by changing their rules. Today I'm pleased to announce that we're going to release the proposed regulations under the act. For the convenience of members we have collated the act and the proposed regulations. It's all in one place and contains the proposed new securities act and the proposed draft regulations, which are very extensive. In advance of the regulations, there is a commentary by way of an overview which seeks to give a summary of what is in the regulations.

These proposed regulations are again introduced on an exposure basis. They are being farmed out to the affected and interested parties in the private sector and also to certain public interest groups. We're asking for response and comment by September 15, in the hope that we may receive and act upon any constructive suggestions for change. We further hope that in the fall we can proceed with the act and the regulations together.

I've got a number of further remarks to make about other parts of the ministry. However, given the clock, what I might do at this stage is make a few more comments about the corporate side of the ministry, and then perhaps my friends opposite would have some comments.

In essence, these are our objectives with respect to the securities side of the corporate division of the ministry, with respect to the Vancouver Stock Exchange and our financial marketplace in Vancouver: to provide improved public protection and investor confidence; to make more effective our surveillance, investigation and compliance; to develop a "little guys" policy to make this the fairest market of all for the small investor; to eliminate red tape and delays; to assist the B.C. financial community in developing, as part of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, a venture capital market that is unique not just in North America but in the world; to meet successfully the expected new competition of the Toronto and Montreal Stock Exchanges; and to encourage entrepreneurial initiative. Those are the objectives that we hope to reach.

In concluding at this stage, I note that we hosted the conference of northwest securities state regulators about a month ago, with security regulators from many parts of the U.S. and Canada. That's been of great assistance to us.

I might pause at this point. I've got some subsequent remarks to make on the real estate division of the superintendent of brokers, the office of the rentalsman, credit unions, liquor distribution branch and liquor control and licensing, but perhaps I'll pause here and listen to my friends opposite.

[ Page 8853 ]

MR. LEVI: I've no questions of this minister, since be refuses to answer questions on substantive matters. I move that vote 20 be reduced to the sum of $1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

MR. BARBER: These are the estimates of a minister who has wrecked his reputation during the present session. This motion is presented by the opposition because we believe he holds this Legislature in contempt, and we believe the way in which he has ruined his reputation holds the people in contempt. We make three principal charges and criticisms of this minister, and do so through a motion to reduce his salary to $1. If it were within our power, Mr. Chairman, we would make a motion to require him to repay the money he has spent on personal extravagance and the money misspent on personal waste. If it were in our power, that would be the motion we would be debating now. But it's not, and so we move to reduce vote 20 to $1 and thereby limit his future waste and extravagance in this portfolio, or at least as long as he holds it.

This minister has wrecked his reputation, and he's done it in three ways: first, by being charged with waste and extravagance on a scale we haven't seen in this province for years; secondly, by being charged with making false statements on vouchers which he certified as correct and later admitted inPublic Accounts and elsewhere were not correct; thirdly, by refusing to answer questions in this House during question period and in a committee of this House called Public Accounts. The record of (1) waste and extravagance, (2) false statements and (3) a refusal to answer questions is a record that we believe requires us to move that his salary be reduced to one dollar.

He has also helped to further tarnish the reputation of his own government — the government of Broadway Bob, who goes to New York and wastes a thousand bucks, the government of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who goes to New York and does the same thing, the government of a Ministry of Health that rewrites vouchers, and now the Minister of Consumer Affairs, who has done more spectacular consuming himself than any other consumer in British Columbia this year. It's a government whose public reputation has been doubtless irreparably damaged by the conduct of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

There is only one unique circumstance. This is one we didn't expect to see when these revelations came forward, but it is now one which we are entitled to acknowledge. In this record of waste and extravagance, in this record of public admission that false documents were filed, this minister has been consistently protected by the Premier. He has been protected from the first day, and a standard of protection has been applied to him that was never applied to another minister who got into trouble with travel expenses — my colleagues to follow will be drawing comparisons that are obvious for all to see. This minister has enjoyed the unique protection of the Premier, and there are obviously powerful political reasons why. They have to do with the nature of the coalition, the nature of political debt and the nature of political obligation. This minister — who stands charged with waste and extravagance, false statements and a refusal to answer questions — has been protected by the Premier in a deliberate and, in our view, unparliamentary way. Later on we will be examining why it is that the Premier has found it necessary to protect this minister.

Let me deal with the first issue — waste. On March 27 of this year columnist Richard Gwyn first hinted in print that there was something, wrong with the expense accounts of members of the Social Credit cabinet. On March 21 — four days later — the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs evidently realized it might be him. He wrote to Mr. MacMunn, the departmental comptroller, and asked him to examine his accounts. We can only presume that if Mr. Gwyn had not written that column on March 17, no such letter to the departmental comptroller would have gone forward on March 21. In consequence of that, the minister has admitted that at least $326 was claimed by and paid to him that never should have been claimed or paid. He could have admitted a great deal more, and we'll talk about that too. On March 17 Mr. Gwyn hinted that something was wrong in the cabinet; on March 21 the minister realized — perhaps for the first time — it was him, and so he wrote to Mr. MacMunn.

Shortly thereafter the Vancouver Sun, in a series of disclosures based on authentic documents and disclosures that were made as the result of the minister's certifying vouchers to be correct when in fact they were not, helped develop a record of personal waste and extravagance that we have not seen in this Legislature for many years. This record of waste and extravagance includes, as is well known, a dinner for six at Umberto's restaurant purportedly to discuss government policy. This dinner for six cost the taxpayers $374, of which $184 was for booze. How sober a discussion could this have been, Mr. Chairman? There was $184 for booze — the whole dinner only cost $374 — and that was for only six people. What sober discussions took place that night? What discussions in fact took place that night that couldn't have taken place in the minister's office soberly by day?

I've never understood the justification these Socreds offer for this constant claim on the public purse for their personal eating and drinking habits. If they want to eat and drink, that's fine; but let them pay for it. They're paid enough by the taxpayers once. Why do they have to be paid twice? If it's legitimate government business, if it involves entertaining delegations, business persons, people from the trade union movement or Mr. and Mrs. Citizen, that's fine. We don't criticize it. But this — a $374 dinner at Umberto's restaurant — illustrates vividly, but not uniquely, the personal waste and extravagance of a minister who, we presume, would never have sent such a bill to his own law firm; he knows full well his law partners would have thrown it out, laughing. This is the famous dinner that includes, of course, the bottles of wine, Pouilly Fuisse — $37.50. How does the minister justify that kind of extravagance to the people of British Columbia? How can he possibly do so — $37.50 for bottles of wine? This is, of course, the same minister who also submitted vouchers in the amount of 60 cents for cartons of milk. Can you imagine what it costs the taxpayers to process a voucher for 60 cents? Can you imagine how much we had to pay, to pay twice for the minister's cartons of milk bought at the CNIB store out here? But that is the waste, that is the extravagance, and that is the record of the minister whose salary we're now moving be reduced to $1.

This is also the record of waste and extravagance that includes among other items the following: $14.39 for films so that pictures could be taken in his office for God knows what public purpose, $10.481 for a government car for the minister — specially equipped, we found out, with a stereo,

[ Page 8854 ]

deluxe upholstery and an electric sun roof. What public business is better served when the minister can press a button and open the sun roof on his government car? What justification can he offer for that extravagance at public expense? If he wants it himself, let him pay for it himself. It's fine if he pays for it out of his own pocket; it is objectionable, wrong and wasteful to bill the taxpayers $10,481 so that this minister can enjoy a stereo, so that he can seat himself comfortably on what was described as "deluxe upholstery," and so that when it is sunny out, he can press a button and have a roof retract automatically.

This is the minister who has also been asked why he billed the government $579 for a bill submitted by Sewell's Marina, a company that ordinarily rents boats. What government business was conducted, if it was the case that this minister rented a boat while on a tour? What justification is there for that bill? We've tried to ask, and so has the press; the minister refuses to answer. There may be a justification, but we don't know what it is. We can only construe that it is as acceptable as $10,000 for a car with a sun roof or hundreds upon hundreds of dollars for dinner and booze with friends.

The minister's record of extravagance includes giving an unsolicited donation of $5,000 to the Junior League, of which his wife was the incoming president, for a Xerox that they never required. There are a lot of groups around British Columbia who would be delighted to receive $5,000 they never requested in order to obtain a Xerox they may not need — the homemakers, for instance, Mr. Chairman. The homemaker service would be delighted for a gift of $5,000 from this minister, but of course they'll never get one because his wife probably is not the incoming president.

This minister's record of personal waste includes moving from Quebec City to Montreal in order to rent a room at the Quatre Saisons in the amount of $440 a night. What government business was conducted there we don't know, because there is no record; what government business needs to be conducted in a suite that costs $440 a night? If the minister wants to meet with people in Montreal, why doesn't he meet at their office? Why doesn't he meet in their hotel room? Why doesn't he try and find a few ways to save the taxpayers a bit of money? No, he moved from a $250-a-night room at one hotel in Quebec City — the Frontenac, I think it was — to a $440-a-night room at the Quatre Saisons in Montreal.

This record of waste and extravagance includes expenditures of $644 for a dinner with his staff. Apparently he didn't value the staff at dinner highly enough to pay for it himself. If he had paid for it himself, that might have been taken as a sincere gesture by his staff that he really appreciated their personal services, but no, he billed that to the taxpayers too: $644 later he's had yet another dinner at public expense.

On May 26, 1981, in one of his endless rounds of endless lunches and dinners at the taxpayers' expense, he took to lunch the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree); $21 later, he had treated his colleagues to yet another lunch at the taxpayers' expense. You know, there seems to be no end to that extravagance either. These guys are constantly taking one another to dinner, constantly deciding who will pay the bill or how many will be paid for the same bill, and constantly treating their own appointed deputies at taxpayers' expense to yet another round of lunch and dinner and booze.

AN HON. MEMBER: You mean there is a free lunch?

MR. BARBER: Well, there is a free lunch if you're a Socred. If you're a Socred cabinet minister — I can't use their personal names — like the Minister of Tourism or the Minister of Municipal Affairs, you got a free lunch on May 26 — and hundreds of others in this cabinet that indicates its contempt for authentic restraint, its willingness to spend anything for personal pleasure, its total lack of will to buy a hamburger out of their own pockets. This is the government and the minister who submitted a voucher for 60 cents for a carton of milk.

The waste and extravagance of this minister includes a trip to Arizona. Today, $1,509 later, we still don't know what he did there. We do know that the minister was appointed to the cabinet on January 6. We now know — this is information not previously made public — that 13 days later he made a reservation to go to a plush resort in Scottsdale, Arizona. Thirteen days after being appointed he discovers he has urgent government business in Scottsdale, Arizona; that's when the reservation was actually made, we now learn. Seven months later the minister persuaded himself, shall we say, that this was, after all, legitimate government business, and he submitted a claim. The government paid the claim. Unfortunately for him, during a period covered in this claim he also claimed to be in Vancouver. Even for a really fast minister, that's hard. To be in both Scottsdale and Vancouver on February 27 is really hard to do, but that's what that minister said he had done.

We've asked before and got no answers: what was the minister doing in Scottsdale, Arizona? Who invited him? What government agency asked him to go down there to conduct what government business? We contacted the governor's office, the offices of the minority and majority caucus leaders in both houses of the Arizona state legislature, and the Arizona department of consumer and corporate affairs. I'd like to know whether the minister ever met with any of those people. If he didn't, what was he doing there? Why did it take him seven months to ascertain that he had been there on government business? Who are Mr. and Mrs. Walter Stirling? What business do they have with the government of British Columbia? What business do they have with the government of Arizona? What dealings do they have with the policy issues of the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs? What dealings do they have with the policies administered and agencies governed by this minister? Which specific state legislators were met by the minister when he was in Scottsdale, Arizona at this luxury resort? Which of them, if any, were arranged to be met before he left Vancouver? If any were arranged to be met, who made the arrangements and for what business purpose?

The minister has refused, in Public Accounts and to the press, to answer questions about what he was doing in Arizona. His refusal makes us curious. When he decides he has to go to a resort for tennis stars and makes the booking 13 days after he is appointed, we have to be a bit curious as to what he's doing there and whether or not it's government business.

Those are just a few illustrations of the charge that has been made, and that can be verified, that this minister has been living very handsomely off the public purse and has been demonstrably guilty of waste and extravagance, which is unacceptable in this or any other House.

That is the first reason why this minister has wrecked his reputation in British Columbia. The second reason deals with the issue of false statements.

[ Page 8855 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: As the member is very well aware, certain terms may not be used in the chamber. I would ask the member possibly to couch his comments in terminology that is acceptable to the chamber.

MR. BARBER: The vouchers filed by this minister are positively riddled with misinformation. Those statements are not accurate when you examine the vouchers. The claims made by the minister over and over again prove to be, upon analysis, riddled with statements that cannot be verified and claims that are, in a word, false. I'm not commenting about motivation. The minister himself has admitted that these are false claims, because he's pulled back some of them, he's refunded some of the money and he's tried to correct others.

The second principal reason why we make this motion and why this minister has wrecked his reputation is because of these hopelessly inaccurate vouchers and claims of expense. For instance, at one point he claimed to have had dinner with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) on a cabinet tour. He said he saw the Minister of Labour in the same dining room but, upon review, realized that he wasn't at the same table. The first explanation collapsed in a heap of laughter when it turned out that the Minister of Labour was neither at the table nor in the room nor on the cabinet tour. He wasn't there at all. It turned out that the male member of cabinet whom he thought he had dinner with was a female member of the Premier's office staff. That was a claim he made within 60 days of the event. A strangely short memory; wildly inaccurate recollections. The inaccurate claim on that voucher has been repudiated.

The minister also claimed — he certified it; he put his signature on the document — to have had dinner with the publisher of the Vancouver Sun. This turns out to be another — in a word — false claim. The publisher said he was never there for dinner with the minister. After it became public, but not before, the minister admitted that as well. He went on to givePublic Accounts an explanation which, frankly, we do not believe. The explanation offered by this minister for the Clark Davey dinner is utterly incredible. No one believes it but the minister himself. No rational person can accept the excuse offered by the minister: how he came by mistake to have believed he had dinner with Clark Davey, when in fact he didn't. That was only the second mistake. The first was the Minister of Labour, who wasn't at the table or in the dining room or on the tour; the second was the publisher of the Vancouver Sun, who came over to say hello. I certainly don't think that was worth billing $61 to the taxpayers: it was a fairly brief hello. The explanation the minister offered toPublic Accounts was completely ludicrous. I suspect the minister is the only person who can even repeat it with a straight face.

Then there's the issue of another inaccurate claim. This one involves double-billing, This is the one that involves the Arizona trip and the trip to Vancouver occurring at the same period. How is it possible that the minister could sign a document alleging he was in Vancouver when he knew he was in Scottsdale and claiming for both? There's a word for that kind of practice, and it's found in the Criminal Code. It's found in the Criminal Code when people do that sort of thing. That was obviously a fraudulent entry. The minister says it was a mistake, just one of many. We're asked to believe that he signed vouchers with his eyes closed. We are asked to believe that he sat there in his office one day and riffling through them — as you and I would riffle through a pack of cards — he simply signed voucher after voucher and didn't care enough to find out if the expenses were legitimate, accurate or even real. There's another word to describe someone who would treat public funds like that. The word I use is malfeasance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member can use any word he wishes, as long as it is in keeping with the rules that govern us in this House. I'm sure the hon. member has enough command of the language to say what he wants to say without offending those rules.

MR. BARBER: I'm not aware that malfeasance is on the famous list, Mr. Chairman. Is it? You know it's not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member knows the intent of the word he's using and....

MR. BARBER: I do. The intent of the word and the intent of the minister are unhappily parallel.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must ask the member to bear in mind the rules of this House and to carry on a debate that is acceptable to those rules.

MR. BARBER: The minister has asked us to believe that he signed a bunch of vouchers that were, for all practical purposes, blank. Some of us don't believe it. Some of us think that even if that it were true, that alone is enough reason to justify the call for his resignation. But we'll get to that in a minute too. Either way you look at it, the man is not fit to hold the office. If he's signing things blind, he shouldn't be there. If he's signing statements that claim he was in one place and another, thousands of miles apart, on the same day, he shouldn't be in either of those places. He shouldn't be in that office at all.

In one travel voucher alone there were five claims, three of which the minister has now admitted were completely in error. That's just one of dozens. No minister that incompetent — three errors out of five tries — has adequate administrative skills to hold the office he commands. Even if you believe the explanation he offered — and many don't — that explanation disqualifies him from the office he holds.

The record of inaccurate statements includes strange billings to the account of the deputy minister herself. The minister has also admitted that there might be something peculiar about that practice. We hope that the auditor-general reviews it very carefully, because we think there is something quite wrong with it as well. When the deputy minister is on legitimate government business, she's entitled to be reimbursed for it. We don't object at all. When the minister is on legitimate government business, he is similarly entitled. But he is not entitled to cover up his real expenses by charging them to someone else, namely his deputy. That appears to be what happened. The minister has admitted as much. It is a gross violation of anything that we consider to be honest bookkeeping — to see that kind of manipulation occurring in the public accounts.

The minister has admitted to $326 worth of mistakes. He's admitted that he signed vouchers with his eyes closed — those are my words and not his. When he made the admission by way of a letter paying back the money, he didn't make that letter public. We did. We had to. We found it, The minister apparently was so ashamed of the admissions of error that he

[ Page 8856 ]

did not himself make a public disclosure that he had paid back some of the money he had wrongly claimed. We found it by surprise in a set of vouchers, during the good old days when we had staff and could use the staff to examine vouchers. The minister was obviously ashamed of something.

The third part of our argument, and that with which I conclude, is where the real shame should lie. We've said as well that the minister stands condemned for his refusal to answer questions. Mr. Chairman, I ask a very simple question: what right does the minister have to refuse? Where in the Constitution Act does it say that this minister has the right to refuse to answer questions on the floor of this House in question period, during his estimates or inPublic Accounts ? What lawful right does he have to refuse to answer questions about Arizona, the milk cartons, Umberto's Restaurant, the money for the camera, the money for the car, and all of these other inconsistencies and this other extravagance? What right does the minister have to refuse to answer? In our view he has none at all, save the self-proclaimed right of Socreds. That self-proclaimed right is arrogance, contempt and a refusal to be held responsible for what they've done after they've been caught.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this minister stands condemned by refusing to answer legitimate questions in a forthright, straightforward and timely way. He stands condemned by the publication of vouchers that indicate a record of personal high living that no one in British Columbia believes he is entitled to. He stands condemned because he signed voucher after voucher that turn out to have been filled with mistake after mistake. The record of incompetence is clear and proven. The record of waste is clear and proven. The record of this government and in particular of this Premier in protecting this man is also clear and proven. On all those counts our motion to reduce his salary to $1 should pass this House unanimously.

MR. KING: I'm amazed, Mr. Chairman, that no one on the government side is prepared to stand up and give even a pretence of a defence of the very serious allegations brought forward against the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Perhaps what bothers me more is the fact that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is prepared to continue to occupy the office of a minister of the Crown in this province with the very serious and supported allegations made against him for the squandering, if not the abuse, of public funds within the authority of his ministry.

Mr. Chairman, there has been a long-standing tradition in parliaments within the British jurisdiction, parliaments modelled after the British House, that where a serious allegation, or even a question, of wrongdoing against a minister is raised, that minister stands down from his office, pending a full and thorough investigation of the allegations that have been brought forward. It's not to be construed as an admission of guilt; rather it is to preserve the integrity of ministerial offices. It is to preserve the integrity of a minister of the Crown as being above reproach in terms of the administration of public funds, until a full and thorough review that guarantees judicious hearing of evidence makes a finding. This minister has refused to do that. Moreover, this minister has refused to adequately answer implications flowing from the material released by the Vancouver Sun initially, and further information contained in vouchers which were brought forward at Public Accounts committee meetings. This minister — it's been demonstrated and outlined in most articulate fashion by my colleague the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) — has abused the public trust. This minister has squandered public funds on his own personal meals....

Interjection.

MR. KING: My colleague asks whether or not the two ministers who flank the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, neither one of whom occupies his own seat, drew the short straws in terms of seeing who might remain in the House to act as a palace guard for the minister who is under attack. I want to suggest that those ministers have drawn short straws not only in terms of defending that minister but also, it seems, in terms of preserving their own ministries.

It's a most serious matter. The only parallels we have to this situation, in which it's been proven that this minister waxed fat, sassy and extravagant at the taxpayers' expense in the exclusive restaurants of British Columbia, drinking expensive French wines that, as my colleague the Leader of the Opposition says, are so dammed expensive I can't even pronounce them — $37.50 a bottle to anoint the throats of this minister and some little coterie of friends who dined out at Umberto's restaurant, a place that the unemployed thousands of British Columbia will never see, much less dine in....

That's an abuse. It's an abuse when this minister donates, at government expense, machinery to an organization which never requested it, but which coincidentally his wife happens to be the incoming president of. It's an abuse when this minister entertains his colleagues, other cabinet ministers, and bills the people of this province for their meal, over and above the per diem of $45 they receive each and every day they're out of the capital of Victoria. In addition to that, a number of cabinet ministers dined together and this minister picked up the tab for all of them. That's double-dipping, Mr. Chairman. That's an abuse and extravagance that the people of the province of British Columbia do not deserve to have imposed upon them. That's an abuse of office — if not illegal, certainly immoral.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

How can this government expect any credibility to be attached to their alleged program of restraint when we see the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) attending Broadway shows in New York with a Cadillac limousine waiting — hundreds of dollars of taxpayers' money blown on that minister's self-gratification? Similarly with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), in New York attending a Broadway show, the title of which is unparliamentary. To render it into parliamentary terms, I guess I would have to refer to it as "The Best Little Bawdy House in Texas." The Minister of Finance attends that at public expense. We have this minister living high off the hog, renting boats, going on a tennis holiday to Scottsdale, Arizona, failing to show that he conducted any government business whatsoever while on that week's vacation at public expense, playing tennis. I think he had his family with him, did he not? That's fine; I like to see ministers' families travel with them wherever possible. I think that's good practice. But it should not be billed to the public. Taxpayers don't deserve to be billed, indeed gouged, for the private holidays of ministers of the Crown. By all means take your wife with you on these trips; I think it's a very good practice. But surely, at

[ Page 8857 ]

$70,000 per year, Mr. Minister, you could afford to pay for your wife's accommodation and travel expenses.

Maybe you did; I don't know. The problem is, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has steadfastly refused to answer any of the questions relating to that trip to Arizona, which defies the doctrine of ministerial accountability to this Legislature and the doctrine of political accountability to the province. As Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, how can we be expected to give any credibility to that minister's responsibilities under his portfolio, when he has shown such an utter and overwhelming contempt for the people of the province of British Columbia by squandering their tax dollars hither and yon across this province and indeed across the continent? It would be a charade and a mockery to treat seriously this minister's responsibilities for Consumer and Corporate Affairs until he is prepared, in an honest and forthright fashion, to step down from his position and allow for a full and thorough airing of all of the information raised by the vouchers which have been referred to.

Mr. Chairman, there's no need for the minister to entertain his cabinet colleagues. They each make $70,000 a year. I don't criticize that, because they work hard — ministers do. They spend long hours. I have been there, and I know. I suspect that not all of the public recognize the long, difficult and tedious hours that ministers of the Crown put in. But they are well paid; they receive an adequate expense allowance. It is totally unnecessary and unprecedented for members of the executive council to dine constantly at public expense in addition to the expenses they receive. Furthermore, it is totally improper to entertain their colleagues at public expense — unjustified either by rule of cabinet or by rule of tradition in terms of ministerial behaviour.

Deputy ministers receive $60,000 per year. I'm not sure whether all of them do, but certainly the senior ones do. They can well afford to buy their own lunches and dinners. They do not have to be entertained by the minister at public expense, so that the taxpayers are receiving a double load in the cost of maintaining government.

It never ceases to amaze me that this government deals so much in cliches. Remember the lines of this government during the last election? "There's no such thing as a free lunch, my friends. Someone has to pay. The government has no money of its own. It all comes from the taxpayers." Surely, Mr. Chairman, if they were serious and sincere about those sentiments, they would not be gouging the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia for meals day after day, for their staff and their colleagues in cabinet, while at one and the same time receiving a salary of $60,000 and $70,000 a year, plus $45 a day per diem for the days they are out of Victoria. What they preach to the public they are not prepared to follow; they are not prepared to set an example to the rest of the province. They preach restraint, they preach caution in difficult economic times, but they live high off the hog at public expense. And what is worse, this minister consistently — and in my view contemptuously — refuses to answer questions regarding the expenditure of public funds under his office, for which he should be accountable to this Legislature. It may be that he is hoping that when the auditor general's report comes down in 1983 or 1985, whenever it may be, he'll be vindicated. That may be. It may also be that he will no longer be in the cabinet at that time in any event. It may be that any abuses or misdeeds that occurred will be beyond the upcoming provincial election, so that any accountability to this Legislature, to this parliament and its rules will have gone by the board before that minister is called to account for the improprieties which have been clearly proved respecting his submissions of expenses under public accounts. It s totally unprecedented that a member should remain a member of the executive council while these most serious allegations of abuse, and indeed wrongdoing, are suggested by the claims which he has made on the public purse.

He made some claims and collected some money — I think it was $324 — which was subsequently repaid by his decision, without any public airing. Private citizens in this province accused of any wrongdoing or accused of acquiring expense money or of making income tax claims or claims for social assistance or workers' compensation, basing those claims upon false testimony and certifying that indeed their claims are correct and true.... If it is subsequently proved that that certification was false and untrue, they don't have the luxury of repaying those moneys received.

This government is most vigorous in prosecuting cases under Human Resources, workers' compensation or any other field of human benefit where claims certified as true are subsequently proven to be untrue and unsupportable. There should only be one standard of justice in the province of British Columbia, not one for politicians and another for citizens. There should be one standard of justice for all people before the law in the province of British Columbia, whether they be cabinet ministers or workers. It is not good enough to have people in high places protected by the Premier or by other members of government while young mothers with dependent children on welfare are prosecuted for making false declarations in terms of claims to the Ministry of Human Resources. There's nobody to protect them, nor should there be. But it angers me and it breeds cynicism, distaste and contempt in the hearts and minds of the people of this province when they see that there are two standards of law: one for this minister, for Social Credit and the Premier, and quite another for the average citizen.

That's what's at issue here. It's damaging to the process. It's not only damaging to that minister; it is damaging to each and every member who sits in this Legislature, because it brings politics into disrepute. It's shameful conduct. How is it that this minister, with a preponderance of proof, a preponderance of evidence, at least to suggest that there has been if not impropriety then scandalously irresponsible accounting is protected? How is it that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), the then Minister of Communications, at the first suggestion of impropriety in claiming for travel fares was not only summarily dismissed by the Premier from the executive council but subsequently pursued with criminal charges and found guilty?

At that time the Premier said: "I do not wish to prejudge the case against this member, but serious allegations have been raised and he should stand down from the cabinet until such time as the charges against him have been dealt with through due process." I agree with those sentiments. I agree with that action taken by the Premier, and I ask why that standard of procedure was dispensed to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) and not in the case of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. How come there's one standard for that member, a former Liberal, and quite another standard for this former leader of the Tory Party in the province of British Columbia, who joined the Social Credit coalition when he found it more convenient to get elected that way? Is it because he is of more political import to

[ Page 8858 ]

the political destinies of Social Credit? Is that why he's being protected? Is that why he still occupies a cabinet chair, when in fact the allegations raised against this minister are far more numerous and far more serious than those for which the Premier summarily dismissed the member for North–Vancouver Seymour from cabinet?

If anyone in British Columbia is to take either this minister or the government seriously and particularly the Premier of the province, then they have to be satisfied that some integrity is associated with this government and their policies. How can anyone, regardless of political bent, view with any seriousness in this day and age a call for restraint by this government when the Premier, who is seeking to persuade people to participate in that restraint, is protecting the minister who has been guilty of the most flagrant, outrageous and scandalous abuse of the public purse in the history of this province?

What was the minister doing in Scottsdale other than playing tennis? Did he have any government business there? If so, with whom? What benefit did the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia receive from that week in sunny Arizona on the tennis courts, which they paid for? The minister consistently refuses to answer those questions in the House, and in my view, Mr. Chairman, he is in utter contempt not only of the process here but also of his responsibilities to the taxpayers of this province. As such, he cannot expect to receive anything but the return contempt of the voters when the next election rolls around. I'm afraid we shall have to wait until then for a complete remedy.

MR. LEA: What was the minister doing in Scottsdale, Arizona? I think it's a question that a great many people want the answer to. I've arrived at my conclusion: the minister was a guest in Scottsdale, Arizona.

You'll recall, Mr. Chairman, that the gift to the Junior League of the photocopier was because the minister's wife is the incoming president of the Junior League in this province. The other person in Scottsdale, Arizona whom anybody had any business with was Mrs. Sterling, also a member of the Junior League. I suggest that Mr. Sterling and the minister were guests of the wives, and the taxpayers picked up the bill. That's what was going on in Scottsdale, Arizona. It was tennis, fun and the Junior League. That's all it was, pure and simple.

It's a sorry day for this province when once again we see this kind of behaviour from a Social Credit government. It began 20 years ago, when for the first time in commonwealth history a cabinet minister went to jail for accepting bribes. A Social Credit cabinet minister, the first in the history of the British Commonwealth system, went to jail for receiving bribes. The first cabinet minister to be found guilty of criminal fraud in this province was in this Social Credit government, again a first. When this minister first came to my attention publicly he was running in a by-election against the Socreds as a Conservative. After he lost that election he sent our leader a letter, saying: "It was a good show, but at least we didn't let the Social Credit in for nothing." Do you know who won? Somebody else.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gordon Gibson.

MR. LEA: He had the nerve to write a letter as a longtime Conservative and say: "At least we didn't let the Social Credit in." Next thing I know, he is Social Credit; he's the president of Social Credit. This chamber has been filled since 1976 with political prostitutes, and this is the king of them all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please, perhaps we could maintain some moderation and temperance in our language and be parliamentary.

MR. LEA: Look, it's hard to be parliamentary when you're dealing with such utter contempt for the process both in and out of this House. They are opportunists; they are there for one and only one reason — to keep the New Democratic Party out of power. They're not there for positive reasons. They are not there to bring a vision of British Columbia; they are there because they are the best politicians that money can buy; that's why they're there. And should it be such a surprise to us that we see members of that coalition, who meet and have joined and have run for negative reasons and purposes, being charged with criminal fraud and being found guilty of it? Is it any surprise that we see them squandering public money? Is it any surprise that we see them putting in for one day while they're actually somewhere else? It is no surprise — not to us — but hopefully it's a surprise to the people of this province. Hopefully, once and for all, the people of this province will see through the political corruption that this minister symbolizes and see that it is not good enough to vote for negativity. If we are to move forward in society, we must move with positive reasons and not negativity.

Mr. Chairman, there is no point in chronicling all of the expenditures and all of the things that have been reviewed in this House by my colleagues, or what has been reviewed in public accounts and reviewed in the press. I don't go anywhere in this province anymore where that minister's name is not met with cynicism — not just that minister, but all of us, and the process too — in these days when more and more people are becoming disillusioned with all of the institutions — both those structured institutions and the more subtle institutions in our society, the moral fibre that holds us together. This minister has done more damage to the process and the faith in our institutions than a host of other people could have possibly done with evil intent.

This minister is, I suggest, inadvertently squandering and spending money, because he feels it's his right to do the sort of things he's been doing. He feels that he's the privileged ruler, not the servant, of the people, and as long as cabinet ministers and politicians treat the process in that manner, we will further go into contempt of the people we serve and of all of our institutions. Every member in this House has an obligation and a duty, when we find this sort of political corruption, to cut it out like cancer, to get rid of it and to make sure that every person in this province knows that every member of this Legislature is going to do his or her duty when we see this kind of corruption. For members of the Social Credit side to back this because of their partisan purpose and reasons is in itself another reason to bring people to have disrespect for another institution in our history. Mr. Chairman, we have a duty not to allow this minister to continue. We do have that duty, and anyone who does not choose that duty is also negligent in their duty to the people that they were elected to serve.

Mr. Chairman, it doesn't end there. I said I'm not going to chronicle it, but during the public accounts committee the minister, when asked whether he'd seen a little bit of light, whether at least this last year he paid for his own Christmas

[ Page 8859 ]

presents to his staff, said yes, he'd seen that light. During the month of December 1981 the minister didn't show any signs of having changed. In fact, he threw a party in a local restaurant — the Harbour House, I believe. Every kind of imaginable luxury was available, from paté to seafood to good wines — and lots of it — to champagne coming out of a fountain. Is that the sound of reform? Is that the kind of "I'm sorry" attitude that he'd like us to believe he has? Is that going to get respect for the institution of parliament and of cabinet and for those things that our society stands for? Champagne coming out of a fountain, invitations personally sent out by the minister to about 150 people, everybody there scoffing at the public trough, drinking wine, eatingpaté , nothing but the best of seafood and champagne coming out of a fountain — is that the symbol of this administration? I'm afraid it is. Lunches, dinners, breakfasts — all paid for at the taxpayers' expense and all presided over by the Premier.

It is not so much the responsibility of that member and that minister as it is the responsibility of the Premier to make sure that his government is not corrupt. And he has not met that duty. The Premier has allowed expense accounts for friends, for colleagues, travel, Broadway shows, salmon, seafood, best of wines, champagne coming out of a fountain, trips to Arizona, fancy hotels — the works. The Premier has sanctioned it all. The only difference between that minister and the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) is that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour found himself on the outside with no friends and this minister finds himself on the inside surrounded by them because they feel they need him politically.

This minister has brought shame on us all. This minister has brought shame on every living citizen in this province, on the system, on the process, on the Legislature, and still he sits there holding his office and the Premier does nothing about it. We can't. We can show our contempt for what's been going on by reducing his salary to $1. It won't pass, because in a partisan way his colleagues will support him to the last. They are a coalition to make sure that the privileged get their privileges, and they will do anything to remain in power. They cling to power and they blame everyone but themselves. They cling to it because they represent the kind of living that we have seen disclosed in this minister's vouchers.

The minister has brought us shame, but the Premier has done worse. He's allowed that shame to reek from one end of this province to the other. He has allowed this province to sit in shame. In other parts of the country they look at us aghast. They thought this went out with the old coalition. At least the old coalition called themselves a coalition. They call themselves Social Credit. They are a coalition who has brought us shame and a Premier who has allowed it. We will not vote for this minister in any way. We would vote to have him dismissed. We will vote to have his salary brought down to $1 only because we can take no stronger action, We are taking the strongest action we can because we feel very strongly that we do not want to suffer the shame of this minister and his government.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

NAYS — 28

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

On vote 20.

MR. KEMPF: It might be that the NDP want to do nothing but sling mud and dirt across the floor of this Legislature, but I want to discuss some items in the estimates of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I'll not take much of the time of the committee, but a couple of problems raised by constituents of mine are of interest to me as the representative of that riding.

This year, as in past years, I want to talk about something that has been a serious problem on many occasions for constituents of mine who live in very small communities, such as we have in Omineca. That problem relates to acquiring a neighbourhood pub licence and the regulations which designate where a neighbourhood pub can or cannot be built in this province. I want to implore the minister to have some of these regulations changed so that they relate more logically to the small communities in the province of British Columbia. Two of the regulations appearing in a little pamphlet called "Obtaining a licence for a neighbourhood pub house in British Columbia" relate directly to the very small communities which exist in my constituency, and one of them has been used as an excuse to turn down applications for neighbourhood pubs on many occasions. In the last year, this regulation was used on about three different occasions as the reason for turning down an application for a neighbourhood pub.

One of the regulations states as follows: "No licensed neighbourhood public house or licensed hotel shall be located within one mile of another licensed neighbourhood public house or licensed hotel." The second regulation reads: "No licensed neighbourhood public house shall be located within one-half mile of a main or secondary highway." Anyone knowing these small communities in the rural part of this province knows that to be a mile away from another public house would in many cases — and in most cases in the many

[ Page 8860 ]

communities that exist in Omineca — be out of town. Anyone knowing the small communities that exist in most of the rural areas of this province knows that to be half a mile from an arterial or main highway would be back in the boondocks, back in the bush, out of town.

So I implore the minister and ask him again this year, as I have in the past, to review that regulation. I realize that it says "except where approved by the general manager," but in many cases, looking at decisions made particularly in the last year for applications for neighbourhood pubs in communities in the constituency which I serve, this has been used as an excuse. The general manager has not realized that to be half a mile from an arterial or main highway, or to be a mile from another licensed public house was to be completely out of that community. It's a ridiculous regulation. It might fit in Victoria, Vancouver, Nanaimo or even in Prince George, but it certainly doesn't fit in the communities I represent.

The other question I want to discuss in this minister's estimates is that of specialty wine shops. During the last six and a half years that I have served in this Legislature, I have on occasion gone to bat for more logical and more lenient liquor laws in the province of British Columbia. Many of the laws we have today.... I must congratulate the minister for the recent decision to allow advertising of beer and wine in the electronic media of this province. It is a step in the right direction. It's probably because most of our liquor laws are archaic that we have so many alcohol-related problems. If you look at other jurisdictions, I think you will find that to be true.

One of the regulations I would like to see brought in is a law to allow for specialty wine shops to be opened, of the type that I see in travelling in other areas of the world. I refer specifically to one I saw very recently in San Francisco on Fishermen's Wharf. I think they are an absolute must. They would certainly add to the tourism attraction of this province. They would make it much easier — and would be much more logical — for the people of this province to go in and browse around in a proper atmosphere and pick the kind of wine they want from a collection of wines that would be acceptable to those citizens, not the type of atmosphere that one sees in government-run liquor stores. I think that's a very small thing to ask.

As I said earlier, I believe the liquor laws in this province are very archaic. From time to time, in this minister's estimates and elsewhere, I will speak for changes to those archaic liquor laws. One area that is an absolute must is to bring in a regulation in this province to allow for those kinds of specialty wine shops. This afternoon I'd like to know from the minister whether he has given consideration to that. If so, is he near bringing in those kinds of regulations?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the minister, I would again remind all members that, while ministerial votes allow for wide debate, the discussion of legislation or the need for legislation is beyond the scope of the vote before us.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Within that ambit, I will comment on the two questions posed by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). I must say he is one of those who have a regular interest in liquor policy, particularly as it affects the interior and the north.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Dealing first with so-called specialty wine shops, in the last year I suppose the two largest issues within liquor policy that the ministry dealt with were, first, the question of beer and wine in grocery stores and, second, the question of electronic advertising. The issue of specialty wine shops is a separate one, because the concept is of individually licensed small, independent wine shops, not part of some larger supermarket or grocery complex, dealing only in wine or accessories. The fact is there is a continuing and very strong public interest in this concept. Although we have said no to beer and wine in grocery stores, we have not said a final no on the issue of specialty wine shops. Because of the obvious strong public interest in the concept, it is receiving our ongoing consideration. We're not immediately at hand with a final decision, but we certainly have not said no. Because of public interest, it continues to percolate internally as a topic. It's of particular interest to those concerned about small business activities and ventures.

On neighbourhood pubs, the member for Omineca has flagged the most difficult of the rules we face under the existing guidelines — the so-called one-mile radius rule he has referred to, which admittedly has an exception. The problem here, I think, is that our traditional rulebook of several years' standing applies one set of provincewide rules, and what may be sensible, for example, for the lower mainland or Richmond or greater Victoria, as the member has pointed out, may obviously not make sense in the north.

It's my belief that we're going to have to overhaul the rules applicable to neighborhood pub applications, giving recognition to regional factors. The difficulty is that right now during these economic times, we want to proceed only carefully and not, if you like, rock the economic boat. While we want to make some progress, we don't want to do harm to those who have invested in neighbourhood pubs. So I would say that over the next year we're going to look at the possible regionalization of the rules, and if that comes about, we'd like to proceed with sufficient notice and caution that there not be immediate disruption to those who've chosen to be in the field. But I think the member makes a very valid point.

Vote 20 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 23

On vote 21: ministry operations, $19,633,623.

[ Page 8861 ]

MR. LEVI: I was going to move a motion on this to reduce it by $442,000, but it's a rather useless exercise when it comes to this minister.

Vote 21 approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 35.

PROVINCIAL DEBT REFINANCING ACT, 1982
(continued)

HON. MR. CURTIS: The other side did adjourn debate. I assume that I'm not interfering with anyone who wished to participate in the debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Is the debate now being closed? It is the duty of the Chair to announce that debate will close.

On a point of order, the second member for Surrey.

MR. HALL: Perhaps the Speaker would care to read out which bill it is that we're dealing with.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the bill which is contained in all our desks is Bill 35, the Provincial Debt Refinancing Act, 1982.

MR. BARBER: On a point of order, is it not also ordinarily the practice for you to indicate who adjourned debate? As it happens, it was me, and I don't propose to continue, but it seems to me that would clarify it a bit.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, that is why I drew to the attention of the House that once I had recognized the minister, that would conclude debate, and it is the responsibility of the Chair to announce that the minister concludes debate on second reading. That's why I posed that question, so there would be no misunderstanding. On that basis I would be prepared to recognize the Minister of Finance, who closes debate on second reading.

HON. MR. CURTIS: There were two or three points raised in the course of second-reading debate with regard to Bill 35 which I would like to cover in a few minutes.

The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) spoke about cash balances. I note that the member is not in his seat at the present time, but perhaps he is in his office. He is, as we know, an accountant by profession. I know that he would recognize that there is a significant difference between a cash balance and an excess of expenses over income.

There was also criticism by that member and perhaps one other of the 9 1/8 percent interest rate. You will know that that particular rate was a market rate at that time, i.e. in the early part of 1976. While it may seem low by today's standards, it was nonetheless market. We've moved, certainly in the time that I've served as Minister of Finance — although the process had commenced before that with my predecessor, now the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) — to ensure that moneys invested by various pension and trusteed funds are invested at or very close to market. I was critical, frankly, of previous administrations in British Columbia where that had not been the case. But it is now the case. It has been the case for some considerable time. I trust that it will remain the case. It is not fair to look to those whose moneys are entrusted with us and expect them to subsidize whatever activities we may undertake. I hope I can put to rest a comment. which has been made on a number of occasions, that this was in fact an artificially low rate. That was not so, notwithstanding that the day of single-digit interest rates seems some time in the past.

I think there was sort of a rerun of a number of the points which had been made in previous years. That was the one key point that I wanted to deal with in the close. We agree to disagree on this. I also point out that this year we found it necessary to defer the principal amount of the debt, which is the subject of the bill. We have found that necessary for very valid reasons. The rest, I think, was covered in my opening remarks. Therefore I move second reading of Bill 35.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 22

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

Bill 35, Provincial Debt Refinancing Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 8862 ]

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 13; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I have just one brief question on section 1 for the minister. There are lots of important things that have been changed in this section, but one particular major change, of course, is changing the campaign time from 38 days, which it was formerly, to 29 days. What was the rationale for this? Why did you do it?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Primarily, Mr. Chairman, the changing times — the substantial increase in communications and transportation; secondly, the development of the new enumeration system, whereby a voters' list of a more up to-date nature is available right at the time of dropping the writ, in effect. Those are the main reasons why the election period itself has been shortened.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MRS. DAILLY: I'd like to amend section 2(l)(a) of the original act by submitting the number 18 where 19 now appears. In other words we are recommending that the voting age be dropped from 19 to 18.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's your amendment on the order paper.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, it's my amendment on the order paper, and I'd explain to the House that many of us feel that if you're 18 years old, you'd be asked to fight for your country if there were a war. We can't understand why we don't give the voting right to our citizens when they're 18.

I move the amendment appearing in my name on the order paper, Mr. Chairman, which would lower the voting age from 19 to 18. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

HON. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, although the amendment is well-intentioned, I'm sure, I have to say that we will not be able to accept the amendment, primarily because the present age of majority in British Columbia is still 19 for other purposes as well as for election purposes. In municipalities as well the voting age is still 19. We have under review matters of this kind having to do with eligibility and the age of voters, but we are not prepared to amend that particular item at this time, as I say, because the age of majority for other purposes is still 19 in other legislation.

Amendment negatived.

MRS. DAILLY: I would like, with House's approval, to add a new section to l(b) stating that, "Unless otherwise provided in this act, a person who contravenes a section of this act by doing an act that it forbids, or omitting to do an act that it requires to be done, commits an offence," and deleting the sections which relate to offences from the Election Act. I move that amendment appearing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix, ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that those matters are already law under the Offence Act. In effect, what this amendment would do is substantially broaden the impact of offences as called for under the act, and for those reasons we are unable to accept the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Further, the amendment is out of order because it creates an offence, and the Chair so rules.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, which adds a new section to section 4. [See appendix.] I know the government will accept this amendment, because we have a situation here which is very inequitable and which in this day and age must be corrected. Let me explain what the situation is for the benefit of the minister.

On the amendment.

MS. SANFORD: If a person who is a British Columbian joins the Armed Forces in this province or in some way serves with the Armed Forces — such as a nurse, a chaplain or a surgeon — and is posted outside of the province, say to Ontario or even overseas, and returns to this province, he does not have to fulfil the usual six-month requirement before he's able to vote again. Because he or she is serving with the Armed Forces, that person is deemed to have been a resident of this province the whole time, even though that person was outside of the province, up until even two days before the election is actually held. That person can come back into the province and vote; they do not have to fulfil the residency requirement of six months. But the problem, Mr. Chairman, which my amendment would correct is that spouses of those Armed Forces personnel or people attached to the Armed Forces — and I've already mentioned nurses, chaplains or surgeons — who would presumably be posted with their families are not permitted to vote. They have to fulfil that six-month requirement again if they are British Columbia citizens who are somehow serving in the Armed Forces and who have been overseas or out of the province with their families.

Now I think the minister and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), who are both looking at this amendment, will agree with the arguments that I'm advancing that in this day and age we cannot discriminate in this way; the family has to move with the person who's serving in the Armed Forces at that time. If the Armed Forces personnel are able to come back into the province and vote without fulfilling that six-month requirement, then it seems very obvious to me that we must extend that same privilege to the spouses and the family members who would also be eligible to vote. That's very simple; it's very clear. I want to make sure that the Attorney-General and the minister responsible have enough time to look this over so that they can come up with a positive response to my request.

Are the ministers ready, or would they like me to speak a bit longer on this? Are you prepared to accept it at this time?

[ Page 8863 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: No.

MS. SANFORD: Well, surely, Mr. Chairman, they would be prepared to accept an amendment which is as clear and as obvious as the one that I'm proposing. Are you going to continue to discriminate against the spouses and the families of Armed Forces personnel? Why are you going to allow them to vote without fulfilling the six-month requirement, but not their spouses? On what earthly basis would you make that decision? I wonder if the minister would mind explaining his reason at this point.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, as I see the amendment, which I gather has just arrived on the order paper in the last couple of days.... In any event, that's not the reason for saying this. The point is that this bill has been before the committee for so many days, and the amendment has just appeared at this stage.

But as I read the definition of the act under section 4(b), residence rules, "a person who leaves his home for temporary purposes only shall not thereby lose his residence." I'm wondering why a person, as you described, in the Armed Forces wouldn't still qualify under that definition.

MS. SANFORD: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the minister has missed the whole point here. Some of these people are not away on a temporary basis; they are posted for two, three and four years sometimes and are absent....

HON. MR. WOLFE: Then they're not residents.

MS. SANFORD: If that's the case, Mr. Chairman, if the minister feels that these people can vote under section 4(b), which says that "a person who leaves his home for temporary purposes only shall not thereby lose his residence," why on earth do you need the subsection (i) at all, which refers specifically to the Armed Forces personnel who get posted out of this province, not on a temporary basis? They could be gone for years and years and years, but they do not lose their status as British Columbians for the purposes of this Election Act and do not have to fulfil that six-month residency requirement again.

Let me assure the minister that there are many people in my constituency who are spouses of Armed Forces personnel, and who have come to me and said: "Please, would you introduce an amendment to this Election Act to ensure that I can vote in the same way as my husband? I had to follow my husband." The women out there at the air base have been telling me: "I had to go." Now the spouses normally would follow their mates if they are posted outside the province. Why is it that they are not permitted to vote when they return to this province? Why do they have to fulfil that six-month requirement? The minister has not answered that. People have been denied the right to vote because they are spouses of Armed Forces personnel. The person serving in the Armed Forces can vote; the spouse, or dependent child old enough to vote, cannot. I would like the minister to reconsider that point.

MR. LEVI: The minister is about to enter the pages of the history of this province; I can see it. He's consulting people with white beards or dark beards. It looks like we may just get the minister to do something.

HON. MR. FRASER: Stormin' Norman.

MR. LEVI: Who's mumbling now? Who woke up Alex Fraser? That's terrible. In the middle of a debate to wake him up is a terrible thing.

I'm only skating around so the minister can make up his mind. I know it has been on the order paper for three days. What my colleague says is eminently fair. He can do one of two things. He can either accept the amendment or we can adjourn the debate in order to give him more time to reflect on it. In every Armed Forces base in this province they've got some effigies ready, and if you don't accept this amendment they're going to burn you tonight — in effigy, of course. The spouses in particular, whoever they may be, will be running around doing all sorts of harm and other evil on the minister.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Right. I think that member should leave and go have some tea. We're building up a head of steam here. We may get the minister to amend it. Right now, for the benefit of the people in the galleries, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), the chief law enforcement officer of this province, is viewing the appropriate sections.

I think we've got to kill one or two myths about what exactly goes on when people go overseas to serve their country. I was going to speak in another section of this debate. At the end of the war I was eighteen and a half, had been in the army two years, and I couldn't even vote. But in those days we didn't revolt in the British army.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: My gosh, this is something unique in the history of this House, Mr. Chairman. I think we're approaching a consensus. Remember, Mr. Provincial Secretary, the effigy-lighters are standing ready with their torches. It looks like a hot time in the old town tonight. The minister is about to say something good.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The amendment has some merit. I could only say that we cannot consider it at this time. When you study the act itself, it appears that the amendment does not properly relate to it. The present act states: "a person shall not lose or be deemed to have lost his residence in this Province or in any electoral district by reason only of the fact that he has heretofore been or may hereafter be absent from his place of residence while serving as a sailor, soldier, chaplain, surgeon or nurse, or in any other capacity...." So I don't really consider that the amendment is in order; it would contravene the section that already exists in the act. I would be prepared to say that we will review the matter, but I don't think we should now move to accept the amendment on the floor of the committee until we've given it further consideration.

MS. SANFORD: I fail to understand the minister's reasoning here. This amendment is in order. It doesn't contravene any other section that exists. It only extends a privilege to the spouses of those people covered in section 4(i) under the act. I realize the minister is nervous about this because he hadn't discovered this amendment until today. I don't know what his staff does over there; this amendment has been there for a week. I'm wondering if the minister

[ Page 8864 ]

would accept a motion at this point that the committee rise and that we delay consideration of this section until either later today or tomorrow. I feel that the section is very valid. If the government rejects this section now, it's not going to be included in time for the next election. We are not likely to have this act before us again. The minister can consider it all he likes, but it's not going to be in time for the next election.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF UNIVERSITIES,
SCIENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS

On vote 84: minister's office, $165,088.

MS. BROWN: I realize that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is preparing for his estimates and needs a few minutes to get his act together, so I thought I would grab this opportunity to say a few words. I look forward to having the minister show up when he's got his act together, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to participating in the estimates. I even look forward to having the minister tell me how long he'd like me to keep on speaking on his behalf until he gets his act together. Perhaps this is a good time to welcome everyone in the gallery, and I ask leave to tell them how pleased we are to have them.

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN: On behalf of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, who is preparing for his estimates, I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome you all, and ask you to stay until the minister shows up, which he will do in the very near future, I am sure.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, in order that the record stand corrected and be accurate, I would advise the committee that the minister is attending a meeting with the mayor and members of the council of the city of Vancouver in the Oak Room of this building. He should be with us in a moment.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'll speak very briefly for the members opposite about a few of the activities of our ministry during the past year, as a means of introduction. Then, of course, I'll answer the questions that members might care to put.

Dealing with the universities part of the portfolio, the university system in British Columbia is rapidly maturing. Established in our province now is a variety of colleges and institutes. We have the Open Learning Institute and the Knowledge Network as a backup. Our universities are not growing terribly rapidly. I recall that when I was first elected to this House almost 20 years ago, our public system consisted of one university and one college. In the past 20 years we have undergone the greatest growth in post-secondary education in the history of our province, a period of growth which will never be rivaled.

The commitments of the Legislative Assembly to our universities over these past few years have been the greatest in Canada, with the one exception of Alberta, where an enormous amount of money was made available in one bolus for capital expansion. Our educational institutions have generally been extremely favoured by the Legislature, the universities being no exception. I must say that I was not very happy last year when one of our universities said that they had been faced with the bitter taste of hard times, Alice-in-Wonderland financing, having mediocrity forced upon them, when never have they been more generously treated. Indeed, the proof of all of that came when that particular institution recorded a $6.4 million surplus. I don't think the Members of the Legislative Assembly have anything to apologize for in the support that they have generously given to our institutions of higher education.

Quickly switching to the Communications portfolio, the members will of course have become aware of the court action started by my colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) with respect to the federal government's claim to jurisdiction in the provincial area of communications. We think that there will be major changes in the communications field in the next few years and that a proper resolution of constitutional areas of jurisdiction, if not possible to be reached at the political level as it should be, unfortunately will be decided by the courts.

Finally, speaking briefly to the last of the portfolios, the Science portfolio, I would like to cast our activities there in the slightly larger context of the Canadian economy. These are times that test the economically fit around the world. The Canadian industrial structure has been found wanting in this particular time. Federal and provincial governments across this nation will record deficits in this fiscal year of over $40 billion — surely a record for any country in the free world at any time in history. Never has a country performed as badly in an economic sense as Canada is performing in this fiscal year. We feel sorry for Poland with a total accumulated deficit of $23 billion, yet our own debt at the end of this year will be close to $90 billion, truly an enormous bolus for a country to swallow and digest. We do this when there is record unemployment and slack demand for the resources that have traditionally brought wealth to this country, when we have an energy policy that is in tatters, where our own forest industry — the backbone of our economy in British Columbia — is suffering from falling markets around the world, where our mining industry is having its worst year since the Great Depression and where, clearly, we have got to look to the future with a somewhat different view of what the industrial structure of our nation is going to be.

It is in this regard that we look to high technology as a way of bringing to B.C. wealth and employment and the resources to support our social services. It's been my prediction that if we handle ourselves well in this respect, we will see high-technology industries displacing resource industries as the major fountain of employment before the turn of the century. But that will require our understanding in British Columbia and Canada of what we need to do in order to make us competitors in the high-technology growth fields in the future. I could only make the analogy of trying to build a World Cup soccer contender from scratch. There is no reason why there should be high-technology industry in British Columbia competitive with other parts of the world unless we set this as one of our goals, develop policies that will bring us

[ Page 8865 ]

success and see that they are implemented. One cannot produce a World Cup soccer team, expecting soccer players to rain from the sky. What you have to do is to calculate the necessary policies required and to be certain that you're competitive with other jurisdictions.

As far as technology is concerned, Canada in the past has always relied upon the United States and felt that we could get the spillover from whatever technological advances their industry managed to bring forward. We're less certain that this will be the case in the future. I only invite the members to consider what is happening now in the automotive industry and some aspects of the electronics industry, to see the harbinger of the future. Now the countries with momentum in high-technology fields are Japan and certain parts of Europe. The United States has lost the magic capacity to translate technology into industry and is beginning to lag behind. As the United States lags behind, Canada, of course, lags far behind. That means that we're going to have to develop policies that don't just copy the United States but are in step with the rest of the world. We have to recognize that our technology must outstrip any other area of the world in the fields that we choose to concentrate on. We must understand that we must have as attractive an investment and labour climate as any other area that might develop high-technology industry.

One thing we can be certain of: natural resources will play no part in this at all; only human resources, only our intelligence, only the technological capacity that we develop or that we recruit, and only the wisdom of the policies that we establish here in this Legislative Assembly. It's with this potential growth in mind, Mr. Chairman, that we have tried to build a series of science policies into a comprehensive picture for British Columbia which we offer to Canada as a model. We think if they are pursued with vigour, they will indeed bring us a restructuring of our industry in British Columbia and the opportunities for employment and successful and rich careers that characterized our development in past generations. If we rely on the past, if we make no changes to our habits, then our children and our children's children will not be able to enjoy the advantages that we've enjoyed growing up here in British Columbia.

It really isn't an option. If it is an option, I would like the members opposite or anybody in British Columbia to offer a more constructive plan as to how we're going to have economic development in the province. If there are no better ideas forthcoming, then I would appeal to this Legislative Assembly, and to people in all sectors of British Columbia, to set this as their objective and begin to implement the kinds of aggressive policies that characterize Japan, West Germany and the countries that are moving ahead at the swiftest pace in the world of today. A year or two ago, if we had had this debate in the Legislative Assembly, we might have said: "It would be a nice thing to consider, and maybe we ought to do it." That's not so today. In my view we've got to do it.

Before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, I see that my deputy minister, Dr. Stewart, is in the galleries, and I wonder if Dr. Stewart could come down and join us. When we've done these estimates in the past, he's always been away travelling the world, helping to bring us science and high-technology industry. But he's here today, and I'd like him to join us on the floor.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister got up and told us about how well British Columbian universities are doing. Yet if he were to look not quite so hard for some kind of statistic upon which to justify the drift that universities have suffered under his administration, but rather at the facts, he would not be so complacent. It's amazing how low the standard is that this minister sets for himself, and he fails to achieve even that standard. But I suppose, if you set your standards low enough, then you can achieve those standards.

Mr. Chairman, when I was a high-school teacher I found it sometimes best not to get too involved with too many things, not to try to make too many points at one time, but sometimes use the KISS philosophy. In that spirit I just want to emphasize a few things to the minister, so that maybe he'll get the point.

My number one concern is that there is a widening gap between the participation rate of students from metropolitan areas and students from non-metropolitan areas as evidenced by the number of grade 12 students entering post-secondary university training or college education in the non-vocational areas — that is, basically, universities, technology and university-transfer programs at colleges. That gap has increased since the years 1974-75 when it stood at about 4 percent; that is to say that the participation rate of non-metropolitan students going on from high school was about 31 percent at that time. In the 1979-80 period, most recently examined in the report called "A Widening Gap" from the study for the Universities Council, it dropped down from about 31 percent to 22.5 percent. Meanwhile the participation rate for metropolitan areas has oscillated, having been around 34 percent in the 1974-75 period, and is presently about 33 percent. But there's been a real drop in the participation rate of students from non-metropolitan areas. The minister really should examine the reasons for this if he expects British Columbia to be ready to participate in the high-technology industry that he envisages.

Already some opportunities are beyond us. Already, because of certain kinds of tariff barriers, even Cominco and its high-technology efforts.... There are about 130 or 140 jobs down in Spokane, Washington, compared to the 60 jobs present at Trail with Cominco. They make the very small wire used for connectors for computer chips to their carriers. That type of thing is made in the United States. If we really are to participate, we must certainly have a better record in this particular area.

We have to look at how British Columbia participates compared to other provinces in terms of its university expenditures. In terms of the comparison of university expenditures of Canadian provinces expressed as dollars per capita — this was taken from Statistics Canada — British Columbia's per capita rate was $144.38, which ranked it seventh out of eight provinces surveyed. A couple of provinces were unavailable because of lack of data. Alberta was number two, Manitoba was number six, Saskatchewan was number five, Ontario was number four, New Brunswick was number eight, Quebec was number three, and Nova Scotia was number one. You can cut it many different ways. You can compare it to a percentage of gross provincial product, and again British Columbia ranks number seven. Alberta switches its position to number eight. But what is really significant is that with both of those criteria — per capita or as a percentage of gross provincial product — we rank number seven out of eight surveyed provinces.

I would like to point out to the minister that the experiment he started with David Thompson University Centre has been very successful. The minister well knows that there have been a few communication problems. I still think that

[ Page 8866 ]

the number of funding agencies that the centre has to respond to creates too much confusion, and that every effort should be made to streamline. I hope the minister is around to look at the.... I hope he's looking. I understand they'll be doing an evaluation of the first five years and planning for the next five years, and that that process is underway right now. I hope that will go ahead with the minister's participation, as he did start it. I hope a very realistic picture of what is going on there is brought to his attention.

There have been years of delay, in some cases, of some very needed capital expenditures, some of it for renovations of student residences which were there and needed renovation and some for expansion of facilities. If those had been in place, things would have gone ahead even faster than they have now. But the growth has been good, and where programs have not succeeded, they've been chopped. There's been a pretty efficient running. I think Mr. Dick Williams certainly has to be commended for the years that he put in up there. I look for continued forward direction under Dr. Pearce, who is now taking over.

Mr. Chairman, as is our custom, the New Democratic Party is looking at areas in which we feel economies could be effected, and there is no area either too great or too small to be considered. We notice that in this minister's office there is a modest increase of $2,000 in travel expenses, which we feel should be curbed in this particular year. We also see that office expenses are up marginally by $1,218. These increases of 8.3 and 6.5 percent total $3,218; that is the amount that I would move be removed from vote 84, and I so move.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I just might answer one or two of the questions raised by the member. First of all, the member should appreciate that over the last seven years since we've been bringing in budgets, the overall university budget has gone from $162 million to $343 million — more than double in this period. I don't think any other provinces in Canada have been able to match that record.

It's always a little difficult to compare province by province where the programs in one province differ from another. The member talks about participation rates dropping in the rural areas, but he must remember that it's been deliberate policy of three governments now to try and provide greater services of a university kind in the small interior communities. That's why the comprehensive colleges were created, so that the cost of college would be appropriately borne by academic as well technical, vocational and career programs. Had we not done that, most of the small towns in the province would be almost bare of intellectual activities. The more we take the available resources of the province and push them out to the smaller communities, the better opportunities it creates overall for the high-school graduates of those areas.

They're going to have to come down to one of our metropolitan universities to do their graduate work or their professional training. You simply can't do those things all around the interior. We could, in effect, give greater incentives in the first instance to bring people down to our metropolitan universities. But if you were to do that, it would be at the expense of enriching some of the local communities. Unless people can give a clear indication that we should do otherwise, I think it would be wise for the Legislature to continue to pursue that policy. Mind you, the universities like to draw everything together onto their campus, because that's the traditional way a university operates.

We've given the universities here good opportunities for growth and strength. I wouldn't see that appetite for growth and strength be sated to the point where it would starve the smaller communities. So I ask the member, who comes from a smaller community, to think very carefully about that aspect and to look at the statistics that he's being offered by the universities in terms of what it would really mean to the local community to suck those intellectual resources away from the interior and bring them down to our coastal universities. I don't think it would add that much to the coastal universities, but I do think it would take a lot away from the smaller communities around the province.

With respect to Nelson and DTUC, I'm very encouraged by what the member says. Certainly the most distressing experience I ever had academically was in attempting to reorient that campus and that community to something that would be powerful and effective in the long run. Education is hierarchical, in an intellectual sense. While in a democracy we like to spread around the dollars, there is absolutely no substitute for intellectual quality when it comes to higher education. If it isn't there, the students are just wasting their time and the community is fooling itself. What we've tried to do is to provide the appropriate strength in that community that will make Nelson the proper academic centre that it deserves to be.

With respect to the vicious slashing of the budget proposed by the opposition, I would just say this: if we're going to be successful in developing our own new industrial structure, we're going to have to do a little bit of travelling around the world. We may even have to entertain people occasionally at dinner — we might just have to do that. I know how distressing this is to the members opposite, who are extremely good at calculating the cost of a bottle of wine.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, when you calculate the value of time.... I don't know what the members opposite would reckon their time is worth per hour, but if you are attempting to act in an official capacity for the province and you're running a ministerial office, you're looking at your own in-house costs of hundreds of dollars per hour. If you can take people who are similarly placed in responsible positions in society, and you can capture them for two or three hours over dinner instead of wasting your valuable time and theirs during a working day, you've got a bargain. I might say that a $15 bottle of wine, on an occasion like that, is maybe not misplaced economy. I would hate to see an attitude develop — whether the members opposite were in government or whether we were in government — that you try to take people, whom you're hoping to impress and work with to develop the industry of the province, across to McDonald's or perhaps even offer them a sandwich out of a brown paper bag. I don't think it would create a particularly good impression. Nor do I think that we're going to restructure the industry of the province sitting on our backsides, counting paper-clips and postage stamps.

I'm proud of the results we've got for the money that we've spent on travel and on entertainment in our ministry, and in other ministries of government, and I'm going to vote for more expense money for myself,

[ Page 8867 ]

MR. NICOLSON: The minister — in the words of Norman Crosby, that immortal entertainer — is under a misconstruction.

However, what I meant to say and what I did say, about the widening gap....

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a malapropism.

MR. NICOLSON: A misconscrusion is a malaprop, yes. I won't even attempt to spell that for Hansard.

Mr. Chairman, the widening gap between non-metropolitan and metropolitan students occurs with grade 12 students going on to universities, community colleges and technical schools, but not vocational programs. That is my understanding of the data.

HON. MR. McGEER: That's what they've told you, but I don't think they're giving you facts. In other words, if the argument were true I would be worried, but I don't think it's true.

MR. NICOLSON: The minister is saying that he will have to travel around the world. I don't want to get out of order and refer to the next vote, but in the next vote his travel budget is down from $114,000 to $98,000. So if his ministry is not going to be travelling as much, I don't think the minister should be travelling either.

MR. BRUMMET: I'd certainly like to make it clear that I'm going to vote against this amendment. It may seem extravagant to some members of this House for ministers or their senior staff to travel to other parts of this province. It's easy enough for members to feel that all understanding comes from office discussions in Victoria or in this Legislature, but I would certainly like to do everything I can to talk the minister or some of his senior staff into coming with me on one trip up the Alaska Highway north of Fort Nelson, or even into my region, to talk to the people who do not get any communication reception. I think it would make quite a difference.

It may be academic on this Island to discuss pay TV and how many circuits, how many channels, people have access to, and all that sort of thing. Along the Alaska Highway those people have no radio reception, no television reception. Some of them have spent $8,400 to $10,000 to equip themselves with satellite-receiving equipment so that they could become part of British Columbia, and now, as of June, the British Columbia signal has been taken off those satellites. The people up the highway and in the rural communities do not have any direct television signal from British Columbia. Yes, we get CBC, which has the national news and the news from Alberta, but even that signal was chopped off by the intervention of some federal authorities, despite the fact that the local people there had raised the money once to put in the local transmitter. They raised over $100,000 locally, because they couldn't get any help from outside, to provide a satellite receiver that would pick up the signal from the satellite and rebroadcast it to much of that area, which does not have cable because the people are not all in the town — they are in subdivisions, which cable companies won't touch, because they're not concentrated enough — and because of the whole rural community. So we really have no access to the British Columbia communications systems.

I think we can discuss this indefinitely. I know that around the major municipalities they're now talking about CanCom signals and other replacements which people can pay for. But that's still going to be completely useless to people up along the highway and to people a little further out from town. We need some sort of communications signal there, up the highway. Even the Knowledge Network is of no use to those people because they can't receive it.

I think one trip up the highway is enough to know that the newspaper comes several days late, if it comes, and in the meantime you might get an American radio station if you put up a big enough antenna sometime after midnight when reception clears up, but other than that, you're completely reliant on messages carried by travellers along the highway. That, I think, can only be appreciated by firsthand observation.

I certainly want more money spent for the minister to make at least one trip up into that area — believe me, it is expensive: I'm well aware of it — rather than supporting this type of motion which keeps everything locked in here and does not allow the minister to travel and see the real concerns of the people out in those rural areas.

I could talk a long time on this, because it's a very emotional issue with us. But I'd just like to leave this with the minister: if anything can be done to restore a British Columbia signal to the satellite so that it can be broadcast, so that the people in the northeast part of the province, who are quite a significant part of this province when comes to contributions and taxpaying but are left out when it comes to one-way communication, let alone two-way communication....

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, just to answer that very briefly, the member, his constituents and many other members of the House will be in the circumstance of being so near and yet so far. We know it's technically possible to bring perhaps 60 television stations right into an individual's home. We know it's possible to have the greatest of all worlds in British Columbia — the magnificence of the wilderness and the convenience, entertainment and education of being just off Broadway. It's all there.

What things stand in the way? Really, when you get right down to it, what stands in the way are vested interests. The vested interests are of two kinds: first of all, those that are attempting to control the airwaves and suppress the rights of individuals in large population centres to receive their own satellite signals with their own personal receivers or their own common antennas. This resistance, which is particularly vigorously practised by the federal government of Canada, makes it unattractive for manufacturers to produce the electronics in the amounts that would bring the price down. If you go into units of 100,000, you're going to get the cost of these things down, from the electronic point of view, to $200. But there aren't 100,000 people on the Alaska Highway, and that's why the cost is so high — because there are so few of these things built. Why are there so few of these things built? Because everything is being done by the vested interests, in league with the regulators in Ottawa, to suppress the rights of you and me to receive.

Why would they want to do that? First of all, a lot of people are afraid that you and I might watch American television instead of their version of Canadian made-in-Ontario television. Therefore they want to erect an electronic curtain. If we're allowed to pick up stuff, then that's going to

[ Page 8868 ]

make it impossible for them to tax us so they can support production of their choice. We reject that.

MR. NICOLSON: We might watch Carl Sagan.

HON. MR. McGEER: Excellent.

The other reason is agreements that are entered into by television stations in the local area. Did you know that the CBC spends more money in British Columbia moving its signal around than do the BBC and the French national network combined? All of the costs of moving that signal around would vanish if they were to go on satellite. Why don't they go on satellite'? Because if that were to be encouraged, the arrangement they make with the Dawson Creek station and their affiliates all over the place would be undermined. The same thing happens with CTV.

People don't get what they can have and are entitled to have because of the structure of the industry and overregulation. But all of that's going to be broken down, because this is what the people want. I can tell you that as far as this ministry is concerned, we're dedicated to bringing to every single British Columbian, within the cost of a television set, the full spectrum of entertainment and education which is up there on the airwaves now. It's going to happen.

MR. BRUMMET: I recognize that we have this resistance to television reception and that there is assistance available to communities. In many of these cases, we're not dealing with communities, because the one or two houses are 25 to 50 miles apart. So any assistance to communities is not of any help. The strange thing is that in trying to protect the Canadian signal, the only signal the people up there can get is American satellite stations, if they put up the right equipment at a great enough expense. They're bound and determined to get some communication. It's ironic that repeating that CRTC restriction is self-defeating.

The thing I would like to suggest is that the minister exercise whatever influence he can to get the television broadcasting systems here in the southwest corner of the province to — as a return for getting all that revenue from the heavily populated area — spend a few bucks to put that signal up there on the satellite so that others of us can be part of British Columbia as well. If that did happen, I would think that there would be even more individual receivers set up in the rural communities that could benefit from the educational programs, the Knowledge Network and so on that are put out. People, surprisingly enough, do not just watch entertainment, funny movies, pornographic movies or things of that nature, as seems to be the great concern. If there were some educational programs up there, if there were some news of the province in which they reside, I think they would watch it. I hope the minister can keep up his effort in Ottawa to open the skies so that all of us can get in on it, and secondly, that he will try to exert whatever influence he can to get B.C. news broadcasters to consider the people in the rest of the province, not just where it pays off well.

MR. MITCHELL: I'd like to cover two subjects with the minster. One of the things that the minister hinted at, but maybe, because of his Liberal connections, was really afraid to come out with, and one of the important things that British Columbia needs, is control of its communications policies. I believe that it is important that the province continue to battle and insist that the Liberal government carry out its promise of a few years ago that communications would revert to the province. I feel that there are so many things going on right now that overlap the provincial responsibility and how it affects the people in British Columbia, those who are demanding the services — because we are not giving the input and power that this province can give....

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, will you bring these two to order or throw them both out.

Getting back to what we were discussing — the last, numerous rate increases presented to the CRTC — I would like to commend the minister on the two members whom he sent from his staff to question B.C. Tel at the CRTC hearings on the quality of service that B.C. Tel is not giving to many residents in British Columbia. I was quite impressed, as I sat through many of the hearings, by the in-depth research done throughout the province on problems that we as MLAs continually hear about all over the province. Right now the technology brought in by B.C. Tel, the new technology and development that is taking over that industry, is not of the highest standard, which is what is really needed. I believe some of the problems of B.C. Tel and the 2,000 workers who have been laid off are not only because of the downturn in the economy. Something that was built in when they were applying for their increase in rate was the new machines, the new equipment they were developing, which were taking over many jobs in that particular industry. This is where I again have to agree with the minister: it is the development in micro technology that is affecting communications and the job force in British Columbia. People don't realize that more than 60 percent of the workforce in British Columbia and Canada is in the service industry. That 60 percent is going to be the most affected by the new micro technology coming not only into British Columbia but also into the world.

We as workers or MLAs cannot afford to turn our backs on that new development coming in at present. Over 80 percent of this new technology is imported into Canada and British Columbia. I believe this is an industry where the ministry and the government must give leadership to get control not only of the technology coming into the communications industry but also of the social impact on the workforce. This is something that we as legislators must look at. If we are going to have this impact, we can't wait until the economy is at its highest; we must look at it now to see where we are going down the line. Are we going to get into that technology? Are we going to develop not only the technology but the social impact that the province will be faced with?

As I said before, over 80 percent of it is imported now. In Trail we have a very sophisticated company which is developing the new chips, employing over 100 employees. According to reports, the chips developed in Trail are the highest quality in the industry; but they're all shipped out for processing into the States. The minister and the government must give leadership in developing that type of industry here. It's going to be with us, and we can't afford to continue to ship our resources out and not get some control over where we are going within the industry.

If we are going to have some control over communications, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) must give leadership; we must take the federal government to court. The Minister of Communications in our province and his counterpart in the federal government must sit down and

[ Page 8869 ]

negotiate, in a normal, sane manner, control over communications for the province. That leadership must be given. If the Premier and the Prime Minister cannot do it, maybe those two ministers should be replaced; maybe we should have somebody who can negotiate. As I said earlier in the session, if countries who have to negotiate peace can sit down and have a sane discussion, we must be able to discuss who is going to control communications in British Columbia — and it should be British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I would move....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion before us already, hon. member: that vote 84 be reduced by $3,218.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 27

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:04 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

13 Mrs. Dailly to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 13) intituled Election Amendment Act, 1982 to amend as follows:

SECTION 1A, to amend section 2 (1) (a) of the Election Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, chapter 103, by substituting "18" where "19" now appears so that the line would read: "(a) is of the full age of 18 years; and".

SECTION 1B, to add a new section which reads:

"1B Unless otherwise provided in this Act, a person who contravenes a section of this Act by doing an act that it forbids, or omitting to do an act that it requires to be done, commits an offence."

and by deleting the following sections which relate to offences from the Election Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, chapters 103: 35 (2), 67 (3), 162 (2), 163 (2), 171, 178, 47, 9 (2), 32 (2), 108, 109, 155, 199 (3).

13 Ms. Sanford to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 13) intituled Election Amendment Act, 1982 to amend as follows:

SECTION 3A, to insert a new section as follows:

"4.1 For purpose of registration of voters under this Act, a person shall not lose or be deemed to have lost his/her residence in this Province or in any electoral district by reason only of the fact that the person has been absent from his place of residence as the spouse or child of a member of Her Majesty's Armed Services, or a chaplain, surgeon, nurse or any other person attached to and serving with Her Majesty's Armed Forces."