1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1977

Night Sitting

[ Page

1175 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Executive council estimates. On vote 18.

Mr. Stupich — 1175

Mr. King — 1177

Mr. Strongman — 1181

Mr. Barnes — 1184

Pollution Control

(1967) Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 5), Second Reading.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1189

Mr. Skelly — 1190

Mrs. Wallace — 1191

Ms. Sanford — 1192

Mr. Lockstead — 1193

Mr.Cocke — 1194

Mr. Mussallem — 1197

Ms. Brown — 1198

Mr.Lauk — 1199

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1977

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

(continued)

On vote 18: executive council, $713,648 — continued.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, shortly before we

adjourned for supper the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) was asking

the question about the Land Commission and the Premier responded to the

effect that he had answered that question previously. I'm afraid that

anyone who has any concern for the preservation of farmland in the

province will take little comfort from the answer — as I heard it —

that legislation will be introduced and the people would then know what

the government's reaction or attitude toward the Land Commission and

toward the preservation of farm land really is. But I suppose we'll

have to await that legislation.

I'd just like to comment on a few of the things that I didn't cover

before when I was speaking. Again, reading from the Blues of February

21, the Premier said: "They" — referring to the last government — "have

left a debt that we can't service now." You'll recall, Mr. Chairman,

that I did mention three items of revenue, totalling some $57 million.

These were the excess given to the petroleum companies producing

natural gas, the removal of succession duties and the coal royalty — in

total $57 million. The Minister of Finance told us earlier that the

total amount of outstanding debt at this present time is $150 million.

So although the Premier said in the Blues — as reported in the Blues —

that we can't service that debt now, had he been prepared to continue

to receive those three items of revenue, the debt, including the

interest, could have been wiped out in a period of three years. So I

think it's not quite correct to say that it couldn't be serviced. It

would be correct that the government's priorities are different.

Then another quotation from the same page in the Blues: "The last government

spent excessively." Mr. Chairman, without any detail as to the ways in

which we spent excessively, I think it would be worthwhile recalling some of

the comparisons and some of the differences between the spending habits of the

previous Social Credit administration and the NDP administration. Regional colleges,

for example, in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1972: the previous Social Credit

government on capital expenditures for regional colleges spent the grand sum

of $4.3 million. In the fiscal year ended March 31, 1975, the NDP administration

spent $22.9 million. That's quite a different priority, Mr. Chairman.

And there's the matter of looking after the aged. On old-age

assistance and on Pharmacare — there was no Pharmacare programme in

1972 but there was some old-age assistance programme — the previous

Social Credit administration spent at the rate of $23.5 million that

year,

whereas in the year ended March 31, 1975, the NDP administration

spent on that same group of citizens $132.4 million.

Mr. Chairman, we make no apologies for having spent money on the

people who need it most in our society. The present administration is

boasting about taking out of the pockets of the needy, the ones least

able to look after themselves, $100 million, and being able to save

that. Mr. Chairman, we made no apologies for spending money on the

people in our community who need it most — on the aged, on the

handicapped. It's up to this government to apologize and not to boast.

Their attitude is to boast about saving $100 million by extracting it

from the pockets of the people in our community who need it most.

Another new programme introduced by the NDP administration — there's

no comparison in 1972 because there was no programme — was ambulance

service: $16 million.

On sewage and water assistance facilities the previous Social Credit

government in the year ended March 31, 1972, spent the grand sum of

$11,000 in assisting the municipalities with programmes like that; the

NDP administration in the year ended March 31, 1975, spent $7.4 million.

Now these are all budgeted expenses, Mr. Chairman, and show the ways

in which we were spending this money on behalf of the people of the

province. The Premier said the last government spent excessively. Now

certainly he wouldn't challenge any of those programmes or the very

good programme that provided recreational facilities in so many

communities in the province — tens of millions of dollars that, in

cooperation with the municipalities who had to put up two-thirds of the

money, produced a lot of excellent facilities, produced employment and

represented an excellent programme.

Mr. Chairman, earlier when I was speaking about this, I talked about

non-budgeted expenses. I mentioned the fact that assets that cost the

province something less than $215 million were producing revenue at the

rate of $217 million a year. I asked the Premier to tell me what the

Social Credit coalition

[ Page 1176 ]

people have accomplished in their 15 months in office to compare with the records of accomplishment of the NDP administration;

You'll recall, Mr. Chairman, perhaps what the Premier's reply was.

He said: "Well, in one of these instances" in one out of 10

corporations that I described "possibly there was some conflict of

interest."

He mentioned Plateau Mills. Well, that's a pretty small one to pick

out of the picture. I listed the revenue from the 10 Crown

corporations, and with respect to Plateau Mills approximately 0.6 of 1

per cent of the revenue that I listed came from that one organization,

that one company, so it's one of the smallest of the lot. He picked on

that one and said there was possibly some conflict of interest there,

and did away with my whole question of what we had done, the jobs that

we had saved, the impetus we had given to the economy by spending

something in excess of $200 million to produce assets that were earning

at the rate of $217 million a year. The only thing he could come back

with on behalf of his government was to say that there might have been

conflict of interest in one of those. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman,

it's a pretty weak response, a pretty weak record for a government that

has been 15 months in office, when I ask him: "What have you done?" and

his only comment is: "Well, there might have been some conflict of

interest in one of the organizations about which you are boasting at

this time."

And what kind of conflict of interest, Mr. Chairman? To say that to

an organization, whether it's Crown-owned or privately owned, that is

prepared to go to work and process the products of our forests, "if you

are prepared to spend the capital necessary to build up this plant, we

will allot timber...." Mr. Chairman, I would think that the government

would do that to any organization that was prepared to expand its

sawmill facilities, to expand its pulp mills, as long as there was a

market for the product that was coming from those areas, and as long as

there were timber resources that were not already allotted. Now those

are the keys, Mr. Chairman, and in that area timber was available, and

the markets were available at that time, and in order to produce more

jobs, to produce more dollars in the economy, we did encourage that

particular enterprise.

I remember the Minister of Economic Development (Mr. Lad) of that

time entering into negotiations with an organization that was going to

build a smelter. As long as people were prepared to invest money in

B.C. and produce dollars in B.C., we were certainly prepared to allot

to them resources in the province. I would think this government would

be interested in doing the same thing, although, to date, the Premier

has not listed one simple example of that.

He has suggested that the public of the province can judge the

previous Minister of Forests (Mr. R.A. Williams), the NDP Minister of

Forests, and I would think so as well, Mr. Chairman. There was some

judgment on December 11, 1975 — judgment in the city of Prince Rupert

where the member was re-elected with an increased majority. There was

judgment in the constituency of Mackenzie where the member was

re-elected with an increased majority and, in particular, the town of

Ocean Falls where he got something like 96 per cent of the vote. There

was judgment in Nelson-Creston where the member was re-elected with an

increased majority because of Kootenay Forest Products.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): How about Vanderhoof, where Plateau Mills is located?

MR. STUPICH: All of these things, Mr. Chairman, were some

judgment of the achievement, and the people recognized that that

particular minister was producing employment, was maintaining

employment, and was improving the economy. I ask again, Mr. Chairman:

what has the present government done for the province of British

Columbia?

Again I would like to refer to the Blues, this time for February 18.

Earlier I suggested that the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk) had said that the Premier spoke in half-truths and that he was

only half right, and you correctly called me to order and I did

withdraw that statement. But there's another statement here in the

Blues, on February 18, where the Premier said: "The last year of the

former government there was a surplus of $140 million and it was spent,

but they spent $261 million more than that." That's a total of $401

million. Mr. Chairman, not 5 cents of that money was spent by the NDP

administration. It was all spent by the incoming Social Credit

administration — every nickel of it!

Mr. Chairman, along with the Premier, we released a statement on

December 18 that said there would likely be some drawdown in the $140

million cash reserve, but we predicted no drawdown of that $261

million. All of that money was spent by the incoming Social Credit

administration — every nickel of the $401 million — because when we

left office even the $141 million was still intact.

It was your policies that politically decided, for political

reasons, to get rid of that surplus and to go into a deficit as well.

It was your government that did that, Mr. Chairman, through you. It was

the Premier's government that did that, not the outgoing NDP

administration, because we still would have ended that year without

going into a deficit position. You could have done it had you not made

the political decision to give $181 million to ICBC, for example.

Interjection.

[ Page 1177 ]

MR. STUPICH: All of that money was spent after December 22.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members!

MR. STUPICH: Every nickel of that money was spent after

December 22, 1975, and I defy you to show me otherwise, Mr. Chairman —

every nickel of it.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, again going to the Blues....

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): And the Reds went into the red.

MR. STUPICH: I won't deal very much with this now, but the

quotation I wanted to read is: "I pointed out what deficit financing

does." Well, Mr. Chairman, he really didn't point out what deficit

financing does. He did speak. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if he's had an

opportunity.... I would not have seen it had not one of my constituents

referred it to me, but there's an

article in Newsweek called "The Myth of the American Economy." Lester C. Thurow is the author of this. It's in Newsweek , February 14, 1977.

In this article, Mr. Chairman, he does deal with the myth of the

American economy and he talks about those industrialized countries that

are surpassing the American economy in producing economic benefits for

the people of their countries. He deals with some countries in

particular. Talking about the United States — and, of course, we're

comparable — he says:

"We have been surpassed, or are about to be, by a

number of countries in Europe. Among industrialized countries, Sweden

and Switzerland can each claim to be more successful for the per capita

GNP — gross national product — 20 per cent above ours. We have also

been passed by Denmark. We are about to be surpassed by Norway and West

Germany."

I want you to notice those countries, Mr. Chairman — Sweden,

Switzerland, Denmark, Norway and West Germany. Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask

you: what do they all have in common? In every one of those countries

during the past several decades, social democratic parties have either

formed a government on their own or have been a part of the government

in coalition with other left-wing groups or have been very strong

members of those governments. Every one of those countries is

surpassing the United States in industrial activity. Every one of them,

Mr. Chairman. He goes on in this

article to state:

"Our competitors in Western Europe have enjoyed a sustained

rate of productivity growth over the past two decades twice that of ours. We

have comforted ourselves with the idea that our poor performance could be explained

by our economic leadership. Our competitors were achieving higher rates of productivity

growth because they were simply adopting technologies already developed by us"— that was the argument — "but as these countries have reached our level

of productivity their growth rate has not slowed down.

"In the first five years of the 1970s the levels of

industrial productivity rose 11 per cent more in Sweden, 17 per cent

more in West Germany, 25 per cent more in Japan, than they had in the

United States. The standard conservative response is to advocate the

liberation of free enterprise and a reduction in social expenditures."

And that's certainly the approach of this particular government, Mr. Chairman. This is the author going on:

"Yet this is how any of these countries have

outperformed us. Sweden is faced with the most comprehensive social

welfare system in the world. West Germany insists that union leaders

hold places on corporate boards of directors.

"Liberating free enterprise also runs into the facts

about the U.S. economy. In the history of the United States, our best

decade in terms of growth in real per capita GNP (a 36 per cent

increase) was that of the 1940s when the economy was run on a command

(socialist) wartime economy. The second-best decade (a 30 per cent

increase) was that of the 1960s with all of its social welfare

programmes.

"Lack of government planning, worker participation and

social spending may, in fact, be at the heart of our poor performance

in recent decades."

Mr. Chairman, that applies to Canada and it applies in particular to

British Columbia just as much as it does there. In an earlier debate I

pointed out that the province — the government — has under its control

some $10 billion in assets producing an annual income of some $7

billion. For the Premier to say that it's up to the rest of the economy

to worry about what's happening in British Columbia and up to us to

simply worry about balancing our books is to abdicate his

responsibility as Premier of this province.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke- Slocan): I asked the Premier some

questions earlier on — I believe it was yesterday — and I didn't really

receive any response to the questions I asked so I'd like to refresh

his mind and hope that he will provide some answers to the questions

I'm interested in.

[ Page 1178 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I must remind you that we cannot

insist on answers. It is at the election of the minister whom we are

interrogating as to whether he wishes to answer questions singly or

together or at all. To simply repeat the questions is not to serve the

purpose of the House, but I'll listen to what you're saying.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think I appreciate the rules

of the House fairly well and until I start to violate those rules of

the House I don't know whether it's appropriate for the Chair to keep

interrupting debate with warnings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

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

withdraw any attack on the Chair? The purpose of the Chair is to keep

orderly debate and I'm fulfilling the rules to which you yourself

subscribe and, therefore, I am only assisting the hon. member.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I did not ascribe anything improper

to the Chair and I have nothing to withdraw. When a member of this

House violates the rules, then it is appropriate for the Chairman to

intercede, and not until, I suggest. Otherwise I think the Chair does

nothing but impede debate. I asked the Premier some questions on an

earlier occasion. It's his choice whether he wishes to respond, but for

a government that ran in an election on the basis of being an open

government, I find it incredible that the Premier of the province would

choose not to respond and be frank with the House.

However, I do have additional material that I want to draw to the

Premier's attention in his capacity as the leader of the government. I

have a concern, Mr. Chairman, with the tremendous conflict in

statements — policy statements and otherwise — which have been

enunciated by different cabinet ministers over the past month. I would

draw the Premier's attention to the wide variety of cabinet ministers

who have commented on labour policy, the Premier included. I would draw

the Premier's attention to the Minister of Education's (Hon. Mr.

McGeer'

s) comments on the particular brand of federalism which he feels

is appropriate for this nation. I would draw the Premier's attention to

the statements by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm) with respect to the role of Quebec in Confederation. I would

further draw the Premier's attention to conflict between his own

position on a motion that was passed in this House last year regarding

assistance to Vietnamese children and that of the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. Chairman, what concerns me about all of these diverse and conflicting statements

by ministers of the Crown and by the Premier himself is that British Columbia

seems to be foundering like a ship without a rudder. I believe that the kind

of chaos, the kind of conflict, the kind of wondering and rambling that is evident

in this government and its cabinet is doing harm to the economy of British Columbia.

This certainly is a time when the province, the nation and the world face stormy

economic times. I don't think we have to remind the Premier again that there

are 112,000 people in British Columbia unemployed. It's a time when we need

leadership, strong leadership and strong direction, and it concerns me that

in the debate on the Premier's estimates we have seen no such strong statement

of where this province is going. Rather we have seen a cabinet that apparently

is divided and in conflict.

We've seen a Premier who is not prepared to get up and give any

definitive statement to the House regarding his leadership role, where

he intends to take us, any initiatives to come to grips with the high

level of unemployment, any clear indication of a strategy for

encouraging investment in the province so that the economy might start

moving again. Mr. Chairman, I think that the Premier owes us that. He

is the leader of the government; he is head of the Treasury Board. He's

certainly the man who ran on the basis of "working with Bill" and

getting the economy going again. I believe that we have the right in

this House to expect some clear and concise statement from the Premier

before we pay him.

We've had the spectre this afternoon of a backbencher in the

government benches having the temerity to get up and advocate a certain

economic thrust by the government, a certain direction and initiative,

and we have seen that member admonished by the Premier. With a gesture

of the hand he was told to take his seat and keep silent. We saw that

member banished from the House later on. I think that he's still under

the firm rule, under the firm thumb, of people on the treasury benches

because I see he's back over there again being counselled.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to say in all seriousness that each and

every member of this House is concerned, not only on a politically

partisan basis, but on the basis of our obligation as politicians to

those 112,000 people in this province who do not have a job to work at.

I might say I think that's a very conservative estimate because there

are many people unemployed who are not registered with Canada Manpower.

Those people who have been unemployed beyond eight months obviously

would not be registered for benefits because they do not have adequate

stamps to entitle them to any unemployment insurance. So the

probability is that there are many more than 112,000 people unemployed

in this Province.

Quite frankly, it goes against my grain, Mr. Chairman, to allow the estimates of the Premier of

[ Page 1179 ]

this province to be passed through this House

without some definite statement, without some indication that all of

this House could support to provide some hope, some succour for those

people who are unemployed and having difficulty feeding their families

and maintaining their house payments. Maybe the Minister of Education

and the head of ICBC (Hon. Mr. McGeer) feels they can sell their cars,

but many of them need automobiles. Many of them need them in the hope

that they may be able to find a job and they'll need the automobile to

travel to and from work again.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I sound like a broken record needle on this theme. Perhaps

I do, but I make no apologies for that. I make no apologies for that because

the local newspaper from one sector of my riding, the Nakusp Arrow Lakes News

as just come out. I want to read a headline to you which says: "Unemployment

Rate Tops 20 Per Cent."

"Unemployment in the area served by the Nelson

Manpower centre, which includes the Arrow and Slocan Valleys, has

topped 20 per cent, according to figures released last week. With an

estimated labour force of 12,000 there are now 2,234 persons out of

work and seeking employment. This figure does not include those out of

work but not actively seeking employment.

"Ken Yeoman, acting director of the Nelson

unemployment insurance office, said last week that unskilled workers

had been particularly hard hit and that twice as many men as women are

registered with the UIC.

"He said construction trades are the hardest hit, with

a 25 per cent unemployment rate, followed by clerical and related

workers with 12 per cent, the service industry with 10 per cent and

both mining and forestry with 7 per cent unemployment. Younger workers,

those between 25 and 34 years of age, are experiencing a 33 per cent

jobless rate, while those between 20 and 25 years of age have 25 per

cent of their number looking for work.

"The jobless figure for the area has been steadily

rising since late 1975, when 1,718 persons were looking for work —

almost twice as many 14 months later.

"The job opportunities are especially tight in the

region. Only 123 vacancies were reported to Canada Manpower in Nelson

last month, and the agency managed to fill 112 of those."

Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to ask you to call the House to order. I

would just hope that members of the government benches would be

concerned enough about unemployment all through this province to pay

some attention to debate in this House and to listen to some positive

recommendations regarding what we are going to do about it. When I say

"we" I don't mean just the government, I mean all of the people who

were elected to come down here and do the province's business.

significant; I want the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown)

to listen to this, Mr. Chairman — "said last week he had expected to

see a dramatic increase in social allowance recipients as a result of

the rising unemployment in the past year, but the number of persons

receiving social assistance has remained fairly constant." I wonder

why. I wonder why, under the tender mercies of that humanitarian

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), Mr. Chairman, he

could not explain why high unemployment has not resulted in more people

seeking or receiving welfare. Isn't that unusual?

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would think the Premier of this province would

be sincerely embarrassed to come before this institution and ask for

his salary, ask that his vote be passed, when he realizes that

situations like I have outlined obtain all over this province. The

general rate of unemployment is close to 10 per cent, but there are

pockets of unemployment in sections of this province which exceed 30

per cent. I think that it's just morally incomprehensible that the

Premier of the province would come demanding his salary before this

institution without having the decency to outline to the House any

programme, any initiative whatsoever in terms of how we are going to

put these people back to work.

I spoke on an earlier occasion about the cries of indignation that

would echo through this chamber if 112,000 British Columbians were

idled as a result of strike action. We'd have a special session of the

Legislature called, Mr. Chairman. We'd have advocacy from all sections

of that government bench regarding the type of restrictive and reactive

labour legislation that should be passed to prevent strikes in the

future. Well, I want to reiterate, Mr. Chairman: productivity that is

lost through 112,000 people being out of work is identical to

productivity that's lost as a result of strike action.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Hear, hear!

MR. KING: It's absolutely appalling that this government that

claimed it was a businessmen's organization, that claimed it had a

formula to get the province moving, has allowed the economy of this

province to deteriorate in this accelerated fashion over the last 14

months — not one positive statement, not one positive programme, no

initiative whatsoever.

It's true that we have the odd stipend, as it is referred to, of

$3,700 a month for friends of certain cabinet ministers to occupy dual

positions as heads of large forestry corporations in this province,

while at one and the same time they draw that kind of paltry

[ Page 1180 ]

stipend to hold vigil over an ICBC Crown agency

that that minister has destroyed, Mr. Chairman. What hypocrisy! What

inconsistency! Let 112,000 workers in this province, and their

families, sell their cars, the minister says, let them sink or let them

swim — not one programme, but a stipend for the friends of the

government.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Oh, just a paltry, insignificant little sum of

$3,700 a month. That's scandalous, Mr. Chairman, and if I were the

Premier of this province and the ministers in my cabinet could not come

up with more imaginative initiatives to do something about the plight

of the unemployed in this province, quite frankly, I tell you I'd take

an axe to them. I'd bring in someone like the dynamic young member for

Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), because obviously they need some young

thinkers in that cabinet, some people with some initiative and

imagination. It's about time the Premier shook them up.

Primarily it is the Premier's responsibility to lead, and he has

abdicated any role of leadership in this province. He has shown himself

to be shallow. He has shown himself to be devoid of any control of his

cabinet, so how on earth can we expect him to lead the province out of

the doldrums? But he wants us to pay him, Mr. Chairman. I'm not anxious

to pay him. I don't think he's earned it. Quite frankly, when I read in

my local paper, "20 per cent unemployed," I think if I voted for that

Premier's salary tonight they'd skin me alive when I went home, and I

wouldn't blame them.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Well, I can tell you, Mr. Member, I'd be a bit

concerned about that at home, but there's no one on the government

benches who is prepared in this debate to skin me alive — or anyone

else. You're all mice, and properly so. You have nothing to be proud

about — not a thing.

Mr. Chairman, there's a pattern developing. It's a pattern of weak

leadership, the absence of leadership. It's evident in the conflict of

statements between that cabinet. They're all over the ballpark. The

Premier says, when the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm) insults our sister province, Quebec: "Well, he's a colourful

minister." He apologizes for the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy) waffling all over the place and saying she's not going to

honour a commitment of this total House that was made unanimously. He's

devoid of leadership. He lacks the intestinal strength to admonish and

to censure his ministers when they make irresponsible statements.

That's the obligation of a leader. That little man ran on the platform

of rotating his ministers. I think it's about time, Mr. Chairman, that

they rotated the First Minister in this province. He's the one who

should be rotated, and I don't mean just through the swinging doors of

this chamber. I think he should be rotated right out of the cabinet.

Mr. Chairman, there is another question that bothers me, and I'm not

prepared to let the Premier's estimates go through, personally, until I

have a more frank statement from the Premier regarding the morality of

this government on a question that I think is extremely important. That

is the question of a blacklist or, if you will, to neutralize it as

much as possible, an alleged blacklist — and that's a serious

allegation — that emanated from the Premier's office marked "strictly

personal and confidential." It came from the Premier's office and was

directed to the Minister of Environment's (Hon. Mr. Nielsen'

s) office.

It named and characterized certain public servants by their political

persuasion.

The Premier responded to the tabling of that list by saying he was

upset and concerned about the source of the leak of confidential

documents. I can understand that that's partially a valid concern, but

where are the priorities? Where are the priorities of the Premier and

the government? He enunciated concern about the source of the leak. He

at no time in this House, or in his statements outside the House, gave

any indication that he was concerned about the possibility that someone

in his own office, in addition to someone in his cabinet, was indulging

in identifying public servants by their political persuasion. He at no

time said: "I would not countenance that." He at no time censured or

admonished the person who was responsible for directing that list from

his office. It's a real irony.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Well, look, I want to tell you, Mr. Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), there are 18 leaders on this side of the

House. You haven't even got one on that side.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's No. l?

MR. KING: There's no question about that over here, Mr. Chairman. I want to tell you that I've heard more common sense....

Interjections.

MR. KING: Listen, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is

well. He's back again. I'm glad to see the Attorney-General recovered

from his....

Interjections.

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

[ Page 1181 ]

MR. KING: I'm glad to see the Attorney-General recovered and

came back. I understand he had a sore back and I hope it's not a stab

wound that was bothering him, Mr. Chairman. I hope it wasn't that,

because I hear the Premier might be afflicted the same way.

Mr. Chairman, I've heard more common sense from speakers on this

side of the House in today's debate. We heard the member for Alberni

(Mr. Skelly), we heard the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) and

we heard the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) — all of them

backbenchers offering positive recommendations. All of them were

offering positive recommendations on things that the government could

do in a worthwhile way to assist people. I know the people over there

take it in a pretty light vein and I know that the Attorney-General is

going to go out and have a game of squash tonight with his partners and

I know he can afford to laugh. But, Mr. Chairman, I just don't think

it's too humorous when I'm discussing 112,000 real people — not

statistics — who are out of a job and who are worrying about not only

being able to involve themselves in a little bit of recreation like the

boys at the Racquet Club. They're worrying about being able to continue

to buy a membership in their local gym for their kids. I don't think

that's too humorous. By golly, I think it's about time that the

government started taking their responsibility seriously. It's not good

enough to sit there in passive form and hope, by not answering, by not

responding, by not offering something positive, that eventually the

opposition will tire out and your vote will pass. I want to tell you,

Mr. Chairman, I remember the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) when he was in opposition. The only thing I ever admired

about that man was his resilience and his tenacity. I want to tell you

that I admire it so much that I think I can emulate it and duplicate it

if need be.

Until the Premier, as the leader of this government, is prepared to

get up and give something positive in terms of where he's taking this

province and in terms of giving the impression that he has control in

his own house and is going to start directing not only his cabinet but

this province in some positive directions, then I'm afraid I can't

allow a vote to be taken on his salary.

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I don't think the Premier's too concerned

about that because I don't think he's going to suffer too badly if he

doesn't get his salary. In any event, it's a gesture and it's a token.

That's what this institution is all about. I think the Premier owes us,

at least, the respect of taking us into his confidence. He's talked

vaguely about studies and reports that he has. We know there are

difficulties in governing. But be frank with the House. Table those

documents. Take us into your confidence. We're all legislators. We're

all elected by the people. Tell us where you are taking the province.

Tell us what economic initiatives you have underway and under study.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is the worst I've ever heard.

MR. KING: We understand that it takes time and we can

forgive. We can forgive the need to study and prepare initiatives. But

we cannot forgive inertia in the face of very difficult and troubled

economic times, Mr. Chairman. I ask the Premier to give that kind of

mature statement to this House. If he deserves the name of leader, Mr.

Chairman, he will do so.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Mr. Chairman, before I begin my remarks I think I should make a few comments on the last speaker's lengthy remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, hon. member. We are on vote 18, which is the administrative responsibility of the Premier.

MR. STRONGMAN: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to remark on

the previous speaker and certainly I could refer to what he said if you

allowed him to carry on. Certainly I can comment on what he said.

I just wanted to say to the previous speaker that over the last year

I've become — not necessarily a close friend — but certainly a man who

admires him and I would like to warn him that he's starting to look too

good. He's starting to look like a leader and I can tell you that the

history of the previous administration would indicate that anyone who

looks like a leader will be stabbed quickly in the back. So please, Mr.

Member, as a man I respect, don't look too good too soon. You'll peak

too soon.

MR. KING: That's really positive stuff.

MR. STRONGMAN: Mr. Chairman, I thought that I would like to

speak tonight on a topic that has been raised on a number of occasions,

once in the throne speech and again by our Premier in his remarks on

the opening of his estimates, and that is the often unknown and not

understood description of negative income tax. When I first heard the

phrase I remembered back to my days studying, and I must say a little

bit of time was spent in economics. It twigged my imagination.

So last Sunday I thought that I'd spend a little time cracking some

old economics books and also some more recent publications. I would

like to say that it's the first time I've done something like that for

almost 17 years. I found that it was a very

[ Page 1182 ]

intriguing study, a topic that all of us should be

aware of and perhaps all of us should do a little research on because

it's a topic that the Premier seems to be espousing on a regular basis.

I think it would behoove all of us well to know more about it.

It pertains to a guaranteed annual wage. I think the first member

for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) spoke at length on that topic this

afternoon, although there's a new wrinkle in negative income tax as

opposed to guaranteed annual wage. She's shaking her head. Well, she

obviously doesn't know what she's talking about if she doesn't agree

with what I'm saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. STRONGMAN: A negative income tax, as I said, is a new wrinkle on guaranteed annual wage.

MS. BROWN: I've got enough wrinkles.

MR. STRONGMAN: I think likely the most important difference

between a guaranteed annual wage and a negative income tax is that

there is a built-in monetary incentive for the recipient to continue to

look for work to gain employment.

Interjections.

MR. STRONGMAN: Mr. Chairman, I don't think anyone's listening to me. (Laughter.)

There's a built-in monetary incentive in negative income tax that

allows the recipient to actually go out, look for employment, gain it

and still actually make gains in their real income.

I would quote from a paper that I read, as I said, on the weekend by

a well-known economist by the name of Walter Williams who happens to

live in Washington state. I think that he summed it up in his

dissertation entitled "The Struggle for a Negative Income Tax," which

was written about 1972, I believe.

"In its most basic form a negative income tax focuses

exclusively on an individual's income deficiencies, his income below

some minimum level, and increases his income while allowing him to

benefit from any additional earned income in the future."

I think the key words there are "to benefit from any additional earned income in the future."

He also goes on to say:

"A characteristic feature of negative income tax is that the recipient always gains in total income from additional work."

Again I'll quote from the same article:

"The most important features of negative income tax,

then, are the break-even income which sets the level of income at which

no allowance is paid. The guaranteed level which establishes the

minimum allowance a unit receives with no other income, i.e., the tax

floor, and that is the tax rate."

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Stick with it, Gerry.

MR. STRONGMAN: Thank you, Mr. Member. I'm sure I will.

An

article was written in Scientific American

in October, 1972, by David N. Kershaw. David N. Kershaw, in my

readings, is an economist who has spent a great deal of time and was

involved in what is known now in terms of the New Jersey study on

negative income tax. David N. Kershaw has spoken about negative income

tax almost from the time that Milton Friedman introduced it in 1962 in

a paper written for the federal government of the United States. What

I'm going to say now really sums up even better than what Williams did

in his article, which is the real strength behind this particular

concept.

"The concept of the negative income tax is a downward

extension of the income tax system that would pay out cash in the form

of negative taxes to families at the low end of the income scale. An

essential feature of the concept is that as a family's income rises

above the poverty level, the tax payments are reduced by an amount less

than the earnings so that the family is always better off the higher

its own earnings are. The concept was first presented" — now I know

where I got the information — "to the broad public in 1962 by Milton

Friedman."

I don't know if you people happen to realize that Milton Friedman has been a well read, widely read economist in the Times .

MR. LAUK: Can I have the name again?

MR. STRONGMAN: Milton Friedman, Mr. Member. You might like to

read him next weekend. It might do you some good. He's currently, I

believe, a regular columnist with Newsweek magazine.

MR. LAUK: Adam Smith, did you say?

MR. STRONGMAN: One of the most difficult decisions which a

government must decide when implementing a negative tax is the rate of

the negative tax itself. Most of the reports that I read in the U.S.

publications seem to want to use a figure of 40 per cent, and I must

say that that particular philosophy doesn't seem to fit the lifestyles

and the type of benefits that this country is using and giving to its

population. I think that Canada and B.C. in particular are far ahead of

most regions in the United

[ Page 1183 ]

States in giving benefits to people who are underprivileged.

One of the points I raised earlier, and I tried to put it into my

own language and translate from what I just read to you, is that the

lower the negative tax — i.e. the percentage of tax you're going to

charge — the lower the total income, but conversely, the higher the

percentage of earnings that can be retained by the family. In other

words, there is a real incentive to work if you have a lower tax

percentage. Conversely, the higher the negative tax rate, the higher

the total income, but the lower percentage of earnings that can be

retained by the family. There is an incentive to work but it's much

lower.

So if we go toward the negative income tax, what particular system

would we use? Do we go with something that is going to require high

payments to being with, or are we looking for something that gives more

benefits to people as they increase their incomes and as they increase

their willingness to work and as jobs become available? And that's

something that our government, or whatever government is in power, is

going to have to wrestle with. I think that most members in this House,

since this government in power is starting to talk about negative

income tax, should start to think in terms of what your position would

be if, in fact, the presentation is given to this assembly. What route

do we go?

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I can give you an example. Most of the studies that I looked at used

income levels that were much lower than what we would accept in this

country. For instance, most of them have been written, say five years

ago. Even so, benefits in the United States are not quite as high as

the benefits in this country, and I had to come up with my own figures.

To give you an example, if we would use a 60 per cent negative income

tax figure — I seem to be causing a great deal of humour in.... If you

were to use a 60 per cent tax figure based on what they call a

"floor-level income" of $7,000 for a family of four — and I chose that

figure. It's an arbitrary selection, I'm certainly not saying it's what

our government or what our party believes in. It's a figure that I put

forward — a figure of $7,000.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Not enough in B.C.

MR. STRONGMAN: The interesting concept is that, if someone

were to earn $2,000, let us say, in income, the tax allowance would be

$3,000 and they would actually end up with a $5,000 income. If, in

turn, they raised it by $1,000 to $3,000 in earnings, they'll go from

$5,000 to $5,400. So for each $1,000 they actually earn per year, they

will get a net increase of $400, based on a 60 per cent tax.

If we were to go the other route, the route that's espoused by most

economists south of the border where they talk 40 per cent negative

income tax, at the $2,000 level they would go to $4,000; at the $3,000

they'd go to $4,600, which is almost $1,000 less. For each $1,000

earned, the family would actually get $600 in increase. So although the

levels of income are lower to begin with, there is more incentive on

the lower tax percentage base.

There was a very interesting study done in negative income tax in

New Jersey in 1968, 1969 and 1970, and it's likely the most complete

study that's available. There isn't really a jurisdiction that has ever

put this philosophical tax — this tax on negative incomes — anywhere in

the world. It's really never been put into effect except in New Jersey,

as I say, on a test basis. At that time there were 1,300 families

involved. One of the interesting things that came out of it is that,

almost without exception — there was the odd exception, and that,

maybe, could be based on personalities — anyone who was put into the

plan tended to increase their income by going out and looking for work.

Because of the built-in incentive to go and look for work — and if you

had been listening to my comments earlier, Mr. Member, you'd understand

what I'm talking about — the results show that under a negative income

tax, although it is a benefit to people who are in need, people will

still go out and work because they can increase their income and they

won't be penalized, unlike a straight welfare grant system that's in

existence in this province.

MR. LAUK: Does that make a difference? Was that proved in the New Jersey study?

MR. STRONGMAN: Yes, it was.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, will you kindly address the Chair, please?

MR. STRONGMAN: I'm sorry, a number of the members keep addressing me and I paused to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): He's not finished.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. The second member for Vancouver South still has the floor.

MR. STRONGMAN: Now I know you're not on my side. (Laughter.)

I sense that the Chairman would like me to finish. I've almost

completed my remarks.

To me, the benefits of going into this type of distribution of

wealth, if you will, will cut down on bureaucracy in a number of areas

— I'm talking provincial and federal — if negative income tax is put

[ Page 1184 ]

into the federal scene. We can cut back in

bureaucracy in a number of areas: old-age pensions, Human Resources,

Canada Pension Plan, UIC benefits. These bureaucracies aren't going to

disappear and I don't think any of us would really except'them to. But

they certainly would be cut back in need because many of the recipients

of those benefits now would come under the blanket of a negative income

tax plan.

I would urge all of the members to consider what I have been talking

about carefully — not that they have to use my notes. I would urge them

to start considering what happens if this type of plan is put in, and

what their position will be when it is actually debated in this House.

It is one that has absolutely limitless possibilities. I think that

both sides of the House will support it. I would ask, and urge, that

the Premier continue to espouse this particular philosophy. I think it

has real possibilities for benefits and savings to people.

I would say to the members that if any of them would like to read

the articles I read, I would be more than delighted to give you the

sources. I would also ask you to consider what I have had to say

carefully and perhaps have positions available if and when the time

does present itself.

MR. BARNES: I'll yield to the Premier if we would like the opportunity to answer a few of these very serious charges.

Mr. Chairman, I am only going to take a few seconds to ask the

Premier a few questions. You know, this is the most sedate set of

estimates that we have had to deal with. That is, things seem to be

very peaceful and quiet, except perhaps for a few moments ago when the

member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) was inspired to remind the

Premier that he has been somewhat negligent in his duties as leader of

the government — or you could say the opposition, in the sense that he

is not attacking those people who are being irresponsible in his

collection over there.

I am going to spend a few moments asking the Premier some questions

that I hope he will answer. I am going all the way back to last spring.

I asked the Premier a question and he referred it to the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who referred it to her assistant, who

said they were going to be coming back with some answers, and I never

did find out. But you'll recall, Mr. Premier, last spring we were

getting ready for the Olympics. You were planning to go back and run

one leg of the ceremonies, I believe. You were going to take the

lead-off and run — what was it? — one mile.

HON. W. R. BENNETT (Premier): A kilometre.

MR. BARNES: One kilometre. At that time you were indicating

that the government would pay part of the cost for a contingent from

British Columbia to go back and carry the torch — I don't know the city

— for quite a few miles to the site in Montreal. Each one was to run a

certain amount of the distance. I think there was $300,000 involved. Do

you recall that? At that time it was supposed to be partially sponsored

by the provincial government and partially sponsored by the private

sector. I don't know if that meant corporations, or individual

donations, or what, but....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: The B.C. Sports Federation?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's government.

MR. BARNES: Well, the thing is that that question was never

answered. I wanted to know what portion the provincial government was

going to pay. Now don't refer it again, Mr. Premier. These are your

estimates, and I am sure you are going to get this information for us.

MS. BROWN: Did they give you $300 to run or didn't they?

MR. BARNES: You see, Mr. Premier....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you kindly address the Chair?

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I note you

have been very diligent this evening in trying to keep good order in

the House. You've worked very hard and very judiciously, I am sure, in

trying to see that each and every member doesn't waver from the main

objective, and that's the leader of the government. I certainly don't

intend to breach those directions you have been giving us.

I would like the Premier to stand up in the House and clear up a few

things for us. For instance, he says one thing and he does something

else. He makes a promise, and then he says: "Well, at the time I meant

it, but you know, one can change one's mind." Really I think that from

the day he stood up in this House on his estimates and made his opening

remarks he seemed to be somewhat discouraged and not too enthusiastic

about his department. Where is the leadership? You know, convince us we

are a House undivided. We want to follow you. We want to feel that we

can rally behind your good intentions.

You know, it is like the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman)

has said. You know you are going to bring in a guaranteed income tax.

I'm sure you wouldn't be playing a game. You wouldn't be playing a game

with us, would you, like your daddy

[ Page 1185 ]

used to do? He always talked about the negative

income tax, or the guaranteed income, or whatever you call it. He was

always making reference to it because there was nothing he could do.

You see, you had to go to the federal government to get some help there.

I'm not sure what you're doing, quite frankly. You talk about

regionalism and yet you talk about unity — you leave one confused. Just

when we think you've got a cohesive unit over there and the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is doing a very diligent job, promoting

tourism and making profound statements about how the economy is going

to improve — she's working very closely with the Minister of Economic

Development — then when she thinks she's flying really high, you come

out and you zap her. She says one thing and you said "No way!" I wonder

whether you people communicate.

MS. BROWN: They don't.

MR. BARNES: I can see that you believe that each person

should have their own free voice and free choice, except this afternoon

when the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) made a few comments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you kindly address the Chair, please?

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I'm only trying to do an overview...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, would you do an overview by addressing the Chair, please?

MR. BARNES: ...of this Premier's approach to handling his council and his back bench, and his general projections in the community.

It was a little while ago that he also made an interesting comment.

I've got a whole list of things that he promised in 1975. Let's see

what the date is on this one. This was just last June, 1976. I won't

read the whole column, but here is just a little quote from the

Premier. This is what is so confusing about you. I never know what

you're going to do. I bet you don't even want yourself to know what's

going to happen because you'll begin to believe something.

The Premier says: "I campaigned against any raise in taxes." He

says: "We meant that. We campaigned against tax increases." But then he

says:

"The first thing I had to do was to raise them to meet

our commitments. At the time I was making those promises, I didn't

really know what the commitments were; I was just trying to get

elected. But when we got in, we had to live up to that, so we raised

them."

What do you mean when you make a statement like that? What are the

people supposed to believe? You didn't answer my question; you said you

were going to give it to the Provincial Secretary — she'll look into

it. I still haven't heard. This is almost a year.

You say: "We're not going to raise any taxes." But you meant you

would have indirect taxes. ICBC is an indirect tax. You say: "What

we'll do is we'll raise it just once — 400 or 500 per cent — and each

year we'll give you a rebate." Very similar to what they're doing to

the automobile today. The new gimmick now is: "Don't invest, get a

rebate. Buy this car and we'll give you $400." That's the kind of

economic rationale that you seem to be using. You set the people up.

You've got a Provincial Secretary who is telling the people that

tourism is the most important industry, and yet the first thing you do

with your fiscal policies is to wipe out tourism not only on Vancouver

Island but all up the coast, because people need ferries to commute.

All of the goods and services — everything is related to

transportation. Not only have you wiped out the services that were

related to it, but your costs have gone up because you're not even

getting as much revenue as you were before. What's your explanation for

that?

I would think you would be quite disturbed about the people who've

made these decisions. Your Minister of Energy, Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) perhaps went off half-cocked. Don't you

communicate? Don't you believe in using those analysts that were in the

Minister of Economic Development's estimates? You've got dozens of

people with expertise who are paid for that and that alone — to advise

the government on economic policies and procedures.

I just feel that, as a leader, you are of dubious benefit. I'd like

to be with you because I know you're a nice fellow. You're a family

man. You're a Canadian; you make that quite clear, and I think we're

all together. You're a fellow who likes to live a clean life; you only

take a sip every now and then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, vote 18.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, the man is an avid jogging fan. He

gets out and takes care of himself. He put a shower in for the

opposition next to the toilets.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Wonderful, hon. member, but we are relating this to vote 18.

MR. BARNES: There's a lot of good things about this man, a

lot of good things. But you are a tricky man. I can't quite figure out,

Mr. Chairman, why this minister is asking us to vote on his salary. I

would suggest to him that maybe he should just forgo his salary

altogether and apply to ICBC for a stipend. You'd make more money on

stipends than you'd ever

[ Page 1186 ]

make on salary.

MS. BROWN: That's right.

MR. BARNES: You just found that out this afternoon. They

don't call it salary or a payment; they give you a stipend of $3,600 a

month as a consultant.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Oh, $3,700 — that's not bad change for not

getting a job. What you should do is talk to Dr. Pat and ask him to

keep you in mind for the next time one of those consultants' jobs comes

along and you just go there, sit in on a few board meetings, pick

yourself up a couple of bucks for yourself and forget about it.

MS. BROWN: He won't need the 28 cents.

MR. BARNES: I wonder if that job was posted with UIC — with

Manpower. I wonder if Manpower had any knowledge. Was that open

competition, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I am waiting for you to get back to vote 18.

MR. BARNES: The Premier has no responsibilities. He very cleverly got rid of all of them. He passed everything off to everybody else.

MS. BROWN: He's responsible for everything.

MR. BARNES: He has assumed no responsibility. He makes

referrals and that's the thing I don't like about him. When you ask him

what he's going to do about something he says: "Well, we'll look into

it and I'll pass it on to the minister in charge."

MS. BROWN: He's not going to get away with it.

MR. BARNES: Now you were calling everybody back to order and

I think we should follow the example of some of the members in your

back bench who tried to be honest and who tried to come forward with

the goods and share with an open mind, with no politics involved.

MS. BROWN: Hear, hear!

MR. BARNES: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) stood

up here today and endorsed programmes that we've been trying to bring

in to try and help small businesses and they're sitting on the

Premier's desk.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Wrong again.

MR. BARNES: He made a plea today that I think the Premier should stand up and say: "I agree."

MR. LOEWEN: You're wrong again.

MR. BARNES: After all, it was brought up by a backbencher and not by the opposition.

MR. LOEWEN: You are completely wrong.

MR. BARNES: That's the excuse you usually want to say that we

brought it up, you guys did. And here you have a fellow who is giving

you the opportunity to do that.

Let's just take a look at some of the other things that you said in

1975 that you were going to do. You said that you were going to

increase efficiency on the ferries. Well, that's really interesting. I

hope you will get up and explain what efficiency you have achieved.

MS. BROWN: He wiped out all the passengers. That's what he did.

MR. BARNES: You know, we're so dumbfounded in the opposition

that we don't know just how to reach you. Because once your estimates

are passed, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, we can talk all we

want to the various departmental ministries and they are just going to

say: "Well, you know, we have to consult back with the cabinet." The

Premier is really the one who has the veto power and who is the real

dictator. So he should be the one standing here right now and giving us

some idea of what the thrust is with this government and giving us some

indication of what the government intends to do in terms of being a

people's party, which is what it said it was.

You suggested that you would be dealing with the rent situation. You

would have ways and means of dealing with rents — rent reviews. Believe

it or not, you did, on the local level. That's hard to believe that you

would say that, but you said that you were going to administer rents.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, with great respect, many of your points could be better covered under the particular ministry.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I beg to differ with you, in all due respect.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well don't, hon. member, because they should be covered under the ministers.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased

[ Page 1187 ]

to take your advice if you would outline to me just what subjects can be discussed under the Premier's vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it is not for the Chair to teach

people the rules of the House — that's for you to learn yourself —

merely to bring you to order and control of the House.

MR. BARNES: Well, perhaps you could circulate to me that part of the rules that gives an outline of what the Premier is responsible for.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I am merely suggesting to you that

much of your debate would be better covered under the particular

ministries involved.

MR. BARNES: I see. Well, do you have any idea of what they will say? Could you give me some idea of what they will say?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you can ask them when they come up for debate.

MR. BARNES: I want you to keep interrupting as much as you

please because I have lots of time and we can all learn. If you think

that by interrupting and trying to divert....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I am not trying to divert you. Again, I would ask you to withdraw that. It is my duty to keep order in this House.

MR. BARNES: Well, Mr. Chairman, I find it very strange that members for the last two or three days we have had....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. May I explain this to you

for a moment, please? It is merely my duty to keep order in- this

House. I would ask, if you would, to revert to vote 18 at hand — the

administrative responsibilities of the Premier.

MR. BARNES: Remember my comments a few moments ago, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: Thank you. I said that the Premier had no responsibilities.

MS. BROWN: At least he'd like to think he had no responsibilities.

MR. BARNES: That's why I've got to fire all over the place. I

don't know what his responsibilities are and he doesn't know either. If

he knows what his responsibilities are, Mr. Chairman, I think he should

stand up. Ill be glad to sit down and listen to him tell me what his

responsibilities are because I really question whether he has any that

he will take responsibility for when the pressure is on. Certainly the

things that were raised by the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr.

King) about unemployment in this province, show where we have 112,000

people unemployed and in some areas 30 per cent or greater

unemployment. We have a Premier who heads a group of people who call

themselves Social Crediters, and of — what shall we say? — Liberals and

Conservatives and whatnots who aspire to power at all costs.

It is no wonder this Premier is afraid to say what his

responsibilities are. He's dealing with a group of people he's not

familiar with, who just came together all of a sudden in order to get

rid of the socialists. I don't think he really knows what his thrust is.

He himself, if I can find some of the quotes, has said that his is

not a party that really has a movement, but is a party that is trying

to appeal to the most popular vote — where the action is. He's not here

to take this parliament along sound, managed lines of prosperity but is

yielding to the pressure, wherever the pressure may be. I think that

those of us on the opposition have found it so hilarious and so

ridiculous that we're dumbfounded sometimes, Mr. Chairman.

We've raised many serious issues. We've asked the Premier to give us

some idea of how you have a society of confident citizens who believe

in participatory democracy, who want to respect the British

parliamentary system, and who want to feel that those elected people

that are representing them throughout the province mean what they say.

We find there is no way nor any opportunity for people to participate.

In fact just last session what did the government do in order to

eliminate any real input on behalf of those of us on the opposition but

come in with the Reorganization Act,

an Act which, in effect, means

that no matter what vote we pass, no matter how much detail we put in

the estimates, when they go back to cabinet they can change it. They

can wipe out a department, transfer a fund, alter any of the votes.

Now if the Premier is going to tell me that they do not have that

power under the Reorganization Act, then so be it. But things have

changed. They get rid of the community resource boards because there

was too much input on the grass roots; people were having too much to

say about their affairs. These were elected boards, incidentally.

He says: "We're going to balance our books. We're not going to spend

money that we don't have. Governments have no money of their own."

That's what he said: "Governments have no money of their own." At the

same time he's saying that he's creating new Crown corporations like

the B.C. Buildings

[ Page 1188 ]

Corporation, which now has power to deal in real

estate, to buy and sell, and it has a new borrowing capacity of $700

million. He's doing the same thing with B.C. Hydro. All other Crown

corporations have raised their borrowing capacity several hundred

thousand dollars.

So now that you've heard the big charade about the Clarkson Gordon

report which gave you the propaganda tool to say that you inherited a

government with a deficit, you're going to play games by saying you're

balancing the books, jacking up the taxes, raising social insurance

taxes 2 per cent to 7 per cent. You're doing the same thing in

practically every service.

How do we find out what's really happening in the government unless

you're going to give the people an opportunity to have real, legitimate

input? You're a serious man; you've got young children that are going

to be growing up and they're going to have to believe in something. You

make beautiful speeches, but where's your sense of commitment? You've

told a lot of — well, I won't say lies, I'll just say untruths. You've

misled a lot of us, Mr. Premier....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is also unparliamentary. Would you kindly withdraw?

MR. BARNES: I tried to couch that in such a way, Mr. Chairman... .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Not quite well enough, hon. member. Would you withdraw.

MR. BARNES: Okay. Well, I'm having trouble believing the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you withdraw, please?

MR. BARNES: What did I say? I'll withdraw if you tell me what it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Untruths.

MR. BARNES: Did I say "untruths"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. BARNES: Oh, by all means.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: I don't think that the Premier would deliberately

utter an untruth. He may have difficulty distinguishing the difference

between what is factual and unfactual. Now don't stand up and object.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw!

MR. BARNES: No, no. You'll get your chance to stand up in a

minute. Now he wants to get up, you see? I never know. The only reason

he wants to get up is because he thinks I'm not getting to the point

and he wants to rush it, you see.

You remember a little while ago when you were in the opposition, Mr.

Premier, and we all used to sit here and watch you, very fidgety,

sitting over here, and you were conniving. At that time you had Allan

Williams over here....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I hate to bring you back to vote 18, but would you...?

MR. BARNES: Pardon me. But he is the Premier and after all,

this is all about the games that he's playing — no one else. He used to

play. We're just trying to show how it all happened so that the people

can understand what a truly masterful leader they have over there. Some

of those members I don't think really know how it all happened. There

were only nine of those people over here at that time: the Premier, at

that time the Leader of the Opposition, and eight others — and all of

them were running for the leadership.

There's one right behind you now. He did not do too badly,

considering he didn't have the support of your father. The Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) did pretty well — a pretty good effort.

Then your Deputy Speaker, Mr. Chairman, also was a candidate for the

leadership — the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder).

MR. KING: And the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot).

MR. BARNES: That's right. You have the present Minister of Mines.

MS. BROWN: The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is still running.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

MR. BARNES: You had all those fellows over there trying to

get the leadership but they didn't have the casual style that you have,

so they were off guard. By the time it was all over you zapped them.

You're the leader. But that was only the beginning. You were trying to

get some unity among all of those people over there. You even tried to

get the NDP to break up. Imagine that!

You went down the line. Very early in the game you got a

Conservative who had been a Liberal, I think, before that so he's been

all over the place. I don't know where he's going next.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

[ Page 1189 ]

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, you have a member calling for order, but that's what we're looking at — that's the government.

MS. BROWN: Yes, we need some order.

MR. BARNES: We have the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom),

who was over here pounding away at the old Social Credit regime for

many, many years. He could not beat them so he joined them. And now

that he has joined them, of course, he's finding out there are two

sides to every story. He's wondering if he could not go back to the

story he used to tell.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. BARNES: Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. member please show how this relates to vote 18?

MR. BARNES: Very quickly. I'm going to sum it up very quickly, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

MR. LOEWEN: Barnes, you were a great football player! (Laughter.)

MR. BARNES: That's true, Mr. Digger.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the Premier would do well to take the

lead from that member for Burnaby-Edmonds because he's shown many times

that he makes very few remarks, but when he does they're very profound

and far-reaching. (Laughter.) He inspired the Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Barrett) to jump up today and try and get on the bandwagon with

him, but he was running so fast he couldn't catch him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, unless we can relate these remarks

to the Premier's estimates, we're going to have to ask you to cease

your debate.

MR. BARNES: Oh, my goodness! That would be a precedent! I

hope you won't do that, Mr. Chairman, because if you were to ask me to

cease my debate then you'd be forcing the Premier to stand up and start

answering questions. If he's prepared to do that I'll sit down now.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, a lot of ground has been

rehashed. It must be the greatest attempt to spin their wheels that the

opposition has ever made in this House. I don't know what the purpose

of the filibuster is except to convince the public that they made a

good choice in throwing them out. The irrelevance that has dominated

the House in the last few days as we've attempted to deal with the very

serious problems facing this province and some of the solutions.... The

opportunity to get on with legislation and other ministers, where quite

properly many questions could be asked.... It's disturbing that we seem

to have hit some sort of impasse. The opposition doesn't seem to be

prepared to deal with my estimates in a very straightforward way — most

of the questions have been asked before and answers given.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Second reading of Bill 5, Mr. Speaker.

POLLUTION CONTROL

(1967) AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, to

the members of the House, the purpose of this amendment Act is to fill

a void that is very apparent in attempts to combat pollution,

particularly pollution which may occur in an emergency situation. The

existing Acts which are within the capabilities of provincial

authorities do not offer a situation of emergency or speed to combat

dangers of pollution, particularly by toxic materials.

Much has been made about the Act as it would relate to oil spills,

because of the oil spill being on the minds of so many persons at this

time. But I might emphasize that the purpose of the bill goes beyond

oil spills. We have been concerned recently about pollution on land as

well, either by spill or leakage; particularly of toxic materials such

as PCBs.

The bill would provide the minister with powers to move very, very

quickly to make such orders as were deemed necessary to prevent

pollution from spreading, to move in equipment, men and material to

remedy the situation or contain the pollution and to cause removal of

the substance and disposal if necessary, and then, eventually, to

assess the costs to those persons deemed to be responsible. Part of the

Act will provide a method whereby those persons named as responsible as

polluters may appeal such a decision in the court of law.

We recognize, of course, that emergency powers will not be the only

necessary step in combating some of these pollution problems we can see

in the future. But at the present time we seem unable to

[ Page 1190 ]

respond quickly because of limiting effects of

certain legislation. Recognizing that under present circumstances the

federal government must play a very large role in combatting pollution,

particularly in the area of oil spills, we feel that the province

should at least have equal ability to move rapidly when it comes to

such spills, and perhaps argue about jurisdiction or compensation

later. The federal Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, visiting

Victoria last week, agreed basically that speed is essential and that

all should do what can be done to see that speed can be utilized.

We have been in contact with many persons in the private sector over

the last few months or longer, regarding the need to move quickly if

pollution threatens, and also in an attempt to develop a catalogue of

equipment and a catalogue of methods that could be used to combat

pollution. I must say that the response has been very, very positive.

We are initiating a catalogue of equipment that is available, that

could be used and that could be ordered in use. Also, the various

methods which have been brought to our attention by persons involved in

the public sector who have been using these methods for private

industry or other reasons, apparently were just not known within the

government prior to this past year.

The other portions of the bill are relatively routine:

definitions

and some emphasis being shifted slightly. The main emphasis of the

bill, Mr. Speaker, indeed, deals with the speed, permitting the

minister to act quickly in a pollution emergency.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): The opposition has taken a fairly

careful look at this bill. We're not quite convinced of the necessity

for presenting a bill of this nature under the Pollution Control Act,

1967. After all, we feel that the province has the authority under

other emergency measures legislation to attack emergencies such as

might occur when there is a spill of toxic substances. I think we

should congratulate the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority and the

minister's ministry when they, in response to Hydro's initiative, moved

on the PCB problem at Sheridan Lake up in the interior of the province.

There is the administrative machinery in British Columbia to mobilize

available forces and to get people and equipment in action quickly

enough to accommodate spills of toxic materials and to remove the

danger of those toxic materials when they appear.

There are some problems and, of course, the major problem is the

preventive aspect. That's something that this bill doesn't deal with.

It's one thing to duplicate procedures that are already in existence

under emergency measures legislation such as we have in other laws on

the provincial statute books. In fact, this probably doesn't go far

enough. It's not even equal to emergency legislation that we presently

have.

But the major aspect we're concerned about in the opposition is the

preventive aspect. When the minister has discussed this bill outside

the House, after the bill was tabled in the House some time ago, he

discussed it relative to the problem of oil spills, particularly on the

coast of British Columbia, and the problem of amassing people — I think

he mentioned, in one case, conscripting people out of beer parlours to

fight oil spills....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Wrong again!

MR. SKELLY: The minister will have an opportunity to close debate according to the parliamentary system here.

There was some discussion about conscripting people out of beer

parlours and about having the same powers as we have under the Forest

Act to fight forest fires — to conscript people, to pay them, and to

mobilize men and equipment — to attack problems of toxic spills,

including the problem of oil spills. But again, we have this conflict

that has taken place and that has not been resolved in this House over

the past several months. That is the problem of whether we are going to

prevent the kind of toxic spills, and extremely dangerous oil spill

disasters particularly, that might occur on the coast of British

Columbia. We in the opposition feel that this bill is kind of a sop to

the public, to say that the provincial government is ready to take

action, that we are preparing ourselves through this type of

legislation to take action in the eventuality that an oil spill might

take place on the coast of British Columbia that would constitute a

threat to the environment of this coast.

MR. KEMPF: Are you saying we shouldn't take action?

MR. SKELLY: I'm saying, Mr. Member, that there is already,

under other legislation, the right of the provincial government to take

emergency action to conscript men and materials and to solve those

problems, and there is the same under federal legislation. But there

appears to be no concern on the part of the present government about

prevention of spills of toxic materials and about prevention

particularly of spills of oil — crude oil in particular. Again it

refers to this question: are we going to allow ourselves to be placed

at risk so that these toxic materials will be placed on water and on

land in this province?

There has been no statement whatsoever from that Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), or from any other member of the

government, concerning in particular the Kitimat oil pipeline which is

probably the most dangerous project that could put this province, both

terrestrial and in the marine aspect, at risk from toxic spills. There

has been no action

[ Page 1191 ]

whatsoever, and no policy has been adopted. We have

been looking forward to that Minister of Environment coming up with

some type of statement to indicate that he is taking the necessary

preventive measures to prevent these types of toxic spills occurring.

Nothing has been forthcoming.

It's interesting that at the recent convention of the United

Fishermen and Allied Workers the Minister made a speech to the

convention, and the people at the convention asked him: "What are you

going to do about tanker traffic coming up and down this coast? What

are you going to do about the risk of toxic oil spills off the coast of

British Columbia?" The minister kept putting forth in front of these

people the idea that they were taking steps, under this legislation, to

clean up any oil spills or any toxic spills which might take place. The

question was asked time and time again: "What are you going to do to

prevent the eventuality of those spills taking place?" People from

Environment Canada have told us that it's going to be impossible to

clean up the spills. There is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that

men and equipment can be mobilized, or that money can be made

available, to clean up a spill of toxic oil of the magnitude that we

can expect if the Kitimat oil port and the Kitimat pipeline are built.

There's an

article in the Vancouver Sun today, February 22, 1977, where Moira Farrow, in an interview with Captain Young of the Canada Coast Guard, has stated:

"'There's really very little one can do on the west

coast. We have good capability for using chemical dispersants sprayed

from ships, but in winter we'd probably have to leave things to Mother

Nature.' Young said very few British Columbians have any idea how

severe the weather can be on the northern coast of British Columbia.

'The Coast Guard's stockpile of oil cleanup equipment in B.C. is now

worth more than $1 million, but it's dispersed on the whole coast

between Vancouver and Prince Rupert. For us to get equipment from

Prince Rupert to Kitimat by water would take 12 hours.'"

We're dealing with an emergency bill which really is going to have

very little effect on spills of toxic chemicals and oil in the waters

of British Columbia and on land in British Columbia. Captain Young

mentions the oil spill in the Sea of Japan recently where it required

the labour of something like 232,000 Japanese to clean up that oil

spill, that took place in the Sea of Japan, and still the cleanup

wasn't satisfactory.

This bill doesn't solve the problem that is being presented to us by

the present government through the simple fact that they're not taking

a strong position against the risk of tanker traffic up and down this

coast and the risk of tankers negotiating the narrow channels on the

northern coast of British

Columbia and the enclosed waters of Puget Sound. The government, if

they are really concerned about pollution, if they are really concerned

about cleaning up pollution and the prevention of pollution, must take

a strong stand against that Kitimat oil port and against the transfer

of oil and toxic materials by ship on the waters of British Columbia.

This is the major problem.

Our party feels that we already have the legislation. It has been

demonstrated in the Sheridan Lake PCB spill that we can mobilize people

and equipment to clean up our problems as occurred in the Sheridan Lake

area. Hydro did an excellent job in that area in cleaning up the PCB

contamination that resulted from the burial of electrical apparatus

containing the PCBs.

This legislation doesn't go far enough to solve the problem. What we

need is a preventive measure; what we need is the Minister of

Environment to come out and say: "No tanker traffic on the coast of

British Columbia, no Kitimat oil pipeline, no Kitimat oil port and no

transportation of oil in Puget Sound!"

Mr. Speaker, the main environmental disaster in this province that

we should be concerned with right now is right in that minister's

office. He has not offered any single concrete solution to the problem

of pollution in this province in the year and a half that he has been

in office. It's recognized almost universally throughout British

Columbia that that minister is an environmental disaster. If the

government wants to deal with environmental problems in British

Columbia, then it's the responsibility of the Premier to sack that

minister and bring in some legislation that's going to do the job.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I might say that I was

surprised at this bill in that it is such a minor solution to such a

major problem. But really, I shouldn't be surprised because we have

become more and more aware as the past year has progressed that we only

have a token Minister of Environment, and this is a token bill that is

being presented for our consideration today.

The problems confronting this province in the way of environment are

far more wide-ranging than can be solved by a mere bill that would

bring in some sort of method of conscripting people to control any

possible oil spills or other types of problems that might occur in this

province. It's a token bill, Mr. Speaker; that's all it is. It changes

a few words and a few terminologies, and it does nothing that will in

any long-term or long-range way do anything to prevent or even correct

some of the problems that are facing B.C. now. We have problems in lack

of environmental controls and in things that are affecting the ecology

— very wide-ranging and serious problems, Mr. Speaker. They're the kind

of problems that cannot be ignored any longer; they're the kind of

[ Page 1192 ]

problems that, if they are ignored, are reaching a point of no return.

This bill is not the answer and that minister is not the answer, Mr.

Speaker. He told us when he was elected he'd do nothing about the

environment and he has continued to prove it every day of his office.

Not only does he not know but it appears he does not care.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, if would appear not only by your

own remarks but by those of the previous speaker in this debate that

you wish to engage on an attack upon the minister. That would more

properly be done when his vote is under debate, if that is your

intention. There is a means of determining in your minds the action of

a minister, and it is more properly done when his estimates are before

the House, but not when a bill is before the House which has to do with

pollution control, please.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's very

difficult to attack this bill without attacking the minister. He is the

man who is responsible for it, Mr. Speaker, and I feel it is a

lacklustre bill with nothing in it of any concrete significance,

nothing in this bill that moves to protect the harbours of Vancouver

Island which are already reaching a point where, if action is not taken

soon, those harbours will be completely destroyed.

There are so many kinds of pollution, Mr. Chairman; it's not just

the oil pollution, though I'm as concerned about that as the member who

previously spoke. I'm concerned about the waste from logging

operations. The minister in his opening remarks said he had been

speaking with private industry regarding this bill. Mr. Speaker,

private industry, the major industry in this province — the logging

industry — is one of the greatest polluters we have, and this bill does

nothing to take any steps toward controlling that kind of pollution.

It's an insignificant bill. It does not go into the things that are

so seriously affecting the waters and the land of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal just very briefly with the

section

regarding the conscription of people — or at least, as the minister has

indicated, that there would be conscription of people to go out and

fight pollution. I wonder if there is any concept here of the size of

operation if we were faced with a major oil spill, the size of

operation that would be required here. And what are the terms under

which these people would be conscripted? What can a handful of people

do without the equipment, and where is the provision for the equipment,

Mr. Speaker? I fail to see an adequate provision for adequate

equipment. Where would this be available from? How readily could it be

brought onto the site?

The bill is simply not explicit, Mr. Speaker. It does not go into

the kind of detail, or the degree, or the extent. We're dealing with a

major catastrophe here and we're trying to deal with a million-dollar

problem by a two-bit bill. It's not adequate. It's very, very

incomplete. And it's apparently the only solution that we're going to

be presented with at this session, or perhaps any other session, for

solving the ecological, pollution and environmental problems that are

facing this province.

It's interesting to note that one of the pre-election promises made

by this government was that they were going to scrap the Pollution

Control Board. It would seem, in effect, that this kind of

an Act is

just doing nothing to add to the pollution control. It would just be as

well to scrap the board completely. Really, Mr. Speaker, we have to

start out with something far more wide-ranging and in much greater

depth than this particular Act. It's simply inadequate. It's far, far

too small-minded an approach to a very major and a vital problem, Mr.

Speaker. It concerns me very much because it has the degree of

seriousness that could decide which way this province will go for all

future generations. It's even more vital than curtailment of social

services to people because those things can be corrected. But we

involve ourselves in a kind of programme that is slapping on a very

small, Band-aid type of cure on something, when we should be looking at

the preventative measures that would prevent the complete spoilage of

our whole coastal waters and, in fact, our whole province. It's just

such a token that it's a sham, Mr. Speaker. I'm really concerned that

this is the only kind of legislation that we are presented to consider

as far as environmental protection. It's just not good enough, Mr.

Speaker.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I have to agree with the two

previous speakers on this bill. It's nothing but a sop, and I don't

understand, if the minister is going to amend the Pollution Control

Act, why he doesn't do a proper job of it. It's 1967 since this Act was

brought in, and in that period of time, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Speaker, we have had far greater understanding of environmental

problems. The public is far more concerned about the environment than

it was back in 1967. If you're going to amend the Act, why not amend it

so that it includes so many of the other issues that concern us, at

least on this side of the House?

I think it is nothing more than an attempt, Mr. Speaker, to give

some credibility to that minister, because he doesn't have any out

there in the public. The people within my constituency certainly don't

have any confidence in that minister and this is a minor attempt to try

to convince the public that, yes, this Minister of the Environment is

really concerned about oil spills and is concerned about other

pollutants that go into the waters. If he is concerned about the

environment of this province and if he is

[ Page 1193 ]

the minister responsible for the environment, why

hasn't he been shouting day after day: "We must not allow oil tankers

into Kitimat. We musn't"?

He has said nothing, Mr. Speaker. We've had a lot of fancy talk from

the Premier on this subject. But that minister, who is responsible for

protecting this environment and who is responsible for ensuring that we

have a fishery in this province in years to come, has not even spoken

out against the oil tankers and the proposed Kitimat pipeline. That's

disgraceful, Mr. Speaker.

Minister of the Environment! You know, he's not even taken to task

the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) who says: "Oh, yes, go

ahead and log...."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I ask you to return to the

principle of the bill, which you are certainly departing from in the

line of debate that you're following at the present time. In second

reading we debate the principle of the bill and not other matters which

may come before this House at a different time.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying and pointing out

to the minister is that the bill is very inadequate. It does virtually

nothing in terms of coming to grips with the problems that face the

environment of this province today. What I am saying is that as

Minister of Environment he should be, in this bill, making a much

broader amendment to include the concerns that the people out there

have. They are not happy with just this. They are concerned about the

logging that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is talking

about in the Stein. They are concerned about what might happen to the

Tsitika-Schoen area up in my riding. There's nothing in this bill that

deals with any of those issues.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): Are you against jobs?

MS. SANFORD: My, isn't that interesting! Am I against jobs?

When we have been speaking day after day in this House, in response to

that minister, who interrupted me, Mr. Speaker, about the 112,000

people who are looking for work in this province and that you people

have done nothing about.... Am I against jobs? What nonsense!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Comox has the floor.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, this bill is inadequate in that it

does not deal with the very precious estuaries of this province, except

for the little matter about oil spills and some of the other pollutants

that might occur.

AN HON. MEMBER: Little matter?

MS. SANFORD: All right! But the major problems with the

estuaries in this province today, Mr. Speaker, are not dealt with in

this bill. Let me cite what is happening at Campbell River, where

there's been a study underway for some time about the protection of

that estuary. There are no chemicals in that estuary. There are no oil

spills in that estuary, but that estuary is dying.

MR. KEMPF: They didn't tell me that in Campbell River last week.

MS. SANFORD: This bill just does not provide for those kinds

of concerns. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Environment, who is

supposed to be protecting the environment, has recently granted

permission to a private firm up there to go ahead and dredge in the

estuary area of the Oyster River so we can have another Coney Island,

as the developer said. He'd like to make a Coney Island up there. He

has now been given permission to do that dredging so that the privately

owned marina can go in.

This is the kind of activity, the kind of attitude, that we've seen

from that non-Minister of Environment. He's not doing a job for the

people of this province. This bill is completely inadequate, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): In regard to the second

reading on the principle of this bill, I have a very deep concern that

this bill has certainly not gone far enough in terms of where it should

have gone. Some of these concerns have been expressed by previous

speakers. I want to bring to the minister's attention a certain

instance that was brought to my attention only late last week and which

I spent a bit of time looking into just yesterday. I really think that

the minister should be aware of what is happening in a certain area of

our province and why I think this bill has not gone nearly far enough

and is inadequate.

We have a situation in Squamish where there's a chemical plant

called FMC Chemicals. It has been brought to my attention — and the

press reported this some time ago — that there has been one incident of

chlorine leaking from that chemical plant. I found to my astonishment

yesterday, in fact, that there was more than one incident of chlorine

leaking from that FMC Chemicals plant at Squamish.

I have before me signed statements from some of the people who work

near the plant — in fact, almost a quarter of a mile away from the

plant at Squamish Terminals on the wharf site. That wharf site was

evacuated on at least four occasions. The dates of

[ Page 1194 ]

those occasions were August 3, August 5 and August 6.

But the worst of all was November 29 of last year. On that date

there was a very bad leak. There was a state of panic apparently, I am

told, in the FMC Chemicals plant itself. The men over at the Squamish

Terminals were having lunch when they were finally notified of the

leak. They were told to get the heck out of that lunchroom immediately

or they had a good chance of being polished off if they didn't get out

of there quickly.

On that date the Workers' Compensation Board investigated that

particular incident. I'll read part of the compensation board's report

on this matter, Mr. Speaker. We all know that chlorine in excess of one

part per million can be detrimental to your health. I am going to

forward for the minister and his attention some of the incidents that

have happened and how workers have suffered from vomiting. One worker

here was temporarily fired from his employ because the foreman thought

he was drunk when in effect he was suffering from chlorine poisoning.

This is one of the reasons for the statement.

To get back to the WCB report, I'll read the observations of the

inspector, and I think you might find this interesting, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, I'd be pleased to make these documents available to the minister, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KEMPF: Just table them. We'll read them.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It says:

"The salt unloading operations were located about a

quarter mile from the FMC of Canada Ltd. Industrial chemical division

plant. Although no chlorine was found at the salt unloading site at the

time of inspection, the work crew had to be evacuated earlier...."

This was the November 29 spill, Mr. Speaker.

"... in the day due to the accidental discharge of chlorine

from the FMC plant site. Due to the nature of the FMC operations, the potential

hazards of future releases of chlorine exist."

This is serious, Mr. Speaker — "... the potential hazard of future releases of chlorine

exist." Right in the WCB report.

"An inspection of the unloading operation shows that

considerable time may be required for operators of front-end loaders

and personnel located on the scows to disembark during a chlorine

emergency."

You want to remember, Mr. Speaker, that this plant is approximately

one mile from the community of Squamish. I just want the members to

keep that in mind.

"As a result of this inspection, future work in this area

shall take place when the following conditions are met."

This is quite lengthy, but basically what it amounts to, Mr. Speaker, is that

the respirator equipment shall be provided to employees when needed on the Squamish

Wharf site.

The problem with this, Mr. Speaker — and I would like to get into

this for just a minute — is that, first of all, you recall I mentioned

earlier about the lunchroom being evacuated and people heading for the

high ground. Chlorine, as you know, is heavy and will stay close to the

ground. So the advice is, in terms of a chlorine leak, to go upwind and

get to high ground, if you have the time.

The problem with the WCB recommendation is that, first of all, if

the men are in the lunchroom eating lunch, obviously they are going to

have one heck of a time eating lunch through a respirator in the first

place. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Agreed!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: So the fact is that the respirators cannot be worn at all times, and are certainly not adequate safeguards.

Secondly, and more importantly, and the point I want the

minister.... I wish that Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) had a

respirator on right now, and wouldn't keep interrupting my nice speech.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): What are you reading about?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the point I want the

minister to take particular note of is this: there are at least five

different types of sniffers on the market today that can detect

chlorine leaks — five different types. You know what? In spite of the

union demands that this type of detection device be installed at that

location, you know what they are told? They can't find out who's

responsible. Apparently the Ministry of Environment takes no

responsibility; apparently the WCB takes no responsibility for the

installation; apparently the company takes no responsibility. In the

meantime, people's lives are in danger. People have actually got sick

on the job. Very little has been done to rectify that situation in

spite of the fact that this whole incident and a series of incidents

have been well documented by union and management people.

I hope that when the minister gets up to close the debate on this

bill he will assure this House that steps and regulations will be

added, and amendments added to this Bill 5 to control this type of

incident. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr.

[ Page 1195 ]

Speaker, I rise with surprise debating a bill that

we all expected to debate sooner or later with no trepidation at all.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), however, hasn't seen fit to

stand in the House and support the bill. None of the other ministers

have stood in this House to support this bill. None of the backbenchers

have stood in this House to support the bill.

MS. BROWN: They're ashamed of it.

MR. COCKE: I don't expect that they will, either. The

Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources suddenly jumps up when he

finds that I have the floor, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognized the hon. member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SKELLY: Followed by the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot).

MR. COCKE: Followed by the member for Columbia River, and I

hope he takes his place and I hope that he can defend his back-bench

minister who has before him a bill with wide, sweeping powers. I can

recall the days when we were government, when we put forward a bill

that had words in it such as "emergency programme Act" and other

situations, that suddenly there would be those words going out through

the airwaves.

Well, Mr. Speaker, there are some good aspects to this bill, and I

suggest to you that I can support some of the aspects of this bill. But

I'm much more worried about what happens to this province not "if"

there's a major pollution accident, but "when" there's a major

pollution accident, particularly on our shores. We have our friendly

neighbour to the south, and I have a great respect for the United

States and I have an understanding of their need for energy, but it

strikes me that one of the things we have to be is very much like our

friendly neighbour to the south — hard-nosed business people.

When it comes to the utilization of either our foreshore, our

waters, or our land to carry energy in the form of oil, or whatever,

that endangers our land and our foreshore, Mr. Speaker, this bill gives

some powers to the minister. I suggest to you that the minister isn't

going to make the kind of recovery that's necessary from a boat, from a

ship, or from a vessel, as my colleague from Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead)

describes it, that's licensed under the Liberian flag, or Panama, or

whatever. Flags of convenience provide a great deal of other

conveniences, as the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources I'm sure

will point out when he gets up.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sit down and I'll point it out right now.

MR. COCKE: He is very anxious to get up, Mr. Speaker, and I

hope that we all note he's going to get up and he's going to see to it

that he supports that minister who sits behind him.

Men it comes to the Liberian freighters, the oil tankers, this bill

is a weak bill, put forward by a weak government, and supervised by a

weak minister. As a matter of fact, I hear a rumour around — just

talking in terms of that weak minister — that that minister will be the

sacrificial lamb. He will be the one fired as opposed to the Minister

of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who should be. That's the

rumour I hear, talking about a weak minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would you please return to the principle of the bill?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that I mentioned the

scapegoat rumour. I recognize that it's somewhat untoward when I'm

speaking to the principle of this bill, but I must confess that it

worries me that a bill of this nature is in the hands of a minister who

really hasn't given any kind of direction in this province to date

about the whole question of keeping our environment clean. He has not

stood up either in the House or on the hustings and indicated grave

concerns about the future of our environment.

He comes in now, Mr. Speaker, with Bill 5. He gives himself the

power to charge, to clean up, similar to the Forest Act. His duties

will be somewhat in line with the duties of the Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Waterland) when a forest fire occurs, and I recognize that. I

feel that possibly gives him a little bit of muscle but, Mr. Speaker,

he's going to need a lot more than this bill. He's going to need a lot

more than the kind of energy he has shown to date to really make an

impression on the potential polluters in our province.

We've now seen the thrust toward the harbour at Kitimat. Any of us

who have looked at a map know for sure — when we know the climate up

there, we know the storm centre that that is, particularly in the

winter time — that to escape a major polluting accident up there is

almost unthinkable. I am saying, to escape it — not thinking in terms

of "if." I am saying "when." Mr. Speaker, we have exactly the same

situation down our west coast of Vancouver Island and we have a

particularly hazardous situation in Juan de Fuca Strait on the way to

Cherry Point. All these areas are areas that this minister is going to

have to police and this is his weapon. It's not strong

[ Page 1196 ]

enough, You see, Mr. Speaker, this does nothing

preventive about this. This says that "after the fact I'm going to jump

in and I'm going to have a little army of recruited people around

me...."

AN HON. MEMBER: Not enough.

MR. COCKE: Not enough is right!

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right. "I'm going to have a little army of

people whom I have recruited around me, to try to clean up. Then I am

going to have the right by this bill to charge the polluter." I hope,

Mr. Speaker, it's not a Liberian oil tanker. How are you going to

charge them? Where are you going to get the money? What's going to be

left of the ship? Nothing's there, Mr. Speaker. Nothing to charge.

They'll give him short shrift. Meanwhile, the jeopardy hangs in there.

Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. Chabot) whispers and makes a joke of something that I don't

consider to be funny, he makes a joke about the potential hazard that

we have in British Columbia, a hazard big enough at this point that the

Minister of Environment should be before us talking in terms of

prevention, talking in terms of going down and talking tough to Uncle

Sam, talking tough to those people who, we agree, require energy. But,

Mr. Speaker, do they require energy to the extent that we're prepared

to put up with the poisoning and with the destruction of our beautiful

environment?

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia is not ours. British Columbia does not

belong to us. British Columbia belongs to the future of British

Columbia. British Columbia belongs to our children, our grandchildren

and their children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, we can no longer

afford the luxury of looking in short-term. We can no longer look

forward to saying what we might do if an accident occurs. We have to

stand up today, Mr. Speaker, and say that, in order to make sure of our

heritage, we have to do the preventive type of thing.

I hoped, Mr. Speaker, when I didn't see this government put forward

any strong opposition to the pipelines and when I didn't see the

government putting up any strong opposition to the tanker traffic that

at least they would come up with some legislation that might mitigate

the problem. The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources sits there.

And the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) sits there and shakes

his head. You know, Mr. Speaker, if that minister treated his portfolio

as lightly as the Minister of Environment has treated his portfolio, I

suggest to you we're being endangered in the forests, too, to a greater

extent than we are.

I am not suggesting that the Minister of Forests is doing all he can

do but I certainly suggest that I want to see something preventive. I

want to see something from that minister who indicated that he didn't

know what he was getting into and he wondered why he was appointed. I

want to see something stronger than Bill 5. I want to see something

that's going to tell us that this government is prepared to put forward

some very strong preventive measures and that this government is going

to be prepared to go and argue the position of British Columbia. Our

federal government argued for a 200-mile limit on fishing boats and

fishing in the B.C. waters or, for that matter, in the Canadian waters.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, we should be arguing as strongly for

those kind of limits for oil tankers. Who needs them, Mr. Speaker, if

they are to jeopardize the future for a short-term gain and long-term

hazards? It's not good enough, Mr. Speaker. So with his powers to

conscript, with his powers to charge the polluters, with his powers to

let these things finally go to court afterwards, it isn't good enough.

Certainly it's a bill you can't oppose. It's very difficult to suggest that there isn't motherhood in it...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: ...but it's just not far reaching enough. If

anybody should know that, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

would. I can remember all the great and glorious speeches he gave in

opposition.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Maybe. It depends on your bias. Incidentally, I didn't buy this suit in Calgary.

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't?

MR. COCKE: No.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Nice fit!

MR. COCKE: That's right.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, your suit is not a principle of this bill.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm glad you brought that to my

attention. Every once in a while I get distracted by the Minister of

Mines, who accidentally slipped into that portfolio. It seems to me

that the Premier overlooked the fact that he wasn't a Liberal.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Ho-hum!

[ Page 1197 ]

MR. COCKE: But, you know, accidents do happen. When I'm

talking about accidents, Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about the kind of

accidents that that minister, the Minister of Environment, should be

protecting us from — accidents that can hamper, impair and absolutely

wreck our environment. I don't really think that a bill that says the

minister has emergency powers after the fact is good enough. Let's see

something better come out of the Minister of Environment. Otherwise,

when he is fired, I'm going to applaud the fact.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, the longer I remain

in this hallowed chamber, the more I stand in amazement at some of the

statements made by hon. members here who say that there should be

changes made. They are all the time suggesting great changes, but

having had an opportunity in three years, they turned out a total

disaster.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MUSSALLEM: However, I come to you....

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I do not understand. I thought that in all the

catalogue of bills that will be out this session, if there was any one

bill that this opposition could accept wholeheartedly, it would be this

one.

MS. BROWN: It's not good enough.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Here's a bill that anybody who can read can

see that it gives the right to the minister.... Listening to the

opposition, it would appear to me that they expect the minister to don

a pair of overalls and go charging out with a broom and stick every

time there is an oil spill.

MS. BROWN: That's what he's going to do!

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, that's the attitude they give us. I

would like to tell the opposition — and I think this is very, very

simple indeed to say — that the minister represents the whole

department.

The Hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) clearly says the

bill is not far-reaching enough. How much farther-reaching can it be

when it gives the minister the right to move in at any time, using all

the resources of the country that he can command and take charge of any

pollution problem?

AN HON. MEMBER: After the fact!

MR. MUSSALLEM: It would appear that most of our friends think

that the only problem is oil. That's only one of the problems. I would

like to say to our hon. friends that it was only this government that

took the leadership in pollution control since 1957 in the province of

British Columbia. I would like to say further — and I say this clearly

— that we have today in British Columbia the cleanest and finest

province in all of Canada. I'm sure that applies to the whole of North

America, but I'm not going to brag about that. I'm not in possession of

all the facts...

AN HON. MEMBER: That's for sure.

MR. MUSSALLEM: ...but it's obvious that we are the leaders in

the field. Here we have

an Act that the hon. member for New Westminster

says is not far reaching enough. How much farther can you reach than to

say everywhere, whenever there's trouble, pollution of any kind?

My hon. friend from Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) sits there and

looks at me, sits and smiles, my friend who wants to vote me to the

ministry and all that sort of thing, and refers to me as the "young

fellow from Dewdney" — so kind of him, indeed. I often wonder how much

younger, perhaps, he really is, or how much older he is. I'm not sure

of that point, but why does he keep harping on this point of the young

fellow from Dewdney?

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'll tell you this much, hon. friend: I am

honoured to be here and it's a privilege to be here. The snide remarks

I receive occasionally from some hon. members are accepted as if it was

given in good faith.

However, I don't want to go and read this Act. Anybody can read it.

I always thought the idea of opposition was to discuss the principle of

things and inform us where it could be better, where it could be

improved. But do we get a word about improvement, do we get a word

about it being better? No, we just get the statement: "It's no good."

What point can you tell us where that can be improved? It cannot be

improved; it's totally far-reaching, it's totally encompassing, it's in

the hands of an excellent department, and it is the right Act and a

good Act. Anyone who stands up in this House and defies it merely says

they're not ready to stand for clean and proper pollution control in

British Columbia.

I decry the opposition. I would like to think of the opposition as

responsible, but I have reason to believe after many years'

consideration that this is the most totally irresponsible attitude I

have ever seen on the floor of this House. When you attack...

MR. BARNES: Oh, what a vicious attack.

[ Page 1198 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MUSSALLEM: ...such a far-reaching and worthwhile bill....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The position of the respective parties in this House, hon. member, is not part of the principle of this bill.

MS. BROWN: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I would hope that he would return to the principle of the bill before us.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I stand corrected, hon. Speaker. It may not be

the principle of the bill, but at the same time it's the cause of the

principle of the bill. They're still irresponsible, and their

irresponsibility would destroy the bill. What loosens the bond of

parliament? What raised the difficulty we had here tonight? We should

be on the Premier's estimates now; we should have finished with those.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MUSSALLEM: We're still monkeying.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I direct the attention of the

hon. member to the principle of this bill, which has nothing to do with

estimates at the moment?

MR. MUSSALLEM: No, no. It's just an aside, Mr. Speaker. I say

to you with the greatest deference that you're quite correct in what

you're saying.

But I say that the principle of the bill is clear. It's a

far-reaching bill; it's a bill that gives the minister the right to

move in on any pollution of any kind, correct it and charge the bill to

the offending party without question.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Yes, it's right here. Can't you understand

right thing now, there would be no more talk. Just sit down and pass

second reading with a few words from the hon. minister.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the young member for Dewdney issued a

challenge. He suggested that we should make some positive suggestions

to the minister about this fantasy bill of his. It really is a fantasy

bill. It's not real; it is a figment of his imagination. He is saying

that you can control pollution — and everyone knows that you can't

control pollution. You have to prevent pollution.

So my first positive suggestion, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Environment...

AN HON. MEMBER: Resign.

MS. BROWN: ...is that he withdraw this bill and substitute it with a pollution prevention Act. That is what we need in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: You stole my line.

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry, Mr. Member. A pollution prevention Act.

When the bill tells us that he is going to move in and control

pollution once it occurs in the air, on the sea, on the land or

wherever, and then is going to penalize the polluter and he's going to

clean up the pollution, he's living in a fantasy world.

Everybody tonight has been talking about reading, and I want to

confess that I have been reading too. I have been reading a book called

Supership. Ever heard of it?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I got 400 free copies.

MS. BROWN: I've only got one free copy, Mr. Speaker, and I

read it. I want to share with the Minister of Environment some of the

reasons why I believe that this is fantasy legislation. It's

irresponsible and it's fantasy.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: He has 400 copies. Why should I table it? My mother would be ashamed of the Minister of Health if she were here now.

Mr. Speaker, what this book Supership talks about is oil pollution.

It talks about the kinds of damage created when supertankers either

break up or, through leakage or whatever, pour their oil on the shores

or in the sea. This is the pollution that you're going to go rushing

around to the beer parlours to collect everybody to come out and help

you clean up. This is the pollution, Mr. Speaker.

"In May, 1970, the 50,000-ton Norwegian tanker

Poly-Commander, carrying a full cargo of crude oil, ran aground and

burst into flame on the Spanish Atlantic Coast near Vigo. It caught

alight on the sea and the flames created by this burning oil were so

fierce that they caused a fire storm, a heat disturbance of such

intensity that it raised hurricane-force winds in the immediate

vicinity of this stricken ship."

Now tell me, what is there in this bill that is going to make it

possible for the Minister of Environment to collect everyone from all

the beer parlours around, to rush out and deal with this kind of

pollution? What is there in this bill? I'm asking you, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 11